C470 Bill on Canadian Charity compensation passes House and now is on to Senate
Posted under News | Ethics and Canadian Charities
The House of Commons has had a third reading and passed C-470 on March 8, 2011. On March 9, 2011 it received first reading in the Senate and there will be second reading on March 21, 2011. If this bill passes the Senate, then Canadian registered charities will have to disclose the names of executives and employees whose compensation is over $100,000 per year, and not just the top 5 executives and employees, as of the 2012 financial year.
Here is from the Hansard transcript:
Private Members’ Business
[Private Members’ Business]
* * *
[English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-470, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (disclosure of compensation — registered charities), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker:
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
[Table of Contents]
Hon. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
(Motion agreed to)
[Table of Contents]
The Speaker:
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1825)
[Table of Contents]
Hon. Albina Guarnieri
moved that the bill, be read the third time and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
————————————————————————————————————————
Hardly the sort of discussion one would hope from the house especially since some of the amendments relating to disclosure of all compensation over 100,000, not just top 5 people, was never consulted on with the sector.
The Summary now reads “SUMMARY - This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to require that every registered charity disclose any compensation it pays to any single executive or employee exceeding $100,000.”
Here is the link to the bill at amended and as passed http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5022981&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24
Here is a PDF copy of Bill C-470 as passed by House March 8, 2011
From the Senate’s website on March 9, 2011:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/093db_2011-03-09-E.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3
“Income Tax Act
Bill to Amend—First Reading
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-470, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (disclosure of compensation — registered charities).
(Bill read first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
(On motion of Senator Tardif, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)”
Post a Comment
Comments
While it is very unfortunate that industry leaders were not consulted, this is hardly non-normal practice for a bill coming back from report stage. Second reading, and then committee discussions, are normally where the action is.
[Kirk thanks for the comment - the issue was mainly that there was a major change from top 5 employees earning over 100,000 compensation to all employees earning that. This includes taxable and non-taxable benefits, pensions, over time etc. Many people earning a salary of 70 or 80,000 could end up on the list. There are so many more useful things that can be done the T3010. It is also said with 6 billion dollars in abusive charity tax schemes over the last 7 years, of which only 1% is spent on charitable activities, that the MPs spent their time on this issue. Thanks again for your comment.]
A bill to fix a problem that doesn’t even exist and where reasonable disclosure is already provided for through the the charities information return. Don’t our parliamentarians have anything better?
Agreed re: compensation and priorities. Not a very good use, and it goes back to the idea of this whole “rating charities” thing that came up with MoneySense as well.
If I spend $100,000 to get an awesome fundraiser who brings in an extra $200,000 per year that we weren’t getting before, have I done something incredibly bad? Yes, I’ve spent 50% of that money on a single person, but we also got $100,000 in *extra* that we did not before.