[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, June 1, 1995
.1104 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. Today we are doing another instalment of Bill C-224.
We will be hearing from two witnesses today. We are going to be hearing first of all from Bruce Phillips, our Privacy Commissioner. After Mr. Phillips, we will be hearing from the national voluntary organizations.
.1105
I spoke to Mr. Phillips only briefly a couple of minutes ago. He doesn't have a formal statement, although he would like the opportunity to give a bit of an informal statement off the top. He will give us perhaps a way of getting into the round of questioning.
Mr. Phillips, you want to give us a few brief remarks off the top. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Bruce Phillips (Privacy Commissioner): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
First, let me say that it is a distinct pleasure for a person in my capacity to come before a parliamentary committee. My office is one of those few that is described as an office of Parliament. I do regard it as a pleasant occasion when I can come and be of some service to the people who are in fact my masters in order to be of some use to you.
With me today is Holly Harris, who is general counsel to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
The first thing I want to say with respect to Bill C-224 is to explain to you the limitations of my mandate particularly as it applies to Bill C-224. The federal Privacy Act under which I operate covers some 110 federal government institutions. The Privacy Act confines itself to those records that are held by those 110 institutions. It does not apply to activities in the private sector.
As a consequence of this, most of the information as I see it that is covered by Bill C-224 would not fall within my mandate as Privacy Commissioner, with one exception: a few crown corporations, such as the Canada Council, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, International Development Research Centre, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, National Arts Centre, National Museums of Canada, and Standards Council of Canada. They are on the schedule of federal institutions covered by the Privacy Act, which, as we read it, would also be covered by Bill C-224.
As a consequence, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if the bill were to pass as it's currently worded, it would have the effect of eroding privacy rights that are presently guaranteed under the federal Privacy Act to the chief executive officers and the senior management of those organizations as compared with the privacy rights that are presently guaranteed to all federal public servants covered in the schedule elsewhere.
It would create an inconsistency in which one tier of public servants, and Order in Council appointments as well, would have salaries that would be available for public disclosure while others in this group would not have to provide it.
It would also create, I think, an internal inconsistency in those corporations that fall under this bill. That's because employees who were providing similar kinds of services in those organizations who might not be described as senior management would have a different reporting requirement from those who are.
But with the exception of those few and, generally speaking, small organizations that I have enumerated, all organizations that are covered by Bill C-224 do not fall under the ambit of the federal Privacy Act.
.1110
The Chairman: In other words, outside of those you've enumerated, those organizations affected by this bill would really be none of your business, to put it in the vernacular.
Mr. Phillips: It would certainly be beyond my jurisdiction to investigate any complaints arising from the disclosures.
However, I'd be happy to discuss privacy generally if you want to talk about it.
The Chairman: Mr. Phillips, with respect to the inconsistency I think I understand you, but maybe you could give us an example of how that would work out if this bill were passed.
Mr. Phillips: Yes, I can. Let's take a couple of hypothetical circumstances, if you like.
For example, if we refer to the chairman or the president the National Arts Centre, under your bill that person's precise salary would be available for public disclosure. A similar institution elsewhere in the federal service such as a crown corporation, for example - Canadian Arsenals or Atomic Energy - would not be covered by your bill. So you would then have two different levels of privacy rights for two people who are both employed in the federal public service.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Phillips.
We'll go to the Bloc now. Monsieur Sauvageau. You have eight minutes in the first round.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Good morning and welcome Mr. Phillips. I have to confess at the outset that Bill C-224 is not one that I am particularly familiar with. I am substituting for a colleague, but I will try to be equal to the task.
I have a few questions following your remarks. First, I am wondering if this bill, as you have just presented it, directly or indirectly could go against two acts already in force, the Privacy Act, with which you work daily, but more importantly the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Would we not run the risk, if we adopted this bill, of continual challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Privacy Act? This is my first question. It deals with those two particular pieces of legislation.
[English]
Mr. Phillips: I wouldn't offer you an opinion on the relationship of this bill to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will offer you an opinion as to its relationship to the federal Privacy Act.
The federal Privacy Act does not apply to all of the private sector, charitable, and non-profit organizations this bill seeks to address. It touches upon a very small number of federal public institutions covered by the Privacy Act and affects only a few hundred people.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Now, on a slightly more sensitive subject, but would there be the chance that community organizations or a small budget organizations be covered by this bill? Could they be adversely affected one way or the other? On the other hand, would this bill deal with current situations such as the one we have with CARE - there hasn't been an investigation yet in that case, could we avoid such conflicts or the potential misuse of funds directly or indirectly?
[English]
Mr. Phillips: I really don't feel competent to answer a question of that nature. My function is to safeguard the privacy rights of people who work for the federal government of Canada or other institutions covered by the federal Privacy Act. I am really not competent to offer you an opinion on how this bill, if it were to become law, would operate upon people who work for non-profit or charitable organizations. I'm sorry I can't be helpful in that respect.
.1115
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Very well. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: On that point, though, Mr. Phillips, you are there to protect at least some people's privacy.
Mr. Phillips: Yes.
The Chairman: If this bill were to pass and impacted on some of those people whom you are there to protect, what would you do then? Which act, if I can put it that way, would be superior to the other?
Mr. Phillips: If this bill became law, authorizing the disclosure of the salaries of the people in these few organizations I've enumerated, as I understand it - and subject to Ms Harris's observations - it would supersede the Privacy Act, yes. To that extent, I must say that no person in my position could look with equanimity upon the derogation of anybody's privacy rights that are presently covered by law.
I wouldn't be happy to see a different standard, or derogation of existing privacy rights that, in effect, would make the people in the Canada Council and these other agencies affected by it second class in terms of their privacy rights as contrasted with the others in the federal public service.
The Chairman: The Reform Party, Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): I have a couple of questions. I appreciate that you're at odds here because a lot of what this bill covers isn't covered under your mandate. Therefore, I would ask a couple of theoretical questions.
Invasion of privacy is a concern, especially nowadays when everybody gets on a mailing list and a computer list and a donor list and so on. Do you have concerns that invasion of privacy, for example, into someone's salary and benefits and so on might tend to evolve into something else over time?
Why shouldn't we say that everybody should? If there's public money involved, they should have to disclose it. What is the danger of it? Why not?
Mr. Phillips: The terms of employment of federal public servants are partly protected under section 3 of the federal Privacy Act. The information that can be disclosed without the consent of the individual concerned is set forth in the Privacy Act. It says the position, the salary classification and range. It avoids giving the specific number. That, I think, is generally speaking the position across Canada, with perhaps the exception of the Province of Nova Scotia. In most other jurisdictions, the exact income of a federal public servant is regarded as personal information not to be disclosed without their consent.
The harm or otherwise involved in a disclosure of that kind, frankly, Mr. Strahl, is not something that as Privacy Commissioner I would offer an opinion upon. My function is to guard the privacy rights of people according to this act.
It happens that I personally believe in the general thrust of the Privacy Act quite fervently. In a more general sense, looking at the whole of what is happening in society and the enormous invasions of privacy that are occurring everywhere we turn, whatever little bit I can do to arrest that process, as far as I'm concerned, I'm doing my job and being socially useful, I hope.
I would leave it to members of Parliament who in their wisdom drafted this act, and I think drafted it reasonably well - it's proved pretty workable from our point of view - to make a decision about when there ought to be exceptions to the general rule that a person's income is a matter of private information.
.1120
I recognize that in the expenditure of public funds a different standard does apply from time to time. This act, however, does afford federal public servants the right to some protection in terms of their emolument - that's to say only the range and not the precise dollar number. That is what I live by, and as I see it, it's a reasonably defensible position.
