[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 6, 1995
.1105 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Before we hear from revenue Canada, I just want to give you a heads-up on other matters before the committee.
As you know, Bill C-82 has come to us. That's relative to the two-dollar coin. I was hoping we could start this Thursday with Mr. Dingwall. That won't be possible, because cabinet is meeting that day, so we are going to pencil in Mr. Dingwall for next Monday afternoon.
Now, don't get all concerned about that. I know Monday is Monday, but in this particular case I've already checked with the whip's office, at least the government whip's office, and the likelihood of votes on Monday around noon is very high, so we're all going to have to be in town anyway. That being the case, since we're here for votes on Monday we might as well have our first committee meeting on Bill C-82 Monday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. It has not been confirmed yet as to place and time, but that's what we're driving towards.
I want to remind you that Mr. Massé will be here on Thursday at 11 a.m. as per the schedule, so there's no change there.
There's one more thing. It could be that we can do Bill C-82 in a couple of meetings. It is conceivable that we could finish the work on Bill C-82 by next Tuesday. We might have all our witnesses completed by Tuesday, and given the fact that the bill has only one clause we could conceivable have it all done by Tuesday.
If that's the case, if we are lucky enough in that regard, it leaves us two full meeting slots to finish off contracting out. I can tell you, as your chairman, that because contracting out has been with us since the fall, I would love to use those two meetings to finish contracting out. Treasury Board has already indicated that they're prepared to come on June 20. I think Public Works is in a position to come - their officials, not Mr. Dingwall. So if everything goes very well, it's possible we might finish off the season, if I can put it that way, with two meetings on contracting out. I'll keep you posted as to developments.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): I just have a question on who are the witnesses on Bill C-82. Do we have that list? Is that list confirmed?
The Chairman: Yes, we have two confirmed witnesses. I don't know the precise names. The clerk can give you the names. One is from B A Banknote, and the other one is the association representing the vending machine companies.
We had thought the Canadian Bankers Association would have an interest in this. They do have an interest, but they don,t want to appear. so if they don't want to appear, they don't want to appear.
Mr. Strahl: We don't have any other official submissions, either?
The Chairman: No.
I just thought I'd give you a heads-up on that.
Mr. Strahl: Thank you.
Mr. Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester): Mr. Chair, who from the vending machine industry will be coming?
The Chairman: it's the association that represents all the companies, or the industry.
Mr. Bellemare: Nationally?
The Chairman: Yes. it's called the Canadian Automatic Merchandising Association.
Mr. Bellemare: But not the Canadian Association of Vending Machine Operators or something like that?
The Chairman: Well, apparently it's the umbrella organization that represents all the companies.
Mr. Bellemare: The concern I have, Mr. Chairman, is that one set of merchandisers does its merchandising through vending machines, another through retail at the store, another through kiosks in public places, and then you add a variety of ways of merchandising. If it is an umbrella company for merchandisers, the vending machine group itself, the vendors, may have great objection to the umbrella group and what it may say.
The Chairman: Well, that's possible.
Mr. Bellemare: Will they be speaking for the vending machine operators?
The Chairman: It's our understanding that is the case. If you know someone in your riding, Mr. Bellemare, you may want to contact them and tell them, but that is our understanding.
.1110
Now we have Mr. Denis Lefebvre, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Legislation Branch, Revenue Canada.
Thank you for coming again, Mr. Lefebvre. I understand you don't have an opening statement.
I know there are some questions for clarification and so on. As is our custom, I'll turn to the Bloc first.
Mr. Deshaies, for eight minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): Good morning, Mr. Lefebvre. When you first appeared, on May 2, you told us that instead of passing a bill, there might be other ways of reaching Mr. Bryden's objectives. To sum up the philosophy of the bill, I'd just like to remind you that this objective was to get information about organizations or agencies that could use the ``non-profit'' or ``charitable'' label to obtain and misuse funds.
Mr. Duhamel wrote a letter to the Minister, Mr. Anderson, regarding the possibility of changing the Department of Revenue's tools in order to get this information. This morning, I received a copy of the response Mr. Duhamel received, which set out various ways of changing the forms in order to get that information.
You have read Mr. Bryden's bill and the letter in question. In your opinion, is the Department unable to respond to any parts of Mr. Bryden's bill?
Mr. Denis Lefebvre (Acting Assistant Deputy-Minister, Policy and Legislation Branch, Department of National Revenue): That's a short question, but I'm afraid that's it going to require a somewhat longer response.
First of all, when I appeared before the Committee on May 2, I based my comments on the bill. It dealt with the issue of direct and indirect funding from the government, and it also allowed for certain penalties. The bill also provided for a report to be tabled in Parliament.
At the time, I said that this bill created a problem for us, specifically because it was difficult to make the connection between direct funding and indirect funding. The penalties also caused a problem for us.
I said that perhaps it would be possible to use an alternative method to attain the goals of bill C-224. The existing reports that charitable and non-profit organizations must prepare annually could be changed so as to avoid having another report, which would mean more paperwork both for the government and for these organizations.
Obviously, I was making my comments within the framework of a bill that would enable us to change these reports so as to reach the bill's objectives to some extent.
Unless I've misunderstood, the question you're asking me is a different one. You're asking me what administrative actions we could take to reach the objectives of Bill C-224. I'll take these objectives as being the same as the ones I set out the first time I appeared before you. I wasn't sure whether we could change the existing reports for both charitable and non-profit organizations without a bill, without additional legislative authority, in order to get more information and make it more specific and more transparent.
.1115
From an administrative point of view, it's important to make a distinction between charitable organizations and non-profit organizations. In the case of charitable organizations, we already have legislative provisions that allow us to ask them for information about the compensation and benefits their executives receive.
We also have the authority to release this information. We already have the necessary legislation to do so. Up until now, the Minister of Revenue has chosen to exercise this authority by asking charitable organizations to prepare an annual report on the total compensation and benefits provided to their executives.
You heard that during the hearings. There is the T3010 return as well as lines 135 and 136. At line 135, you are asked to declare the total compensation paid to senior executives. More technical terms are used, I believe, such as directors, trustees and officers. At line 136, you are asked to indicate how many people are included at line 135. That's the information that's currently available to the public.
Your Committee was also told that often these lines are left blank. The charitable organizations don't provide this information. I think there's several reasons why. One is that some charitable organizations have no paid employees; in these cases, no compensation is paid out. In other cases, it would appear - some people testified here about this particular point - that our definition of trustees and directors is ambiguous. So the issue there is one of definitions. This must be improved.