Mr. Strahl: You mentioned that section 3 deals with salary ranges, and that's the common practice in the public service and the areas that are regulated.
Mr. Phillips: That's my understanding. I don't profess to be an expert in provincial practice, but that's the situation as far as I know it.
Mr. Strahl: If this bill were to be amended or to be changed, if it said it dealt with salary ranges as opposed to specifics, if it said shall disclose within a set period of time the salary ranges of its directors and board of directors and so on, is that acceptable to you? Would that change any of the areas you have to deal with, corporations and so on? Is that acceptable or is it going to change even that, a kind of devolution of privacy?
Mr. Phillips: I'd make two observations about that. First of all, it would constitute a reduction in the degree of control of the information, which is one of the basic principles of fair information practice, that personal information should be controlled by the people who own it. That's you and me and everybody else here. Whether it would be an acceptable or unacceptable level of reduction of their privacy rights is, I think, a matter for members of Parliament to decide.
It's necessary that the whole issue of privacy as a right, like every other right, is seen as not absolute and subject to some modifications when the situation justifies it. That is a matter for the makers of law and not for a privacy commissioner to decide. I would only say that it would be clear that if the people in the private sector who are covered by this bill were forced to disclose any information about their income at this stage of the game, it would constitute a reduction of the privacy they now enjoy.
The Chairman: We're going to go to Mr. Bélair. Mr. Sauvageau says he has no more questions, so Mr. Bélair will be followed by Mr. Duhamel.
Mr. Bélair.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélair (Cochrane - Supérieur): Good morning Ms Harris. You have the same name as the chairman of Air Canada.
Mr. Phillips, I listened attentively to what you said but I must say that your comment made the matter only more ambiguous.
I would like to expose my concerns about non-profit organizations. You know that a great majority of them receive federal subsidies. So I'm wondering where we can draw the line? Could we make the following distinction and consider as final a salary that is part of an ad, in the paper, on the radio or in the media in general, compared to a salary that is negotiated? Would the Privacy Act allow the application of such a distinction in the case under study?
[English]
Mr. Phillips: At the risk of being boring on this point, I understand the argument. I've read the previous debates in the committee, but the private sector, generally speaking, is not covered in any way by the federal Privacy Act.
Mr. Bélair: No. I was talking about the non-profit sector.
Mr. Phillips: It then becomes an interesting argument, doesn't it, whether the private sector should or should not be covered by these statutes. Those of you who follow my work will know my feelings on the subject. I feel that all of those areas of the economy that are covered by federal jurisdiction - I'm thinking of financial institutions, transportation, telecommunications, and so on - should be covered by the act. Then I think I could jump into this debate in a more direct way. But I really must decline to get beyond my jurisdiction here.
.1125
Mr. Bélair: Sorry, Mr. Phillips, maybe the point of my argument was lost in translation. I'm going to say it in English.
I have no question at all on the private sector. That is private. We don't have any business to do with that.
I am talking about non-profit organizations receiving federal subsidies. I asked you if there was a distinction in the Privacy Act whereby a difference is being made between a salary that is part of an ad, if you're looking for someone to work for you where the salary is announced and should be declared in that Revenue Canada formula, and a salary that is negotiated, even if you're working for a non-profit organization subsidized by the government.
Mr. Phillips: Mr. Bélair, I understood you.
I would say this: that material that is in the public domain that appears in a newspaper advertisement is in the public domain. That is no longer private information.
Mr. Bélair: Okay. That's right; that's my point.
Mr. Phillips: But I have difficulty in getting beyond that with you, because no matter whether the salary is negotiated or whether it's published or how it's arrived at, if it is not covered by the federal Privacy Act, then I have no authority to make any observation on it whatsoever, beyond personal opinions.
The part of your question that I think is relevant to what I'm doing was the part in which you suggested that non-profit corporations in receipt of public funding -
At the moment, the same situation applies. It doesn't matter whether it's a non-profit or a corporation run for profit. If it is in receipt of public funds, then that is not, as I understand the act - and I'm sure Ms Harris would agree with this - covered by the federal Privacy Act. It is a matter for Parliament to decide whether to make that distinction. At the moment, private businesses are not covered, and it's that simple.
Mr. Bélair: Don't you think, then, that if we would ever suggest or impose upon Revenue Canada to add an extra line on that declaration form, this would be challenged in court? And what would be our chances of winning this judgment?
Mr. Phillips: If Revenue Canada asks for that information in a manner that is lawful, and if the disclosure of that information similarly is authorized by law, then that would be one thing, but Revenue Canada is also covered by fairly tight confidentiality laws. So I think you'd be more properly addressing that question to Revenue Canada.
If it were simply information provided by way of a tax return, then I don't see how that information could be disclosed except under section 8 of the Privacy Act or under any disclosure provisions that apply to Revenue Canada. Merely adding a line to a form and asking for the information would not, of itself, make that information disclosable to the public.
Mr. Bélair: Ms Harris, are you a lawyer by profession?
Ms Holly Harris (General Counsel, Office of the Privacy Commissioner) : Yes.
Mr. Bélair: Are you in a position to leave with the committee some advice on the constitutionality of the problem we are discussing here?
Ms Harris: Not on the constitutionality. I think that's something the lawyers of the -
Mr. Bélair: The Charter of Rights.
Ms Harris: - Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Justice would be in a better position to give you advice on, or your own lawyers here.
No matter how carefully crafted any law such as this bill is, there's always going to be someone who's going to bring an action for invasion of privacy. It's a risk that has to be courted and can't be discounted.
.1130
[Translation]
Mr. Duhamel (Saint-Boniface): Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
[English]
Very briefly, I want to make sure I've understood your comments. I believe I have, but... You did indicate in your initial comments, did you not, sir, you believe this particular bill could be construed by some as an invasion of privacy rights, an additional invasion of privacy rights?
Mr. Phillips: I would say it would be... because every individual has a different expectation of privacy, so what one person might consider to be an invasion of privacy somebody else might not. For example, as a public servant, I would have no personal objection to anybody knowing my situation. Others might.
It would have the effect, for the few federal government bodies that would be covered by this bill, which I enumerated for you, of reducing the level of privacy protection at present accorded under the Privacy Act to the chief executive officers and the senior management of those few organizations. Yes, it would.
About the other organizations in the private sector that would be covered by the bill, yes, I don't think there's any dispute about that. I don't see how there can be. Those people now operating in private organizations have the right to disclose or not to disclose their incomes, according to their own preference. Under this bill they would be required to disclose. Consequently yes, they would have a derogation or an erosion of their privacy rights.
Mr. Duhamel: Thank you.
This is somewhat similar; and I assure you I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I understand how delicate this can be, but I also want to understand it. I am one of the people, I believe, among others, no doubt, who suggested it might be appropriate for you to address this particular bill.
Do you believe the bill attacks - I don't know, ``attacks'' is perhaps too strong a word - the principle of privacy generally? That's very, very important to me, because I come at it from a bias. Gradually, day by day, we're exposed to mechanisms, procedures, principles, pressures, or what have you, that we need to reveal more of ourselves. I just wonder where it ends.
Again, without wanting to put words in your mouth, I want to know, if I can, whether it's your opinion that this does in truth attack additionally the principle of privacy in our society today.
Mr. Phillips: I think that's a fair statement, yes. It does indeed have the effect of reducing the privacy that is currently enjoyed by the people who would be affected by the bill.
The Chairman: Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): I just want to go over one quick point and I want to clarify it. It would have the effect of creating two classes of privacy within the public service, would it?