So that's what's done at the present time, and that's the information that's given to us. If a line is left blank and if someone asks for the information - often it may be a donor, a journalist or a member of Parliament - we ask the charitable organization to provide us with the missing information. Usually it provides it. If it didn't, we would be entitled to revoke its registration.
As for penalties - I'm describing the current system to you before I tell you what administrative changes can be made for charitable organizations - up until now, we have asked charitable organizations to prepare this annual statement, and if they don't do so, we go to great lengths to ask them to provide it to us. We telephone them and we write to them, because revoking a charitable organization's registration is not something we take lightly. Often the statement is not provided because there has been a change in volunteers, not because of ill will. There may have been a transition, but if the charitable organization doesn't eventually provide us with the annual statement, we revoke its registration.
Over the past three years, we have revoked the registration of approximately 4,000 charitable organizations because they had not sent in their annual statement. To date, we haven't revoked a registration because they neglected to fill out line 135 or 136 or some other line. So basically, that's the current system for charitable organizations.
You asked us what we can do without legislation, perhaps to better attain certain objectives that were found in Bill C-224.
.1120
Well, we have the power to change the definition. We also have the power to ask for the salary range or even the specific salary of each executive in the organization, rather than just the total compensation for executives. That is left to the minister's discretion.
We could change the form used for the annual statement, the definitions and the guide that goes along with it and we say to people, ``From now on, we're asking for more information, more specific information.'' We could do that administratively without changing the act.
We could also tighten up the enforcement of our requirements. We could be more demanding with people who, for instance, don't give us the information requested at lines 135 and 136. However, I can assure you that even though we do have the power to be pretty radical at that level, from a strictly legal point of view, that will always be our practice.
Inevitably, the minister will not wish to exercise his power in flexibly or without making distinctions, because some charitable organizations have membership drives or fund-raising campaigns, and we can't stop these campaigns one year and then start them up again the next year because the organization is registered one year and isn't the following year.
Even so, we do intend to advise all charitable organizations that it is important to fill out all the lines of the annual statement, and we will be monitoring this point. So these are the administrative measures we could take to deal with charitable organizations.
Things are different for non-profit organizations.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Lefebvre has gone beyond the usual time allotted for the first round, but unless there are objections I think we should let him finish, because he hasn't gotten to the non-profits.
Mr. Lefebvre, go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Lefebvre: Since 1993, all non-profit organizations have had to complete an annual statement. Previously, the Department of National Revenue obtained and had very little information about these organizations.
In 1994, we began to receive the annual statements for 1993. These organizations provide us with information about their assets and revenues in this annual statement, because we would like to know more about the assets and revenues of this sector. Obviously, we want to have this information for tax purposes.
We are beginning to receive this information, and we are asking them to provide information about the total compensation paid to their employees. However, we are not asking for information about the salaries of their executives, because when we identified what information we wanted to get from this form, we determined that it was not necessary for tax purposes, to ask for this specific information. I should point out that this statement that non-profit organizations provide is not public. Under section 241, we must keep this information confidential.
Now getting to your question about non-profit organizations, I should explain that at present, we cannot release this information, even if someone asks for it. Under the current act, we can't release it.
.1125
There's something I would like to add. It is unlikely - but of course it's up to the Minister of Finance - we would look or ask for this information unless it's deemed necessary for the purpose of fiscal analysis.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. Well, you certainly have a comprehensive answer.
We're actually over time. Do you have something else?
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Since this was useful information for everybody, I would like to ask a brief question for my own information. Why is the Department not able or not willing to get information on non-profit organizations? It may be confidential information, but if a non-profit organization spends all its income in salaries, wouldn't it be advisable for your Department...
You say they're entitled to do it. If somebody has $200,000 in income and pays $175,000 in salaries, there are only $25,000 left for the operating costs. Is that fraudulent? I understand it is allowable, but Mr. Bryden's objective was to get that information in order to know if those revenues were used for the objectives they were supposed to meet or for personal profit.
Mr. Lefebvre: It's hard to say. The form requests information as to the total compensation paid to the employee, in order to allow us to see where the expenses are made. The executive officers obviously get a salary and pay tax. If the organization pays high salaries, those salaries are taxable. There may not be any tax impact, but we simply didn't feel that was a need when we set up the form, two years ago. We didn't identify that piece of information as being useful from a fiscal point of view.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Strahl: I have a couple of questions, just for clarification.
I understand the difference between the non-profit and the charitable but if, as you say, the minister has the power to ask for specifics on salaries on that form T3010, he can do that. If that were done for charitable organizations, that would basically fulfil the intent of Mr. Bryden's bill for charitable.... Is that true?
Mr. Lefebvre: Mr. Bryden will have to talk about what he intended, but if we look at the bill, certainly a big part of the bill is about obtaining the information about the salary and remuneration of senior executives of charities. So by doing that I think, yes, we would be meeting what I understand to be the objectives of the bill.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Bryden may want to answer that, too, but before that, why hasn't the department done so? I can see there's a move afoot here to try to get the department to look after it in some way. It hasn't done so in the past. Why would we expect that it's going to do so in the future? What assurances would we have?
There seems to be a consensus that maybe this should be publicly available. The charitable organizations are saying a bill isn't needed to do it, let's just do it through the T3010 form. How do you make sure it happens? It can be done, but will it be done or is it in the works to be done?
Mr. Lefebvre: The requirement presently in the form to provide the truthful remuneration of the managers, of the senior officers of charities, has been there for some time. The main purpose of the requirement, and the fact that it's a public return, is to make it available to donors so that they have access to the information in order to help them decide whether or not they want to give to that charity.
.1130
Frankly, until the debate on this bill, we had received very few requests. We have not received many donors or people who asked for this information and said that it was not precise enough. There was just no demand.
Certainly this round of discussions on Bill C-224 has sensitized us. We have also listened very intently to the witnesses before you, and other charities have contacted us, especially umbrella organizations. We don't sense resistance on their part at all. I think most of them welcome more information. Their view is that they are not overpaid - on the contrary - and they don't mind if it will augment the credibility of the sector to have more detailed information.
So our current trajectory is to go to ranges. Our plan is to propose to our consultative committee - we consult with charities - and depending on what will go into the legislation, what this committee does - Our plans are to consult with our clients, and we would like to go for ranges. We are prepared to commit to that if it's of any use.