Mr. Phillips: Within a very small number of organizations.
Ms Whelan: But there would be two classes.
Mr. Phillips: Yes, there would. It would change the level of privacy these people enjoy at present compared with their comparable colleagues in other government agencies. Yes, it would.
The Chairman: Mr. Phillips, just so we're absolutely clear on those ten organizations, those ten crown corporations with a charitable status, if this Bill C-224 were passed, the people employed within those crown corporations would lose the privacy protection that is now afforded to them under the Privacy Act. Right?
Mr. Phillips: That is correct, Mr. Harvard.
The Chairman: As Privacy Commissioner, if the bill were to pass, your hands would be tied. There is nothing you could do for those employees who now work for those ten organizations. There is nothing you could do.
Mr. Phillips: If they complained about a disclosure of their privacy, of course we would investigate it. But we are required to go by the law.
The Chairman: Yes, but in a sense, if I am understanding it correctly, this private member's bill would take precedence over the Privacy Act for those ten organizations. That's why I asked whether really your hands would be tied. There's nothing you could do for them. Am I right?
Mr. Phillips: Not with the disclosure of their salaries, correct.
The Chairman: I just want to get that straight.
Mrs. Brushett.
.1135
Mrs. Brushett (Cumberland - Colchester): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your giving me this opportunity since I am just sitting in here this morning.
For my information and perhaps for other members as well, would you be so generous with your time as to give us a little bit of history about the Privacy Act? When did it come into being and why was it deemed necessary at that time to have two states for public servants, one where there's privacy provided and one where there isn't?
Mr. Phillips: We've had a federal Privacy Act now since 1982 or 1983, which sets out in law a code of fair information practices by which the Government of Canada can collect, use, retain, and sometimes disclose information about Canadians. It does not apply, generally speaking, to private sector organizations. It covers most of the activities of the federal government, including a few crown corporations, but not all of them.
The federal Privacy Act sets out a very simple standard, basically. The Government of Canada can only collect information about Canadians in accordance with some lawful activity. It must explain to Canadians why it's collecting the information. It can only use that information for the purpose for which it was originally collected. It must retain that information in some reasonably accessible form for a stipulated period of time. The people who are covered by the bill have a right to see that information and correct it if it's wrong. If the correction offered is not accepted by the department concerned, a notation is made on the file that the individual doesn't agree with what it says. It cannot be disclosed without the consent of the person concerned except under limited and specific circumstances, which are all set forth in the bill.
Finally, if you can't get access to your information, you have the right to go to Federal Court to get it or you can complain to me about any misuse you perceive in the handling of your information. We will investigate that complaint and, in certain circumstances, we might go to court on your behalf.
That briefly describes fair information practices in several jurisdictions, both in Canada and around the world. The Government of Ontario has a similar law and so does the Province of British Columbia. It is fortified by the creation of a privacy commissioner who is there to investigate complaints and seek remedies.
I am an ombudsperson and don't order anybody to do anything. If I find on behalf of a complainant, I make a recommendation to the department concerned. In the vast majority of cases our recommendations are accepted. But there are a few we sometimes don't see eye to eye on and we have the right to go to court in cases of access.
Some of the other jurisdictions give their commissioners a little more power. In B.C. and Ontario, for example, they issue orders and the government departments are required to obey them. We have found in our experience that the ombuds approach that was created by Parliament has been a very good one. It gives us an opportunity to discuss these matters in a non-adversarial environment with public servants to try to reach sensible agreements. So I have found it to be a pretty good operation.
Mrs. Brushett: May I ask how we got along for the first hundred years without this?
Mr. Phillips: That's a good question. I wasn't there for all of that time - just a fair chunk of it now. I think the changing nature of the information world in which we're living is one of the things that gave rise to an accelerated interest in Parliament and the issue of privacy.
Secondly, the introduction of the Access to Information Act established as a principle the right of the Canadian public to see the government's records and necessitated the Privacy Act because a great deal of the information in government records is personal in nature. If a person wants access to government records, it is only reasonable that they not be allowed to see personal information about other people without their consent. So you can't really have access without privacy guarantees as well.
Mrs. Brushett: So one balances the other.
Mr. Phillips: All of these rights are, in a sense, subject to balancing acts. There's no right that's absolute. So we're involved in that kind of balancing test all the time.
Mrs. Brushett: Was this legislation driven by the people of Canada, or was it driven by the government itself?
.1140
Mr. Phillips: I would say yes to all of the above. I think in the last 25 or 30 years there has been increasing emphasis in a more complex society on the necessity to codify people's rights, and on the increasing complexity of the information-gathering processes that are taking place all around us. It's a pity we didn't have access to information laws in the first hundred years; we should have. That would be my opinion.
In my journalistic life - and I worked here as a journalist on the Hill for nearly 30 years before I became what I am now - I found it frequently very difficult in those early years to do my job because of the unlimited discretion of ministers and departmental officials to just pull down the blind any time they felt like it. In my opinion, it is the hallmark of a good, functioning, open, and well-working democracy that people have a right to know what's going on.
Mrs. Brushett: I agree.
Mr. Shepherd (Durham): On that point, I wonder whether privacy is a static concept or is it relative. Obviously parliamentarians and people who deal directly as representatives have a different level of privacy than do certain people in other areas of the bureaucracy. Possibly in the CBC or the entertainment business we're dealing on a different level. Do you think privacy is a fixed concept or is it relative to whatever job the individual is doing?
Mr. Phillips: Clearly, not everybody enjoys the same expectation of privacy; let me put it that way. Ask Prince Charles, Princess Diana, the President of the United States, or anybody sitting around this table.
The reasonable expectation of privacy that any individual may hold is certainly going to be influenced by the kind of life that person is living. Entertainers who depend upon the approbation of the public for a great deal for their livelihood do not expect the same kind of privacy and frequently don't want it.
People who set out to make the laws of the country normally expect that the public is going to want to know enough about them to make a reasonable judgment about their competence to do the work. That involves giving up a good deal of your own personal and private information. However, the person who is content to live a private, quiet life in a private occupation has a different expectation, and one might even say a different right to privacy. So the expectation level is a highly variable thing.
Mr. Shepherd: Would the expectation level vary by organizations that solicit funds from the general public as charitable organizations as opposed to private industry? Would it be reasonable to argue that they should enjoy a lesser degree of privacy?
Mr. Phillips: That would be a matter of opinion, like all of these things. There are some people who hold that any person or organization in receipt of public funding has to expect a reduced level of privacy as a consequence. The precise line to be drawn is always going to be a matter of debate, and it's not for me to say where that line should be drawn in any particular case. But I agree with you when you posit that there are variations.
The Chairman: I want to thank you, Mr. Phillips, for coming and sharing your wisdom with us. It's very much appreciated.
Mr. Phillips: I wish I could have been more helpful. I hope to come back to this committee sometime for discussions of other aspects of privacy.
The Chairman: Thank you also to Holly Harris. Mr. Bélair noted the similarity between your name and that of the president of Air Canada. But I would bet, after listening to you, even after a few short words, that you weren't born in Texas.
Thank you. We will pause for a couple of minutes so we can change witnesses.
.1145
PAUSE
.1148
The Chairman: Colleagues, we're going to resume our meeting. We are now going to hear from several witnesses who come under the rubric of the national voluntary organizations.
We're going to be hearing from Rose Potvin, executive director of the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations. With her are Carol Faulkner, national director, SOS Children's Villages Canada; Al Hatton, director of external relations, YMCA Canada; and Ken Kyle, director of public issues, Canadian Cancer Society.
I gather you're going to lead off, Madame Potvin.