Mr. John Bryden, MP (Hamilton - Wentworth): May I comment? What this bill advances over the existing regime, shall we say, are two things. It takes enforcement out of being merely discretionary by the department. As it sits now, the department has the discretion to enforce the filling in of the information. In any sampling of charity returns, we'll find at least a third all across the board with the executive remuneration blank. While there may be some ambiguity in the lines, it does say - I have it here and you'll have a copy of it as well - ``total remuneration paid to employees''. So in my mind there is no ambiguity. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that about a third of these forms are left blank.
The second thing the bill advances over the present regime to address this point is to provide a penalty that comes into action. Where it sits now is that the bureaucrats, with great respect, have had the discretion of enforcing the filling in of the lines or not. It has not occurred. So the important thing is that, as the bill is framed now, if the information isn't given, certain steps begin to go forward regardless of the bureaucrats.
The second thing about the bill is that it requires a certain minimum of information on remuneration. Right now, as Mr. Lefebvre explained, the department has the discretion to define what kind of information it wants. If it wants detailed information on the directors, it can get it. If it wants specific information, it can get it. If it wants global information, it can get it. It can decide.
What I'm saying in the amendments that you see before you is that at the very minimum what we as Parliament are requiring are the salary and benefits of the most highly paid officers. After that, we leave it to the discretion of the department, to the minister, to the bureaucrats, to decide what to do.
So those two main points are the advancement of the legislation over the existing machine, plus non-profits. Non-profits aren't covered at all right now, and we need legislation for that.
The Chairman: Is that it, Mr. Strahl?
Mr. Strahl: Yes, I think so. Are we asking questions of either witness?
The Chairman: No. It was our intention to hear from - It's all right, but I thought since you -
Mr. Strahl: Okay. That's all, then.
The Chairman: I think we should finish with Mr. Lefebvre. I think it's Mr. Bélair first.
Mr. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Could I just ask for a clarification, with Mr. Bélair's permission? I want to make sure I understood what Mr. Bryden said. He said that he felt Bill C-224 accomplished two components that the current regime does not accomplish. But my understanding is that Mr. Lefebvre has made a commitment to correcting that; that is, there would in fact be an insistence on the part of the department that those lines be filled, perhaps even more appropriately than they are now. That's what I heard, and if I heard incorrectly, I want to be corrected.
.1135
With respect to the penalty imposed, that is still discretionary. There again I want to make sure that I understood it.
You did say, Mr. Lefebvre, that last year you'd withdrawn 4,000.
Mr. Lefebvre: In the last three years we have revoked 4,000 registrations.
Mr. Duhamel: So that is in fact the penalty that's been imposed at the discretion of the department.
Mr. Lefebvre: For lack of filing the annual return.
Mr. Duhamel: Basically, I guess - and I don't want to put words in your mouth - that could be extended if there was a wish to do so on the part of the authorities who make those kinds of decisions.
In other words, if the minister were to say we need to become more precise here, we need to ensure, that could be done.
Mr. Lefebvre: Yes.
Mr. Duhamel: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélair (Cochrane - Supérieur): My question is for Mr. Lefebvre. None of the witnesses we heard clearly explained the distinction between revealing the salaries of senior officials of an organization and revealing the salaries of employees.
I just heard Mr. Bryden say that the purpose of his bill is to allow for disclosure of the employees' salaries, not the senior officers' salaries. So it appears that everyone around the table agrees that there's no problem about the salaries of senior officers, but there is a problem about revealing the employees' salaries. That's the purpose of Mr. Bryden's bill.
You mentioned section 241. To which act were you referring?
Mr. Lefebvre: The Income Tax Act.
Mr. Bélair: You made a very clear distinction about non-profit organizations whose boards or whose managers do not have to disclose salaries. It gets somewhat confusing. Where does the attack on privacy begin? The privacy commissioner was not able to answer that question. I don't know whether you can use the Income Tax Act to respond to the following: Should we require an employee to reveal his salary publicly, even if this employee...
Last week, I used the example of a job add in the newspaper. Some adds specify the exact salary, for instance $40,000 per year. Other adds will say that the salary remains to be determined. Consequently, the $40,000 for an advertised position is public knowledge. If you are hired, everyone will know what your salary is. In the other case, the person's salary will still have to be negotiated. How can we reconcile Mr. Bryden's bill and the privacy of the employee who negotiated his salary?
Mr. Lefebvre: I'd like begin by responding to your first question. You mentioned the distinction between the salaries earned by executives of a charitable organization and the salaries earned by the employees. Up until now, we have requested the executives' salaries, not employees' salaries. What we care about is knowing the salaries of the people who have the power to make decisions.
Mr. Bélair: Well then we are getting away from the purpose of Mr. Bryden's bill, which was to reveal the employees' salaries.
Mr. Lefebvre: I'll stick to the bill. It's true that the bill isn't entirely clear about this. I believe that we would have to specify exactly what would be covered under this legislation, by means of either regulations or subsidiary legislation.
The tradition for all legislation providing for the disclosure of salaries in an organization is... Perhaps we could do some research on the matter, but I'm not aware of any exceptions. Usually the purpose is to find out the compensation paid to the executives, the people who have the power to make decisions and set these very salaries.
Mr. Bélair: And not the compensation paid to employees.
Mr. Lefebvre: No, not the compensation paid to employees.
.1140
Up until now, we haven't asked for that. Judging by the few consultations that we've had in this regard, the organizations would be very concerned if we started to ask what their employees' salaries were rather than keeping to the executives' salaries.
Mr. Bélair: I think so too. Mr. Chairman, could we ask Mr. Bryden to speak briefly on this same topic?
[English]
The Chairman: No objection.
Mr. Bryden: I think I was a little loose with my term ``employee''. The real intent is to get disclosure from the highest-paid senior administrator. It has to be ``employee'' because in many charities the directors are unpaid, or get a small honorarium, and probably no one has a problem with that. But what's of concern is that there may be instances, and we see evidence of this when this line is left blank.... What the existing line is actually asking for is the chief paid administrator.
Mr. Bélair: Who is an employee of the whatever.
Mr. Bryden: He is an employee, but the intention is not to capture the rank and file employees - and indeed salary ranges are very appropriate there - but only the highest paid executive.
Mr. Bélair: Why, then?