Ms Rose Potvin (Executive Director, Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations): Yes, I am.
The Chairman: Are we going to be hearing from all four of you, or are the others here to provide support? I just want to get a clarification.
Ms Potvin: Mr. Chairman, if it's okay with you, what I thought we'd do is go through our opening remarks, mainly to have them on the record, although they were already provided to all members yesterday, I think. Then I will ask my colleagues if they will reply to any questions you may have. Is that okay?
The Chairman: Go ahead.
.1150
Ms Potvin: The first thing I would like to say before we begin is that my colleagues are here with me now as members of NVO. I say that because most of our members made a decision not to appear before this committee in their own right, but they are here as members of NVO; and in the case of Carol Faulkner, she's on our board. We asked for board members who were here in town so as not to incur any expenses and we asked for colleagues here in town to come before us. That's why you have this group.
Our opening remarks will be very brief. We're delighted to have the opportunity to come before you. We have four points we would like to make. We want to tell you who we are, why our members have by and large not chosen to come before this committee, why we object to this bill; and finally, we want to offer an alternative to the bill that in our view will provide exactly what this bill seeks to provide.
First of all, the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations is a non-profit umbrella organization that promotes volunteerism and enhances the profile of the Canadian voluntary and charitable sector. Simply put, we do not have charitable status; we are a non-profit organization. Most of our members do have charitable status. One of our main jobs is to speak on their behalf because by and large they do not get involved in advocacy or lobbying type activity.
The voluntary charitable sector is a vital part of the social infrastructure of this country, as I'm sure you all well know. It provides Canadian society with $13 billion worth of unpaid services, which if paid would exceed the salaries of several major Canadian industries, including oil, forestry, and mining. It elicits contributions in cash and time equivalent to $55 billion a year or 8% of the GDP. There are 6 million volunteers in Canada who contribute 1 billion hours of service annually, the equivalent of 617,000 full-time workers or the combined workforces of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan or workers in 5% of all jobs in Canada.
Why have our members not made representation before you? There is the odd exception to this rule; the National Anti-Poverty Organization was one. But our members, the vast majority of which are charities, work at the international, national, provincial, and community level in a variety of fields, from health and social services to the environment, justice, youth services, education, and international aid.
A sample of our membership list would include the Canadian Cancer Society, Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, Girl Guides of Canada, the Canadian Association of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, United Way/Centraide Canada, and YWCA of Canada. The full list of our members is in this document, entitled Challenge 2000, and I will table it with the clerk if any of you would like to see it. I will also table the list of our board of directors.
These groups, by virtue of their charitable status, cannot spend more than 10% of their resources on non-partisan lobbying activities. For the most part, they choose to use these resources to speak out on issues that relate to their reason for being.
For example, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the Kidney Foundation of Canada might appear before a parliamentary committee to speak to a health issue. The Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, YMCA, and Girl Guides might appear before a committee studying legislation that could affect youth services. The Canadian Council for International Cooperation, USC, and other international groups would come before a group on issues affecting international aid, and so on through our membership list.
These groups would not as a general rule appear before this committee because they would not want to spend resources on an issue that could be seen by the public to be incidental to their main purposes. They also would not want to appear to be self-serving.
Why do we object to Bill C-224? Like other groups who have appeared before you, we have no objection to disclosure and more transparency. Indeed, when this bill was discussed at a meeting of the board of directors of NVO last February, a decision was reached that we would not ask to appear before you. The reason was that we knew we had nothing to hide and we had no problem with transparency.
However, after listening to the proceedings of your committee on May 2 and 4, we came to realize that we did have a serious problem with this bill. In our view, it is an overreaction to a perceived problem of accountability that casts doubts on the credibility, integrity, capability, and management practices of thousands of charitable and voluntary agencies and organizations across Canada. It will result in needless bureaucracy and additional paperwork for those organizations as well as increased costs at a time when government is reducing grants and cutting back on programs and when the demand for voluntary action is increasing.
.1155
The overwhelming majority of organizations to which most Canadians give most of their charitable dollars and volunteer time are very efficiently operated and provide important and needed services. If Bill C-224 becomes law, some of those donors and volunteers might quit giving their time and money to charities, believing that the only reason the government would pass such a law is because they have proof of gross mismanagement in the voluntary sector. This is patently untrue, unjust and unfair, and the damage perpetrated on the sector could take years to rectify.
What the sector needs from government is a policy environment that supports the sector and encourages philanthropic giving, not giving public credence to unfounded allegations of widespread abuse.
There is another reason why we object to the bill. Why does it pertain only to charities and non-profit organizations? The reason given is that charities and non-profit organizations benefit from government by virtue of their charitable and/or tax-exempt status. Many corporations and businesses and political parties benefit from government grants, tax exemptions, wage subsidies and other forms of government largesse. Why are they not included in this bill? Why are their operations not required to be as transparent as the voluntary sector is expected to be?
The alternative we propose, if the Government of Canada believes there is a need for more transparency in the charitable and not-for-profit sector, is that there is a straightforward and inexpensive way to collect the required information without tabling new legislation. It simply has to ask the Minister of National Revenue to make minor changes to annual return forms. Charities now complete an annual form called a T3010. That return can ask for information on salaries paid to senior staff. The form now asks for information on salaries, but the question is ambiguous and consequently not always answered.
Non-profit organizations now complete a return as well. It's called the T1044. This form could be amended to ask for similar information, and the form could be made a public document. The penalty for non-compliance - failure to complete all sections of the form - could be, after fair warning, loss of charitable status and/or loss of tax-exempt status.
This is what we propose to you as an alternative, and it completes our opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madame Potvin.
We're going to go to the Bloc. Mr. Sauvageau, you have up to eight minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: I have a few questions to ask. First of all, good afternoon, Mrs. Potvin and everyone.
I listened with interest to your presentation. In terms of daily operations, if this bill were to go ahead, what would be the impact on the smallest volunteer and charity organizations and on the NPO, the non-profit organizations? Would some organizations disappear or would the daily operations of those organizations be affected? This was my first question. I will have a few others after that.
[English]
Ms Potvin: Carol has the smallest organization here. Perhaps she would like to respond to that.
Ms Carol Faulkner (Board Member, Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations): We are a very small organization, and in terms of impact on our daily work, it's just more forms, more administration and more administrative costs, which is a big issue with us.
The other thing is, when we see it's not needed, why impose yet another control? We are audited by five or six different sources at the moment, and why add yet another control on us when we feel that we can already give this information out?
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: As most members, and don't take me wrong on that, I am solicited in several ways by volunteer organizations, non-profit organizations, that come to see me in my office. We see that the smallest organizations have difficulties to make ends meet. You said earlier, if I am not mistaken, that several organizations have already difficulties and that you would need a volunteer to manage the consequences of this bill which facilitates the work of the government. An organization such as yours would be managed this way. Am I correct?
[English]
Ms Faulkner: This type of work was actually carried out by a staff person, not a volunteer. So there would be additional costs in terms of hours and time.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: You also said that the government would incur additional costs if it implements this kind of measure. You're saying that the government will need a new administrative structure to manage this kind of program.
.1200
Did your association make an estimate to a certain how many persons it will need? We saw the same problem with the GST, for example. On your part, did you estimate the implementation costs of this bill for the government?
[English]
Ms Potvin: You haven't heard the figures?
Mr. Al Hatton (Member, Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations): No. I'm sorry, Rose.
Ms Potvin: As for the figures that we've heard from Revenue Canada - I think actually when they were before you on May 2 or just previous to that - I think the estimate was somewhere around $5 million or $6 million to create another department to collect this information and to monitor this act and this legislation. That was my understanding.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: So, the cost would be higher for the government, for you and for everybody.
Ms Potvin: Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Sauvageau: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Epp (Elk Island): I would like to thank you all for coming here today. I want to begin by saying that I am very much in favour of charities, philanthropic giving and volunteerism. I have been involved with it, both as a donor and as a participator in organizations, for many years.
It certainly is not my intention in supporting this bill to say that we want to do anything which would inhibit the ability that you have to do your work. But I also do believe very very strongly in accountability.
I would like to ask you a few questions. First, do you think this is really Draconian; is it using a shotgun to kill a fly? I get that impression, that you feel a little attacked, and I at least would not want to do that. There are many good organizations that are well run, that are honest, that are frugal in all ways.
I would simply say if such an organization exists, (a) I don't think they would object to this legislation because they have nothing to hide, and (b) it would even help them because they can now blow their horn without appearing to do so since they would be required to report these things.
There are, however, some organizations that undoubtedly are not above board in these matters and there are some that, because they don't have shareholders and they can't have a profit, simply get around it, if they have a good year, by giving their staff salaries and bonuses that fit that, and I think that should be known.
Do you object to it being known? If not, why not?
Ms Potvin: I am going to pass this question on to others to answer, but I just want to ask you for clarification first. Do you know for a fact that there are charities who at the end of the year give their staff bonuses if they have extra money left over? Do you know that for fact?
Mr. Epp: I do not know that for a fact; that is a suspicion.
Ms Potvin: Okay, but you do not know that.
Mr. Epp: No.
Ms Potvin: Because I certainly don't know of any of that at all.
Ken Kyle, would you like to answer this question?
Mr. Ken Kyle (Member, Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations): Sure. I would like to address it maybe from the point of view of a charitable organization in the private sector.
The Canadian Cancer Society does not get government grants or subsidies, and as a matter of fact, unlike the U.S. where the U.S. government is the major funder of cancer research, in Canada the major funding for cancer research comes from the Canadian Cancer Society.
Yes, Canadians get tax credits for charitable giving to the Cancer Society and other groups, and for very good reasons. We think it is a more efficient way to do cancer research and medical and health research. But I think if this bill were to pass, our volunteers would ask themselves, why are members of Parliament targeting health charities at this time? Shouldn't every organization be on the same footing? If there is to be this kind of transparency, shouldn't it apply across the board?
There may be problems in every sector, but from our perspective it's not groups like the Cancer Society that are causing problems for Canada; it's multinational corporations that are selling products that entice our kids into addiction and disease and so forth. I mean, let's look at this thing broadly.
Our volunteers who see themselves as in the private sector would wonder why the government is intruding in their lives, would want to have this kind of information.
Mr. Epp: Okay, but can you see it from the other point of view? You're from the Canadian Cancer Society?
Mr. Kyle: The Canadian Cancer Society, yes.
.1205
Mr. Epp: I don't see why I, as a donor to the Canadian Cancer Society, shouldn't know that you pay your chief executive officer $185,000 a year. Why should that be kept a secret?
Mr. Kyle: We have a national board of directors that every year does a performance appraisal of our chief executive officer and looks at her salary. On the national board we have vice-presidents of some of the largest banks and accounting firms in the country. We have mechanisms for accounting for these sorts of things. I think there is transparency. Any Canadian can get our annual report, can come to our annual meetings, and so forth.
I think our members by and large would see this and think, why is this necessary, why this invasion of privacy? There are other ways to deal with these kinds of issues. If there are isolated instances of abuse, then surely there are mechanisms to look after this without having to deal with it in such a broad fashion.
Mr. Epp: Is it not an invasion of privacy on my part as a taxpayer if the government, by the coercive nature of taxation, can pluck money out of my pocket and give it to you? You basically have the right to spend my money, because every time you write a receipt as a charitable donation -
Mr. Kyle: Right.
Mr. Epp: - for every $1,000 you write, you are spending $290 of my money. It's an invasion of my privacy not to know where my money is going, not to know what it's being used for.
Mr. Kyle: Yes, Mr. Epp, I understand the argument, but every mother in Canada gets child tax benefits, the disabled get tax credits, students who go to universities - and I understand that's your background - can claim for university courses, and so forth. By logical extension, MPs who support this bill should be in favour of almost every Canadian divulging his or her salary.
Ms Potvin: I go back: we are not saying that we don't want to have salaries divulged. We are saying that we would like to have them done on the forms that are returned as opposed to a new law.
Mr. Epp: Yes. Frankly, I think an amendment such as that is well in order, because we do want to make it efficient.
Ms Potvin: Al Hatton would like to speak to this for a minute. Would that be okay?
Mr. Hatton: Mr. Epp, you started by talking about what's behind this, and a bit of a sense of whether the sector feels under siege. Not exactly, but I think there's innuendo behind this bill, and there's a suggestion - even in this discussion of this committee - from what we understand, that there's a lot of abuse, that charities are not transparent and not accountable. I think that's really where the difficulty comes in. It's a question of scale.
The particular information required on salary ranges or specific salaries of CEOs, let's say, or the top three or four people in an organization, is one thing. That's going to deal with the issue.
There is a sense in the sector behind this that somehow there's a lot of abuse, that charities are mismanaged, that large salaries are going to people at the top. The fact of the matter is that if you really do an analysis, if you really go and talk to people in the sector, you'll find that the opposite is now the circumstance.
Sir, when you asked what the impact on the sector is, the sector is not under siege because of bills such as this; it's the pressure at the community level to serve more and more people with fewer and fewer resources. That's the reality.
So it's our job to be more and more efficient, to use dollars, whether they come from government, programs and services that we run, or donations from the public, in the most efficient manner we can. That's what we should be spending all of our time doing, not wasting our time with other things.
If you went around and talked to boards of directors.... I know that in our organization every one of our local YMCAs has to have audits. For every grant we get from the government, we have to have a yearly report. Every three years we have someone coming from the government, checking us in a formal way, from an auditing company or from the department. We have regular visits from project officers ensuring that the money is spent. This is the new environment we are in.
Mr. Epp: But there's nothing in the government regulations that says you can't pay your top people whatever salary you want, and no disclosure of it is required.
Mr. Hatton: But in the case of -
Mr. Epp: It's reported to the government, but once it hits the government, under the privacy rules it can't be made public.
Mr. Hatton: But in the case of an organization such as ours, for instance, we get only a small amount of money from the government. I think you're going to find that more and more charities get less and less money from government. In fact, the majority of their resources come from many other sources.
.1210
I think the innuendo behind this bill is that there are a lot of people in the voluntary and charitable sectors who are making a lot of money. I think that's just not the case.
The Chairman: Time's up for this round. I have a question that might be called an ethics question, relative to the way you set your salaries.
Is it the business of Revenue Canada to audit your books in such a way as to decide whether you're paying enough or too much salary to corporate officers?
Ms Potvin: Revenue Canada asks for this information, but they do not make a judgment on it. They do not say wow, that's high, or wow, that's low. It's just there and it's on the public record on the T-3010.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester): Ms Potvin, I am a little prejudiced in favour of volunteers. When I make speeches to volunteers in my constituency, I say that they do a lot of good and that I do not suspect them of being a bunch of gangsters.
I must congratulate you for your presentation. It is not only very well structured, it is brief. It is not necessary to stop after three pages because there are another 44 to look at. You provide us with the gist of the matter.
In my mind, this bill - I am going to say it once more and I may offend again my colleague - is a witch hunt. You can see me to say where I'm coming from.