Mr. Bryden: If mismanagement and abuse of funds are going to occur, the highest paid administrator is the person who is going to determine in many instances how much he himself is paid. Certainly with the smaller charities it is. It's exactly equivalent - I hate to say this, but it's similar, shall we say - to members of Parliament being able to set their own salaries. Of course, the public is very interested in knowing this.
Mr. Bélair: I only wish.
Mr. Bryden: The theme of the bill is to give the general public the opportunity to see what the salaries of the chief administrators are, because they are the ones who are so often controlling the organization, and who are sometimes controlling the organization in spite of the directors.
Mr. Bélair: So what you're saying, Mr. Bryden, is that in your mind -
The Chairman: Out of respect to Mr. Lefebvre, let's try to complete Mr. Lefebvre's answers first.
Mr. Bryden: I'll come back to it later.
Mr. Bélair: Mr. Lefebvre has indeed answered my question.
The Chairman: I think Mr. Deshaies has a short question.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Instead, I'd like to make a short comment on the objective Mr. Bryden is trying to reach. One has to wonder whether the Department is able to get the relevant information. At least in the case of charitable organizations, it's a matter of determining how the information can be made available. Do we need another bill that would force these organizations to release that information? For the time being, I think that we must continue to ask ourselves whether the public should have access to that information, except for the non-profit organizations.
Mr. Lefebvre: At present, the information available to the public is for charitable organizations. If someone asks for that information, he or she can get it.
Mr. Deshaies: But why isn't that information available for the non-profit organizations?
Mr. Lefebvre: That gets back to a question that Mr. Bélair asked. Why is there a distinction between the two kinds of organizations? The only explanation that I can give you is that over the years, charitable organizations have benefited from dual tax privileges. They do not have to pay tax on their own revenues, and they can also give a tax break to donors.
Consequently, charitable organizations represent a much larger tax expenditure than non-profit organizations, which do not pay tax on their revenues but cannot give their members a tax break.
Over the years, legislators have asked charitable organizations to be more transparent, because so many donors benefit from a tax break. As a result, we have more information about charitable organizations than about non-profit organizations. Often the latter are private organizations whose members are entitled to have access to this information.
.1145
Mr. Deshaies: In 1995, could this concern for transparency prompt the Minister of Revenue to obtain similar information from non-profit organizations, so that it wouldn't be necessary to pass another bill, which would create more paperwork? Everyone agrees that there is already too much legislation. Would this concern for transparency satisfy a need in 1995?
Mr. Lefebvre: I'd like to discuss this with my colleagues of the Department of Finance. The whole debate would be on whether there would be a tax purpose. Even if the objective is not to make the information public, would this help us better understand the sector and would it be useful information? This information should only be asked for a specific purpose. We haven't had that debate yet. Of course, it is a debate brought about by this bill and which we will hold if it is useful.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd (Durham): Maybe I could follow on your point, which basically was that there's been no reason in the department to study this in the first place. I think that's where we first came into this discussion, on the question of using Revenue Canada as a regulator. It seems to me that the objectives of Revenue Canada are not particularly to deal with accountability and disclosure but rather to deal with tax collection and enforcement.
This may well also tell us why it has been the administrative regulatory practice of Revenue Canada over the years not to require this information and not even to be that diligent about whether or not it's reported. I think for legislators, that's the prime issue here. You've already told us we can't attain the objectives of this bill to deal with the non-profit sector without a legislative format in the first place.
It seems to me the residual, then, is that we could somehow do a regulatory thing to do with charities, but even so, the history has not been.... I would question whether you feel it's your mandate. You're talking about going and talking to the finance department and so forth about whether it's an objective of transparency. I wonder whether it's an objective of Revenue Canada to enforce this in the first place.
Mr. Lefebvre: If the senior officers of a charity are paid so much or so much, it's very difficult for the tax administration to make a judgment on whether someone should be paid $30,000 or $40,000. So the main purpose of having a public return that contains that information is to make it available to the public. The basis of the credibility of the charity sector is transparency, because they live from donations and they need credibility. Therefore, we make it our business, if anyone wants the information, to get it for them.
It is my strong belief that most charities, in good faith, fill in the form or the annual return as best they can. Yes, in our estimation, 25%, perhaps a bit more, have this particular line blank. There are good explanations for most of them. Again, if someone asks for the information because they want to donate or they want to have more information about an organization, we'll go and get it. But it's not my role or my minister's role to pass judgment on whether a charity pays its officers a bit too much or a bit too little. That's beyond our scope.
Mr. Shepherd: May I be so bold as to suggest that the original reason why that line is on the charitable return in the first place is to allow or afford Revenue Canada the ability to see whether there are T-4 summaries that have been filed and whether in fact those people have recorded their income for tax purposes. Isn't that the primary objective?
Mr. Lefebvre: I doubt it very much.
Mr. Shepherd: There's no cross-reference to whether they filed T-4 slips?
.1150
Mr. Lefebvre: We don't ask, if you look at that line, for names. You just have the total remuneration of a number of officers.
Listen, this goes back in the mists of time, but I doubt very much that this was intended when this public return was developed.
Mr. Shepherd: But in conclusion, it is fair to say that we cannot obtain the objectives, at least to deal with the non-profit sector, and indeed there's some question about the regulatory aspect without an actual bill as opposed to just doing it all through a regulatory process.
Mr. Lefebvre: It is certainly correct that without legislation we cannot make public the remuneration of non-profit organizations.
The Chairman: Mr. Epp, do you have a question for Mr. Lefebvre?
Mr. Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Strahl is our expert on this today.
The Chairman: He's the flavour of the day, is he?
Mr. Strahl: I'm the winner of the day.
I'm interested in the way Mr. Bryden's bill is put together, so while I have you here, maybe I'll ask a question. Is there any provision for the remuneration of officers of political parties? Are they public through the tax system, to know what they're getting paid?
Mr. Lefebvre: I'm sure they're not.
Mr. Strahl: This was something that was brought up: why pick on charities, why not political parties? They get huge amounts of money from the government and there's no accountability for the salaries they pay their officers. Is there no provision for public disclosure?
Mr. Lefebvre: I don't know of anything through the tax system. I don't know if the Chief Electoral Officer or someone else gathers information in that regard, but to my knowledge, through the tax system we don't get information.
Mr. Strahl: Thank you.
The Chairman: If there are no more questions from the members for Mr. Lefebvre, I have one question that I guess is more for my understanding.