First of all I would like to ask you a few brief questions. Page 2, you mentioned the fact that your sector provides $13 billion worth of unpaid services, and that there is a number of people who raise funds. In other words, you provide us with statistics. They are most interesting for the MPs, because they will now be able to use them, but I would like to know what your sources are?
[English]
Ms Potvin: The statistics listed in this document all come from StatsCan. It was a study Statistics Canada did on the voluntary sector in 1987. They have not repeated the study since then and we don't have anything more up to date.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare: With a nice name such as Rose Potvin, you're not a francophone?
Ms Potvin: Yes, I'm a francophone, but when I stand in front of MPs such as you, I'm a little intimidated. So, I prefer to use English because it is my father tongue.
Mr. Bellemare: Bravo, Ms Potvin! But don't be intimidated by us, we are very ordinary people.
Ms Potvin: Even your colleague on your left?
Mr. Bellemare: I want to tell you that I find your objections very acceptable. The alternative solution that you offer is particularly convincing. I think it is ``the solution''.
Allow me, however, to be the devil's advocate. To be totally frank with you, if my colleague had had the opportunity to ask a question,
[English]
he would ask the following question, and I think the question is very valid. This is not my question, but I want to play the devil's advocate. Are you aware of a scandal involving of senior executives in the United Way in the U.S.?
Perhaps a million dollars is involved. Often some people point to the neighbour, and our neighbour is the U.S. That's where Al Capone was, and we don't have these colourful types here in Canada. Some of us get to be suspicious, especially those of us like the Reform Party, who are very close to the United States in their hearts. So they always point to examples from the U.S. And then they say some rich guy may set up fund-raising for a good cause, and all the cat lovers, for example, will give to this cat-loving industry, and after a while the same wealthy person who gave maybe $100,000 is making a buck out of this. He's actually making a business out of it.
.1215
Then you get the people who misappropriate funds. Then they make the news headlines in the equivalent of our Sun down there.... I'm not enamoured with the U.S. so I don't know the examples, as they would across there.
Tell me about this.
Ms Potvin: Al, tell him about that.
Mr. Hatton: Yes, that's absolutely true. It's unacceptable. That's not the way we would think you run any organization, especially a charity. I guess it's like this: if one member of Parliament makes a mistake, do you denigrate all members of Parliament? If one business gets in difficulty, do you rule all businesses out of order?
There's a legal process and there's a series... there are processes by which all organizations have to act and behave. If certain individuals abuse that, we have a court mechanism that takes that into effect. That man has recently been charged in the United States, and hopefully that won't happen in Canada. But that's not acceptable.
We believe in accountability, transparency, and openness. The more open you are, the more you can be judged by the community and your peers as doing good work. If you're not, you'll fast change.
Yes, that's an unfortunate occurrence. It happened. It's true. The organization was appalled -
Mr. Bellemare: My colleague would suggest, though, that the key word you just gave us in your answer was ``hopefully''. To answer my colleague, how do we protect ourselves, as donors, from this ``hopefully someone is not misappropriating funds''? How do we protect ourselves?
Mr. Hatton: I think there are mechanisms of accountability in the sense that there are boards of directors of each of the agencies we're talking about. You can't get charitable tax status without a board of directors. The sector is very concerned and is having training programs all the time on governance: what's the role of a board, what does accountability mean? Every year we have audits of all of our organizations. There are all kinds of mechanisms that keep organizations accountable.
I think as fewer and fewer resources are available in the community for everything, there's going to be more and more transparency and accountability. My sense is that we should be concentrating more on how to produce more with less than on worrying about small numbers of abuses and on creating laws that target at that without focusing on the other side, which is how we create a climate that encourages people to do better with less, and do more with less. I think that should be the focus.
Mr. Bellemare: In other words, let's create a generous mind-state rather than a suspicious mind-state.
Mr. Hatton: That would be our perspective.
Mr. Bellemare: Bravo.
Ms Potvin: I would like to add one thing to that, Mr. Bellemare. We have a board of fourteen. I am the sole employee at NVO and with that board of fourteen. If I misappropriate any funds and I am caught, each of those fourteen board members is separately liable for any restitution. Let's say we are sued or whatever. If they didn't have any cash, they would have to sell their houses and make restitution. So they watch me very, very carefully.
Mr. Bellemare: I would like to ask a very small, final question. Rose, how much do you make?
Ms Potvin: I make $250 a day for each day I work. I am on contract.
Mr. Bellemare: The point of my question was, would you divulge that to appropriate authorities?
Ms Potvin: I would tell anybody who wants to know.
I'd like to have this discussion with you for a minute, if I can, because it came up and it annoyed me when Mr. Epp on May 2 or 4 announced to this group that he makes $64,000.
Am I right? Oh, $64,400.
I went home and I added up $250 a day, times five days a week, times 52 weeks of the year. It adds up to about $64,400.
So if it appears in the papers, the statement will be made that I earn exactly what Mr. Epp earns. The fact is, he earns twice what I earn. Because I am on contract, I get paid $250 a day if I work. Of the $64,000, you're down below the $60,000 once I take two or three weeks of holidays a year. Then there are ten or eleven statutory holidays. I'm down then to about $55,000. I have absolutely no benefits of any type: no health, no insurance, nothing. If I want to prepare for my old age, I must take out an RSP and knock off another $5,000.
My salary really is about $46,000 a year. That's really what I earn, with no sick days, nothing. That's it.
Mr. Epp gets $64,400 plus $27,000 in a tax-free allowance, plus a very generous pension plan, plus subsidized lunches, and this, this, and this. He earns twice what I earn. But in the paper they're going to list it as that we earn the same money. That's actually very unfair, but that's what's going to come out. I frankly don't care. I can live with that.
Mr. Bellemare: I think you're underpaid and he's overpaid.
.1220
The Chairman: I have a question that's apropos of the T3010 and T1044 returns.
In your opening remarks, Madame Potvin, you said that return T3010, which bears on charities, could be easily amended to elicit further information. I take your point, but you also go on to say that return T1044 could also be amended to elicit further information.
My understanding is that this is not possible. The non-profit organizations have greater protection than the charities. You can't make the same case for non-profit organizations. Would any of you have a comment?
Ms Potvin: Actually, I checked with your research person on this, because I knew that he was talking to Revenue Canada. I asked if it was feasible.
Was it you I talked to on the phone?
The Chairman: You're looking at Eric Adams.
Ms Potvin: Okay. Nice to meet you. We talked on the phone.
My understanding is that the Minister of National Revenue would have to go to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Martin, who would have to make the decision about transparency on the form. The Minister of National Revenue would ask Mr. Martin if he would please make an amendment, which he can do without new legislation - it's an Order in Council, as I understand it - to make that form public and to add that information to it.
The Chairman: I think some of that is in dispute, but we'll certainly get more information from Revenue Canada people when they appear on Tuesday. We're talking about the Income Tax Act here.
Anyway, thank you. I just thought perhaps you had a more definitive answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: I would not want to make aggravate anyone, but I believe that in your presentation, you said that you thought it was appropriate to come here... In this presentation, my colleague indicated that good organizations could not be opposed, and yet, you're opposed. This may be a bit of sophistry, but what he implied is that you are not a good organization. I do not agree with it but that is precisely what was said.
Your presence here confirms the fact that it is necessary to defend one's own interests so that such perceptions considering your sector not be repeated. Much to my surprise and to my disappointment, I see a lot of that here this morning.
For my own information, are the salaries of those people, which are to be made public by law, available to the general population through the Access to Information Act, or is it a State secret that is as jealously protected as the formula for the atomic bomb?
[English]
Ms Potvin: Right now, form T3010 asks for a figure for the top salaries. They say ``officers and directors'', which is what we call our board. That's why there's a confusion with that whole statement. If it were completed as Revenue Canada means us to complete that line, I think it would be an aggregate figure. They would list $330,000 for the salaries of their top employees, but you don't know how much any one person is making at this point.
We're asking for that to be made clearer. That would be the only way the information would then be public.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: You have to submit annual reports?
Ms Potvin: Yes.
Mr. Sauvageau: Is there a line where the public could find the total wages of the various organizations?
Ms Potvin: No. Those reports are all public. In our case, since I'm the only staff member, my salary is perfectly obvious. In other cases, you're talking about an aggregate.
.1225
[English]
Al, would you or anybody else like to add to that? I'm sorry; I'm hogging this mike.
Mr. Hatton: That's absolutely true. There's one line under the expenses where the salaries and benefits are all outlined. Absolutely.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Don't you find these relentless against non-profit organizations a bit excessive? I'll give you an example. I apologize for being a little bit political. No one wants to commit themselves on such questions as contaminated blood or other projects which are much more important and on which the MP should concentrate to promote progress within our society. Instead of that, they prefer to scrutinize executive salaries.
Ms Potvin: Instead of spending millions of dollars to find out how much I make, all you had to do was to ask me. And it is the same for our other members.
Mr. Sauvageau: Thank you. I have no more questions to ask.
[English]
The Chairman: Just in case there was any misunderstanding, Mr. Sauvageau, my advice was directed at Madame Potvin and not at you. In other words, I -
Mr. Sauvageau: I understand. No problem.
Mr. Duhamel: I just very briefly want to confirm some information that I think I have. I want to quote from the third section, ``Why We Object to Bill C-224''. You say that:
- The overwhelming majority of organizations to which most Canadians give most of their
charitable dollars and volunteer time are very efficiently operated and provide important and
needed services. If Bill C-224 becomes law, some of those donors and volunteers might quit
giving their time and money to charities -
Mr. Hatton: This isn't a great day to ask that, with what's going on with CARE, but I would generally say that's very unusual.
As I said, these organizations are a combination of private and public. It depends on which organization you're talking about. Relatively speaking, there are very few scandals. Very few large organizations, or even small or medium-sized ones, have been exposed in public as being incompetently run and corrupt.
Mr. Duhamel: Thank you, and I appreciate that this is a fairly delicate time to raise that question. But they have not been found guilty, either, and we should remind ourselves of that.
Mr. Hatton: Exactly.
Mr. Duhamel: The second point is that you're quite convinced when you say that if this were to go through - not that donations would dry up, but that there would be fewer donations. Perhaps someone could tell me why you've concluded that.
Ms Potvin: I'll tell you. I'm sure you people do the very same thing as members of Parliament, but where I get my reality check is that I have the opportunity of going home to visit my mother in Kirkland Lake twice a year. When I'm up there, I talk to the local ordinary people who work in the mines, doing what they do, about these things.
My mother has collected for cancer for the last 30 years of her life. She also works for the Liberal Party every morning when you have elections and has done that as a volunteer for the last30 years of her life. That doesn't mean she's made me be a Liberal, by the way.
Mr. Duhamel: I can't believe she would have failed.
Ms Potvin: So she's devoted herself.
Now, if it appears in the Northern Daily News that the Government of Canada has had to pass a bill in order to make charities divulge the salaries of their senior staff, then my mother is going to say, good grief, what is happening in those charities? They must be grossly mismanaged if the government had to go to all of this trouble and spend all this time and energy to pass a bill. There must be gross mismanagement. I wonder if I'm going to collect for cancer next April.
Mr. Duhamel: You've also indicated that you believe that if this is going to go through, then costs will be increased. That's not been quantified yet. That's not a criticism. That's difficult. It depends upon the organization. You've pointed out that you're also audited and that this is a necessity, and you've suggested some solutions.
Just prior to your testimony we had the Privacy Commissioner, who felt this could be construed as some additional intrusion. Do you feel that way?
.1230
Ms Potvin: I personally do. I think salary ranges would be a fairer way to go. That's my opinion. I am reminded of Lynne Toupin's comment before you when she was here, I think it was on May 4, 1995. She said that first of all it puts her in a very poor position if she starts to negotiate for another job. When she applies for another job, the employer she's going in to see knows she earns $49,500. He knows what to offer her, or she knows what to offer, which would not be the case if you were dealing with ranges. So I think it's an undue intrusion. That's my personal view, but I don't care if you list it that way.
[Translation]
Mr. Duhamel: I have no more questions to ask. Thank you for your presentation.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: I have two or three things to say and then a question. I agree with Mr. Epp that charitable organizations do a wonderful job in Canada, by and large, and that they will be called on, as was mentioned earlier, to do even more with less, which is probably nearly impossible, but there are going to be more pressures put on you. I understand that, so I'd like to say that just to start off.
There are two or three things in this round of discussion that I think should be clarified. One is that we are investigating this bill not because of a vendetta against anybody but because this bill has been referred to us by Parliament; so we don't have a choice in this matter. We study what we need to study, and we're studying it not because of a vendetta but because we have to. So please don't take it personally.
Secondly, the role of a member of Parliament in the questioning is not - When I ask why we shouldn't do this, I'm not necessarily revealing how I would vote on this bill, or my innermost feelings. I'm trying to determine whether there is any depth to your argument. So when Mr. Epp says he makes $64,400 a year - Mr. Epp is opting out of the pension plan, for example, so he's not going to get a pension out of this. But regardless, all the questioning is to determine whether your arguments have any weight. You've done a good job, but please don't take it that this questioning reveals how I would vote on the bill. I think I would most likely vote against this bill, if it comes to that, but I want to see if you have anything to your argument.
Those are a couple of things. Of course, in regard to Mr. Bellemare's remarks about the Reform Party, I know that the Liberals generally emulate the socialist social engineering policies of the Swedish government, and I don't want to interfere with their tendency to do that.
An hon. member: You said that with a straight face.
Mr. Strahl: No, I couldn't keep a straight face right to the end.
Anyway, with that off my chest, I now have a couple of questions. One is that you say it will be detrimental to the donors and volunteers who might be giving their money. You mentioned that CARE Canada - isn't this a coincidence - is blitzing the front pages and having to defend themselves. Who knows how that will all turn out. But is it not possible that opposing this bill is more detrimental to you than embracing it? When people say look at that, CARE Canada splashed on the front pages, the next day there are people down there saying, whatever you do, don't disclose the salary ranges of our executive officers. I would argue your best interests could be better served by saying you have nothing to hide and you absolutely never have, so you embrace this kind of thing.
What's the argument there? Why not give yourself a pat on the PR back here?
Ms Potvin: We're back to the same point, I'm afraid, Mr. Strahl. We have no problem with disclosing the salaries. We do not want it done by imposing a new law; we want it done through the existing legislation, that's all.
Would somebody else like to comment on that?
Mr. Kyle: This bill will be discussed in detail at a national meeting of the Canadian Cancer Society next week, but I've been picking up what volunteers have been saying and I have not heard anything positive about it. We're a very conservative organization, and it's just a reaction on principle to more government intrusion, and more government, when in fact we don't receive any government funding, no subsidies. We're a private sector charitable organization and we want to be in an environment that encourages us to do the sorts of things we do, but we're being targeted. We think there are for-profit groups out there that probably need more investigating than some of the health groups.