I think I understand that on the non-profit side you think there is room for compiling more information for one purpose or another. On the charity side my understanding - and this is where I want you to confirm - is that if you were to act upon some of the ideas you've expressed in changing form T3010, we could wind up with a situation something like this one, which I'll give as an exmaple. That charity pays - I can pick any figure out of the air - let's say $500,000. There are six corporate officers who fall within the reporting category. If you were to require them to report in ranges, in tranches of, say, $20,000, presumably we then could break down the $500,000 according to the six corporate officers, finding out how many earned between, say, $30,000 and $50,000, how many earned between $50,000 and $70,000, how many between $70,000 and $90,000, and so on.
Am I on the right track, Mr. Lefebvre?
Mr. Lefebvre: Yes, we could do that. That would be a way to divulge the information by range, which is more precise than having the total divided by the number of participants.
The Chairman: And the practice is about a $20,000 range? Is that the custom around here?
Mr. Lefebvre: There are not that many bills. For the whole public sector in Canada, it varies depending on the provinces and the federal, and ranges are what is most prevalent. It is in the public sector. It varies. But $20,000...or the breakdown could be a bit finer. I guess it's a balance between privacy; why go to the last cent if it serves no useful purpose?
The Chairman: It's your understanding that if you were to act on these administrative changes, on the charity side, the charities would not take umbrage. They would not object. They would be supportive. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Lefebvre: We would do more consultation if we were to take those steps, but the information we have so far on some minimal consultation is, yes; it's affirmative.
The Chairman: Thank you for coming. I appreciate your coming. This isn't the first time you've appeared, and we've appreciated the information you have given us.
.1155
Mr. Lefebvre: Thank you very much.
Mr. Bellemare: Following the discussions this morning, and after reading the letter that Revenue Canada sent, I've prepared a motion for the committee.
The Chairman: Do you want to introduce the motion now?
Mr. Bellemare: Yes, but before I introduce the motion, I'd like to explain why.
I've been consulting with my assistant and -
The Chairman: Let me just find out whether or not a motion is in order, at least at this point.
Mr. Bellemare: Okay. I'll read the motion and then I'll address it.
The Chairman: I understand you can move a motion.
Mr. Bellemare: Thank you.
Since the Department of Revenue Canada appears able to reach the objectives contained in Bill C-224, namely, amending the current Revenue Canada public information reporting requirements for all charities to include the specific remuneration and benefit information of senior officers and directors, in amending the information return of form T3010 under the Income Tax Act to ask charitable organizations for more detailed information, be it resolved that consideration of Bill C-224 be set aside until the Department of Revenue Canada provides further information to the committee on the above points.
The Chairman: Do you have copies of your motion, and can you distribute them?
Mr. Bellemare: Yes.
May I explain...?
The Chairman: I think so.
Mr. Duhamel: Could I just get a clarification? Mr. Bellemare is going to explain the rationale: what happens then in terms of House procedure?
The Chairman: I would think that first of all, we have a motion, and we'll have to discuss the motion. I would think we would hear from the Bloc, the Reform Party and then the Liberals.
Mr. Epp: On a point of order - this is for my own education - is it required in the committees that we have a seconder to these motions?
The Chairman: No, it's not, but we can have one if someone wants to second it.
Mr. Epp: I just wanted to know if it was a legal requirement.
Mr. Bellemare: I think the philosophy of the committee and the intent of the mover of Bill C-224, Mr. Bryden, if I understand it, is one of creating transparency and accountability.
From what was given to us this morning, Revenue Canada collects data so that there is compliance with the laws concerning Revenue Canada. They are not there to pass judgment on whether or not someone should be getting so much money, this amount of money or that amount of money, as far as a salary goes. Their case is that the law should be respected and should be complied with.
Now there's a different twist or turn. The MP wants more transparency and more accountability. It appears those two cannot be met at present because of a Revenue Canada form that appears to be incomplete. Revenue Canada appears to have given us the answer this morning that, yes, by changing some lines, all that information can be added, can be gotten on the form.
As far as divulging information is concerned, it would be their decision to divulge the information or that part of the information required so that the public is informed.
The Chairman: Mrs. Chamberlain wants to speak, but I think we're going to have to go in party order.
Mr. Bellemare: If I may, there's just a small phrase to add at the very end. In English it would be ``to the committee on the above points.'' In French it would be ``sur ce sujet.''
Mrs. Chamberlain (Guelph - Wellington): This is not a question, it's a clarification on this.
.1200
Because we're asking for Bill C-224 to be set aside, is there no time line? Would we not look at a time line of September, for instance, or whenever?
The Chairman: The time line, as I read it, is when Revenue Canada provides further information.
Mrs. Chamberlain: But that might be never, right?
The Chairman: I would doubt that.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I'm not trying to be smart. I wonder that we don't ask for a time line. Is it left open for whenever or whatever?
The Chairman: You may want to talk to your colleagues about that, Mrs. Chamberlain. I'll take note of it.
Mr. Bellemare: The question is well put. It begs the question to Revenue Canada. Even if they did it right away, would the form be done in time for the next taxation year by doing it today or by doing it in September or October?
Obviously, Mrs. Chamberlain has a point. We certainly would be more than offended if Revenue Canada couldn't come up with the answer before September or October, at the very latest, when we come back.
As a matter of fact, they've already given us the answers this morning. Now they have to show it on a modified form. It doesn't take a lot of effort to do that, following their presentation this morning.
The Chairman: I think we are going to have to go the parties.
There is the other thing. According to what Mr. Lefebvre says, there obviously would have to be some consultation as well. I assume that would take some time.
Let's go to Mr. Deshaies.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: I'm inclined to support Mr. Bellemare's motion. However, I would like us to check the French version, in the second paragraph, to see if, in the first paragraph, the purpose is to state that Revenue Canada should create additional requirements for non-profit organizations. I have already talked about this with the representative of Revenue Canada, Mr. Lefebvre. It's the purpose of the first paragraph.
Mr. Bellemare, you wanted the Department of Revenue Canada to ask non-profit organizations, for more detailed information which isn't the case now. Is that right?
Mr. Bellemare: Yes.
Mr. Deshaies: In the second paragraph, as far as charitable organizations are concerned, the French version says ``à but non lucratif''. You probably mean charitable organizations.
Mr. Bellemare: Yes, I mean charitable organizations. I should have written ``organismes de charité et organismes à but non lucratif''.
Mr. Deshaies: The first paragraph includes non-profit organizations. It's okay. The second paragraph would deal with charitable organizations. Since they already have form T3010 -
[English]
The Chairman: If I understand Mr. Deshaies properly, I think he has a point, Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Bellemare: Yes.
The Chairman: In your second point, you should be referring to asking non-profits for more information, not the charitables.
Somebody might want to help me, but I think that would be more in line with what Revenue Canada is saying.
Mr. Bellemare: Instead of ``all charities'', ``non-profit organizations''?
The Chairman: No, I withdraw. I recant. I was thinking of something else. Just forget about that.
Is everybody straight on that?
Mr. Duhamel: You may recant and withdraw, Mr. Chairman, but with respect, what was the point our colleague raised?
[Translation]
I'd like to understand. Perhaps he could repeat his comment because I lost track a little bit.
[English]
The Chair: The clerk is talking to Mr. Deshaies. I think he can give us a clarification in a second.
Mr. Bellemare: I think the member makes a good point. You don't see a problem in English, because the right word is written down, ``charitable''. In French, there is a mistake in the translation. I put ``non-profit organization''. In French it should have read, instead of à but non lucratif, de charité. He is right.
.1205
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Epp: I have a couple of questions here. First of all, is it intentional that non-profits are totally excluded from this motion?
Mr. Bellemare: No.
Mr. Epp: You deal only with charities.
Mr. Bellemare: The problem lies with charities and non-profit organizations. I wonder if it would answer to Mr. Epp and Mr. Deshaies if I wrote both terms, ``charitable organizations and non-profit organizations'', so that they're both addressed. Would that be better?
The Chairman: I don't think so.
Mr. Epp: I'm just wondering why the exclusion. I also have some serious questions as to the intent of Mr. Bellemare's motion.
Could we not in fact proceed with the bill and with amendments to it that would achieve his objectives through revisions to the Income Tax Act forms? Surely we have the right as a committee to pass legislation, or at least to bring it to the House, that would be so set up.
We've obviously identified, by listening to witnesses and others, that to ask for a new form is undesirable. It increases costs to the department and it increases work for the organizations. But just amending the existing form to achieve these objectives is presumably cost-effective, and no one has any serious objections to it. Then it could be achieved.
So instead of saying let's wait until Revenue Canada reports back to us, why don't we go ahead and do it? We're in a position to tell them what to do; we don't wait for them to tell us what we can do. That's my view.
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Chairman, I basically want to reinforce what Mr. Epp said. It seems to me that this motion only deals with the charitable aspect of the bill. We've already heard from Revenue Canada that they do not have the legislative authority to put in force the intent of the bill as it applies to non-profit organizations. I don't really see the purpose of the motion.
I do have a number of amendments here that would in fact improve the bill and I think answer a lot of the concerns a lot of members have had. But this motion is basically taking it off the table and putting it in the hands of Revenue Canada, an authority that has never been interested in obtaining this information in the first place, and then giving them an open door to come back whenever they feel like it. That's what this says.
The Chairman: Well, the motion is on the table. We certainly could hear from Mr. Bryden.
We'll go to Mr. Murray.
Mr. Murray (Lanark - Carleton): I just want to echo the sentiments of Mr. Shepherd. Having listened to Revenue Canada this morning, I have no faith that the bureaucracy will do the job they want them to do. That's the impression I've been left with. I'd prefer to see us deal with amendments to the bill.
Mr. Strahl: I have three or four points here.
First of all, this amendment means there is no way of ensuring that the department will actually act. They say they will act and they say they may do this and that, but there's no way of ensuring that. This motion does nothing to make sure of that. So I'm reluctant to just hand it back to the department, because government action is almost an oxymoron.
As well, if the House prorogues this spring - and there's a chance of that - Mr. Bryden's bill will be lost. If that's the case, then it will drop to the bottom of the Order Paper and all the things -
.1210
An hon. member: No, it disappears.
Mr. Strahl: It disappears. Yes, it goes into gaga-land. If that's the case, then all the work that has gone into this until now will be truly lost.
The third point is that the timing of this motion isn't good. At the very least we should have heard Mr. Bryden at some length.
The Chairman: When are you going to speak to the motion?
Mr. Strahl: Well, I know, but I had all kinds of questions to do with amendments and ideas, and so on. I think we should have listened to Mr. Bryden specifically on that.
Lastly, it's possible that this bill could be amended to my satisfaction. I'm not keen on it the way it sits, but I am willing to listen to the amendments I heard proposed by a couple of members already. I think it would be wiser to listen to the amendments. If there's no satisfaction and we don't see that it's a great improvement upon the status quo, then we can reject it. But I'm reluctant to reject it or put it into a holding pattern now. It would be better to go through this process for another day or two.
The Chairman: Let's hear Mr. Bryden on the motion.
Mr. Bryden: Simply to say, Mr. Chairman, that I regret the motion that came before my presentation, because I feel I might have been able to contribute to this debate without Mr. Bellemare's motion. But I think all the people have commented, and I will respect their comments and not go further than that.
Mr. Duhamel: I want some clarification here. I understand the points that have been raised. If I'm given the time, then I will deal with them one at a time; that is, that we hear from Mr. Bryden or we do not, that we proceed to look at the amendments or we do not, or that we deal with this motion. I just want to understand what are the difficulties with the motion.
As I understand it, there are two categories of organizations. One is where it's appropriate to change the forms and there is some confidence that the information that's required would be very much in line with what Bill C-244 proposes. I think everyone, including Mr. Bryden, is agreed on that particular point.
There's another group of organizations where it is not possible at this time to get sufficient specifics with regard to salaries that I understand the bill might get at. A number of questions have been raised with regard to how appropriate that was, and what have you.
If we look at this particular motion before us, I just want some clarification on it. My understanding is that the concern that's been expressed here is that it deals with one group of organizations only. It does not look at the other group of organizations.
Is that correct?
The Chairman: That's a question. Yes.
Mr. Duhamel: It would be more appropriate then - and let's not make a judgment as to whether or not this motion would pass - that there would be an amendment to this particular motion -
The Chairman: To refer to the non-profits?
Mr. Duhamel: - to refer to the non-profit organizations, because without that it is an incomplete motion, as I understand the discussion that has occurred.
Just to sort that out, are we saying that...? I'm not reaching conclusions. I want to know what the problem is here. I understand that there would need to be a statement to the effect that the Department of National Revenue, in conjunction with Finance, would look at measures for non-profit organizations that would permit us to reach the goals as articulated within this particular bill.