Mr. Strahl: Now we have a conservative group in here as well. Sorry, just leave that aside.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
.1235
Ms Faulkner: And then you have me. I don't think this bill would change anything in terms of the allegations against CARE Canada, first. And second, your comments at the beginning were well taken, and we understand your position here. But again, as a small volunteer organization thinking about the waste of money, I think of this bill and the money it's costing the taxpayer to investigate and this whole process. That is where I react on a very personal basis.
Mr. Strahl: I just repeat, many ideas come to Parliament and are thrown out. And they are thrown out after investigation.
I don't know where this bill will end up, but again, I think you need to remember not to take it personally. We throw out around here more than we accept, but we do have to investigate.
Some umbrella organizations - for example, the Canadian Council of Christian Charities and your own as well, I am sure - have a code of ethics that everyone adheres to. Do you think that is an extensive enough or thorough enough code of ethics for the Canadian people to be satisfied with, or should every umbrella organization develop their own degree of disclosure and so on? That is basically what is done now, except for the legal requirements. Is that sufficient?
Ms Faulkner: I can speak to that. Some of the coalitions themselves are now developing their own codes of ethics, and rather than everybody doing it individually they are taking a coalition approach. Some coalitions have already formed one; NVO is actually looking at a code of ethics. So that seems to be a movement everybody is going towards.
Mr. Strahl: I think so.
The Chairman: We're nearly out of time, but I can allow you one more question, Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: I think probably a good amendment to this bill would be in the third clause to say: ``every organization that is a political party must disclose all levels of'', and I think that will about kill it.
The Chairman: Around Parliament Hill we have this never-ending debate on disclosure and how far you go. There are some people around who seemingly want no limit on disclosure whatsoever. Then there are some people who feel that there should be some limits on disclosure.
I think, for example, of MPs' own so-called constituency budgets. The public knows what our budgets are, the global constituency budget, but within that budget we're not obligated to tell the public what we pay our executive assistants or legislative assistants. There is within the budgets a cap, we can't go over a particular cap. But within the cap or under the cap we can pay whatever we want and we don't have to tell the world.
Some people might say that's terrible. But if you did have that kind of disclosure, people would say Joe Smith pays his legislative assistant $37,000, and the other MP pays his legislative assistant $31,000. Right away you would get into a discussion about why one is paid $39,000 and the other one $31,000, and if one can be that frugal paying $31,000, why would this other profligate spending MP pay $39,000? Or if the global budget is $140,000 compared to $112,000, why is one MP spending so much, and why is the other one is so frugal?
What I am trying to raise for you is this aura of debate. I am not trying to put a damper on disclosure, but it can raise problems. It also raises the question of trust. Do we trust MPs or charitable organizations or non-profit organizations within a certain ambit?
Mr. Kyle: Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent point. I can see, for example, if this bill goes through and the board of directors of the Cancer Society in New Brunswick, our New Brunswick division, pays the executive director such and such and that becomes public and then that individual says that the executive direction on the Ontario division has this kind of salary, I can see horrendous internal problems. I think there would be more problems internally than with the public. It is an excellent point you have raised.
.1240
Mr. Hatton: I think at the same time in lots of sectors, whether it's in youth-serving organizations or large health organizations serving across the sector, salary ranges are often exchanged between organizations of like size to help in the planning and the fairness. We also constantly compare ourselves with the private sector. And as you can appreciate, if we're going to be more efficient we have to get more sophisticated. We're drawing more and more lessons in processes from the private sector about how to compare things that are difficult to compare, such as creativity and entrepreneurship. How do you measure that against somebody who's an accountant? These are complex issues.
When you start looking at those sorts of things, there's more openness. It's not to the penny of who's paid what, because there are local circumstances. There are issues of what an individual brings to an organization and so on and so forth. Generally there is already a lot of sharing among organizations about ways of operating better.
The Chairman: The point is well taken, but if you have unlimited disclosure, where absolutely nothing is held, it is an invitation to some nit-picking.
Mr. Hatton: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Shepherd.
Mr. Shepherd: Thank you very much. Mr. Strahl unfortunately stole a lot of my thunder.
When I originally looked at this bill, my reaction was so what? It's nothing unusual. You made the comparison with multinational corporations. I heard what you said. Most of those corporations are publicly traded companies, and it is a requirement that they do disclose not specific salaries, but the top five highest-paid executive officers on their financial statements.
The argument there is that they're soliciting funds such as share offerings directly from the public and therefore they have a liability of trust to the shareholders to disclose that. Do you not feel there's a similar relationship with your organizations that are directly soliciting funds from the general public?
Mr. Kyle: The R.J.R. Macdonald tobacco company is a private company. It doesn't do this. Despite some good amendments from your colleague here in the area of lobbyist registration and so forth, tobacco and industry lobbyists who have been rumoured in the media to be making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to lobby against health legislation don't have to divulge their salaries either. So it's a bit of a problem.
Mr. Shepherd: I understand what you're saying. There are such things as private companies as well, but I was making the analogy between publicly traded companies and charitable organizations that deal with the public.
Ms Faulkner: Again, I don't think we have problems with revealing salary ranges. We have problems with the bill and with the means of doing it. We're quite happy to reveal our salary ranges.
Mr. Shepherd: I don't think we differ very much. I think the problem is this innuendo. I really don't believe there is a political spin on this to chastise non-profit or charitable organizations. I think it's a general thought process of this government and others to make the process more visible and more transparent. Those are the very things you were talking about.
You talk about the lobbyist registration. That was another attempt at trying. It may not be as successful as you had hoped, but it was another attempt to shed light in that area. I certainly heard what you said. Just ask me and I'll say that's what we're doing. That's what the bill will eventually do. I just ask you to put it on a piece of paper.
Ms Potvin: So will the processes that are already in place without new legislation. You can get exactly what you need through the alternative we've suggested. You don't need a new bill. And you do run the risk with a new bill of casting a negative light on a third sector that is doing very good work. That's the point of our argument.
Mr. Shepherd: But you say it's a new bill. Presumably it might be a matter of amending legislation or existing legislation. That's all academic. The reality is that on those forms you report to Revenue Canada with, there'll be a more consistent reporting of salaries.
Ms Potvin: Yes. We have no problem with that. But you don't need a bill to do it.
Mr. Shepherd: You need a bill to amend the existing legislation, which is maybe what this is.
.1245
The Chairman: Thank you.
To be fair, Mr. Shepherd, I think you indicated a moment ago that some of the thoughts behind this bill are those of the government. This is a private member's bill; this is not a government bill. I just think that in the interest of accuracy that should be pointed out. Do you agree?
Mr. Shepherd: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan: I want to echo that comment as well, Mr. Chairman.
I have one other question, since you're here. I guess I'm a little bit biased, having worked for the Y a long time ago when I used to teach swimming. I actually worked for them under a program back then known as Challenge '81 or whatever it was, which was teaching swimming, but it was a government-funded student program. To qualify for that program you had to go through a loan application or an application process.
With any direct government funding you would receive, you would be applying to a particular department or program for that funding and you would have, I would assume, a very detailed application that would be scrutinized. Often questions would come from that. You do not receive just funding in general, right?
Mr. Hatton: Absolutely. There are contracts, legal documents we are bound to abide by, and if we don't, then we're accountable for that to our board and back to the government. So yes, that's true.
The Chairman: Mr. Bryden, go ahead.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one concluding comment to follow up on what Mr. Shepherd was saying.
This is a private member's bill and I can certainly assure you that the intentions behind the bill are designed only with the very best interests of the not-for-profit sector at heart. I'm hoping this bill is going in a direction that will make life better for us all.
The Chairman: I understand there are no further questions.
Thank you for coming. We appreciate your testimony.
Ms Potvin: Thank you very much for hearing us.
The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.