Is that the sense? Is that the direction? Or am I off base?
The Chairman: If I could just jump in here, I think Mr. Lefebvre was saying that they are compiling information about non-profits and they would like to have some time to do that. So perhaps your amendment could simply reflect their wish to have some time to compile information.
Mr. Duhamel: And then report back to the committee?
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): I want to clarify, just in case not everyone heard that point on page 3, or they missed that point.
Non-profit organizations did not file any returns with Revenue Canada until 1993, and they started to do that because Finance is starting to take a look at those types of organizations and the tax implications behind them. So in some ways you have to look at the whole reason for them filing since 1993 and not prejudge what their determination of that is going to be.
The Chairman: Mr. Duhamel, you could probably just put in after point two: ``Revenue Canada compiling further information relative to non-profit organizations''. Probably that would meet your concern.
Mr. Shepherd: But we just heard from Mr. Lefebvre that he doesn't have the legislative framework to require accountability and visibility of those salaries, the very essence of the bill. He's saying there is no legislative framework for Revenue Canada to do this.
.1215
The Chairman: Maybe the Minister of Finance could, if not Revenue Canada.
Mr. Shepherd: Are you saying you want the Department of Finance to enter a bill of its own to take the place of Mr. Bryden's?
The Chairman: I'm not indicating that. What I'm hearing from officials at Revenue Canada is that they're compiling information about non-profits. Once they have compiled the information they can make whatever recommendation they like. It may be for further legislation from the Minister of Finance or whatever, but if I'm hearing Mr. Lefebvre properly, he's saying they want more time regarding non-profits.
Mr. Bryden: In my view this motion basically says the bureaucracy should be creating legislation and not members of Parliament. You're putting the onus on Revenue Canada to make recommendations about the form legislation should take.
I'm coming before you with a bill that fully addresses - particularly in its amendments - all the concerns expressed by Mr. Lefebvre; most of the concerns that were expressed by the various people who appeared before the committee; and most of the concerns expressed by members of this committee at the time of discussion of the bill. I leave that thought with you.
Mr. Duhamel: I want to make an amendment in the spirit of what I think is missing so we can deal with this and then decide how we are going to proceed. I'm trying to capture the elements that were made here and I won't be offended at all if someone straightens this out.
I understand there's a part missing and we might reach that objective by adding the following phrase as a third point: ``that Revenue Canada compile more information with respect to non-profit organizations''. I guess the implication there is that it report back to this committee subsequent to having done so in order that we can decide what else needs to be done.
Have I captured the concern?
Mr. Bryden: The difficulty is that Revenue Canada can't disclose that information to you because it's privileged under the Income Tax Act. They can't give it to you anyway. You have to pass legislation to bring that information before the public forum. They already have the means of collecting the information I require for my bill. My bill permits Revenue Canada to disclose that information, but unless the bill goes forward and is passed into law or you pass a separate bill that is new legislation, you cannot get any information from non-profit organizations; it is all privileged.
The Chairman: I think we should be calling the question soon.
Are you going to be distributing an amendment Mr. Duhamel?
Mr. Duhamel: Yes, I'd like to.
Mr. Shepherd: I'm certainly opposed to the motion. Having said all that, as a minimum we should put some kind of time line on it, such as September 30.
Actually, I think it's an insult to legislators.
Mr. Strahl: Can I move to table this motion until we hear from Mr. Bryden?
The Chairman: You'd have to have unanimous consent.
Let's hear about Mr. Duhamel's amendment.
Mr. Duhamel: As I understand it, the motion would now read as follows:
- Since the Department of Revenue Canada appears able to reach the objectives contained in Bill
C-224, namely - and the same section would appear here, with the amendment reading:
- Revenue Canada compile additional information with respect to non-profit organizations, be it
moved that Bill C-224 be set aside until the Department of Revenue provides further
information to this committee on the above points.
- There has been a suggestion made that it would have to be amended and that it be done by no
later than September 30 - if someone is going to make that motion.
.1220
Mr. Lefebvre: As I mentioned before, we are in the process of changing quite substantially, after two years of consultation, the whole annual return of charities. That would be included in that process. We're trying to get all the charities and the people we consult with on side, and certainly we are well advanced, but I think on that consultation, to get charities - like anyone else - to pay attention during the summer may be a bit more difficult. I think if we could have a bit more time it would ensure a better result.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I need to ask for clarification on this amendment from Mr. Lefebvre. The point has been made by Mr. Bryden that this would not address the concern he originally initiated with his bill, which is disclosure. I don't really see in this where it does say disclosure would happen. Would it or would it not? Can you clarify that area for us all, please?
Mr. Lefebvre: With charities there is already disclosure and there are means administratively to improve and to increase disclosure. All the remunerations of the senior officers of charities can be made public administratively without changing the legislation. With respect to non-profit, we can request information from non-profit organizations. That is where I mentioned that we might, having had this debate here, consider whether we should change the form to request that information, but we cannot at the present time make that information public.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Chairman, that is the crux of this whole thing. The reality is that we can only ask for the information but we can't make them give it. That's really the issue for the committee to decide: do they want disclosure on non-profits? Isn't that really the issue here, in a nutshell, or have I missed something?
The Chairman: I don't think you should ask me. Let's do one thing at a time.
Mr. Duhamel: As I understand it, disclosure is now possible; the intent is to tighten it up. Perhaps Mr. Lefebvre can address that.
I need another clarification. You said you're in the process of refining the instruments, etc., and September 30 might be a little tight. Is it your intent to do it by the next taxation year?
Mr. Lefebvre: Charities have different taxation years. There is an ongoing inflow of annual returns. Every day we receive some, depending on the numbers of months after each period, but it varies. There is no particular date where you have to come up with a new return.
Mr. Bryden: May I make a comment as well. This present situation is that there is no provision at all in law for obtaining the public disclosure of the remunerations of non-profit organizations. When it comes to charities, there is no mandatory requirement that they disclose. What exists now is that they are requested to supply this information on the charity form; Revenue Canada has the discretion, but it's not mandatory, it doesn't have to do it, to require that information be supplied. All my bill does is make it absolutely mandatory that the charities do supply that information and that non-profit organizations have to supply the information as well.
Mr. Duhamel: I have perhaps a final statement with respect to the motion before us. To me, what Mr. Bellemare, our colleague, tries to do is to say the following, and I'm going to try to summarize it: much can be done from an administrative regulatory perspective. I guess it's his wish, and I would support it, that this be tried rather than this other instrument, Bill C-224. There is a question of additional costs with Bill C-224. There's possibly a question of invasion of privacy - and and I know there are different opinions on that. There's a question of constitutionality, which has just been raised.
.1225
We clearly know that Bill C-224 has not been well received by charities. Perhaps this is for the wrong reasons. I'm not putting a value judgment on this.
I think it's incumbent upon us to see what can be done administratively and from a regulatory perspective before proceeding with such an instrument. That's nothing negative toward Mr. Bryden. I told him he's raised an important point, and I put it in writing.
Whatever happens, whether or not Bill C-224 goes forward, and whether or not administrative corrections are brought forth, an important point will have been addressed in a positive sort of way.
I will support this motion because I believe it's something we need to try before proceeding further. That's my comment.
The Chairman: I think we should be getting to the vote on the motion. We'll hear from Mr. Strahl and then we'll vote.
Mr. Strahl: I may have agreed with Mr. Duhamel, and I may yet, but the problem I have with this motion is that we haven't heard from Mr. Bryden. I may yet be convinced of the argument that I think is coming forward, which is that we can do it administratively. But we have not been gracious enough to listen to the mover of the bill, the guy who has put in all of the work to get it to this stage, and I think this is wrong.
Perhaps we could move ahead with this motion later, but I would ask you to defer the motion now, until we hear from Mr. Bryden, and then by all means, if we don't like his arguments, somebody can move this. But it seems to me it's wrong to get to this stage and not hear from the mover of the bill. Afterward, we may say he's out to lunch, but meanwhile, I'd like to hear what's on for lunch.
The Chairman: Let me say this. Mr. Bryden has already been a witness, and he was good enough to come back today. He's here as a clean-up witness, if we get to that point, but we have the intervention of this motion.
Let me say a couple of things before the motion. We've had a senior government employee come before the committee today, and as I understand it from Mr. Lefebvre, he has made, on behalf of the government, a couple of major commitments. He has said that they are going to act on changing the forms with respect to charities, that the ambiguity will be taken out, and that there will be much more information made available.
He has also said that the government needs time to compile more information relative to non-profit. As a committee of the House of Commons, if we have a major government figure coming before us making a commitment of that kind, and asking for more time to gather and to provide information, I think it behooves us to respond in a positive way.
Let me also say this. There have been a lot of concerns - I'm sure you people have seen your fax machines as well - from both the charities and the non-profit organizations, and they do indicate they can support administrative changes along the lines Mr. Lefebvre talked about.
There is also the matter of timing. Think of this private member's bill. This private member's bill has not been with us very long. We have another private member's bill that we haven't deigned to look at and it has been before us since 1994.
I see nothing to be lost. I can understand Mr. Bryden's angst if somehow or other prorogation comes along and wipes out the bill. Those are the hazards of Parliament Hill. I think all of us have had very serious disappointments with respect to private members' bills and motions.
I can tell you that I went before the same committee Mr. Bryden did, and they wouldn't even make it non-votable. I can tell you that I was very angry. So we do have our disappointments.
I see nothing to be lost, except for adding to Mr. Bryden's angst, if we wait until the fall. Mr. Duhamel has added ``September 30'' as an amendment. Mr. Lefebvre has indicated that perhaps it's a little bit short. Here it is verging on the middle of June and we're virtually upon summer holidays. I suppose in the workaday world we're probably asking the department to do all this in a matter of five, six, or seven weeks. I don't know whether that's enough time.
.1230
You might want to reflect upon that specific date, but I think we should simply get to the amendment first.
Mr. Duhamel, would you like to read the amendment so we'll be absolutely clear.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I want to understand, Mr. Chairman. If we were to give this an opportunity to work, how does that fit into Mr. Bryden's concerns that initially started this bill in motion? How do we get back to that point, then? Does it all just die?
The Chairman: I don't think it does at all.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Where does it go?
The Chairman: If I understand the motion, the consideration of the bill is set aside until we will have further information from Revenue Canada.
Mrs. Chamberlain: But then are you saying that in the fall we could come back and we could return to his bill?
The Chairman: Yes.
It is simply a set-aside. That's all it is. It is nothing more than a set-aside.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I don't understand this. Some are saying no, that it is gone.
The Chairman: I can ask the clerk for an official answer.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I don't understand; I'm sorry.
The Clerk of the Committee: [Inaudible - Editor]...once Mr. Lefebvre, from Revenue Canada, comes back with answers, then you could call Revenue Canada back to see what they've done. You're the committee; you're the ones who decide.
Based on that, you could decide to go with amendments if you're not satisfied with what Revenue Canada has done. If they have fixed up most of it and you're happy, then you might not go forward with Mr. Bryden's bill, and if you're happy -
The Chairman: All we're doing, in effect, is delaying until we get more information.
Mrs. Chamberlain: On that, Mr. Bryden could come back in the fall and introduce amendments?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Bryden: There's a chance we're not going to be here because the House will prorogue. It's time for a prorogation.
The Chairman: With respect, Mr. Bryden, that's pure speculation. You might be absolutely right. I don't know.
Shall we hear the amendment? Let's vote on the amendment.
Mr. Duhamel: There were two amendments. One was that the information be received by September 30; but having heard Mr. Lefebvre, that seems to be putting him in a difficult situation. To be fair, preferably it should be no later than September 30, and you will give reasons why it has to be longer. That would be one amendment.
The other amendment would be that Revenue Canada compile more information with respect to non-profit organizations and report to this committee subsequent to having done so.
The Chairman: I'll call the question on the amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mrs. Chamberlain: I want to understand. We've passed this, so what is the process from here on? Does Mr. Lefebvre comes back by September 30 and explain the changes?
The Chairman: My understanding is that Mr. Lefebvre or Revenue Canada will come back by the end of September and tell us where they stand. You could enter into a number of hypotheses. They might come back, for example, and say they need another two weeks. I guess it will be up to us whether we want to extend it by two more weeks or whatever. That would be my understanding.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Where would Mr. Bryden fit into this?
The Chairman: When we come back to consideration of the bill, Mr. Bryden is back on.
Mr. Bryden: It's as dead as a doornail. That's the end of it. It's gone. We voted it out of existence.
The Chairman: I don't agree with that.
Mr. Bryden: It's killed.
The Chairman: Anyway, this meeting stands adjourned.