Bill C-4 (Historical)

Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act

An Act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the House is once again considering Bill C-4 at report stage. A number of amendments were suggested subsequent to the work on the bill in committee.

We are dealing with motions that the Chair has designated as Group No. 2, specifically Motions Nos. 3 and 4 moved by the member for South Shore, in an effort to provide more restrictions in the bill to the terms of office of the directors.

I will deal with those specific points in just a moment, but I wish to make a couple of observations in response to the hon. member from the Bloc who has just spoken. Her criticisms of Bill C-4 were not in terms of what the bill is trying to achieve with respect to sustainable development.

As I understood them, they were twofold: first, there had not been ample consultation with all other players and stakeholders, particularly the provinces and, second, the foundation being proposed in some way duplicates that which is already in place in some provinces, most especially the province of Quebec. With the greatest of respect, neither of those criticisms is valid.

I say this for these reasons. First, Bill C-4 and all other measures included in Government of Canada action plan 2000 and identified in the budget of February 2000 with respect to climate change flow from over two years of the most comprehensive, open, transparent and inclusive consultation there has ever been on an environmental and developmental topic.

Members will recall that the Kyoto conference occurred in December 1997. In a meeting with the Prime Minister not more than 48 hours after the conclusion of the Kyoto protocol, the provinces insisted that there be a very thorough process of consultation. It would specifically include the provinces, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, the scientific community, the municipalities, and virtually all Canadians to fully scope out what the climate change issue was and what the implications of the Kyoto accord would be.

The Government of Canada agreed with that initiative and in the spring 1998 the consultation process began. It involved at least 16 different issue tables. It involved over 400 Canadians from every province and territory. It involved all municipalities that wanted to be involved, as well as scientific and non-governmental organizations. It included every dimension of Canadian life from coast to coast to coast. It was open, transparent, inclusive and comprehensive.

The idea for the sustainable development technology fund flowed from that process, which went on for the better part of two years. It cannot be said that there was not ample consultation. There was fulsome and very strong consultation which most definitely included the Government of Quebec and a whole range of non-governmental interest in the province of Quebec.

The proposed sustainable development technology foundation does not duplicate work that is already being undertaken by somebody else in some other jurisdiction. We have been very careful in defining the role of the new foundation. It is filling a gap in the innovation chain. It is not duplicating or overlapping with something that is already there. It is filling a gap that is problematic at the present time. There is common agreement among our private sector stakeholders that the gap needs to be filled and the foundation is the preferred method of filling that gap.

We have continuity from the very early stages of abstract and pure science through all the intermediate stages where that science becomes more defined and more applied, to the final end of the process where it is commercialized and put to work in the economy. This new fund and the new foundation will not cause an overlap or a duplication with something that somebody else is already doing in some other jurisdiction.

What it does is that it adds new funding to help us all meet the challenge of sustainable development. All federal, provincial and territorial ministers of energy and the environment, all those in the private sector that we consulted, the environmental organizations and the scientific community, would all agree that if there is one thing we need from all sources, federal, provincial and territorial with the private sector, is more money into the equation to help us find those sustainable development solutions.

We are not overlapping. We are not duplicating. We are acting on the basis of ample consultation, bringing another $100 million to the equation to help solve the challenges of sustainable development for the future.

When we have an absolute shortage of funding, adding another $100 million to the overall pot does not constitute overlap or duplication. It represents a very solid investment toward a larger solution.

Specifically on the points raised by the member for South Shore in Motions Nos. 3 and 4, Motion No. 3 is essentially aimed at staggering terms of office and Motion No. 4 is aimed at limiting the time in office that any particular director can serve.

While I recognize what the hon. gentleman is trying to accomplish, I respectfully suggest that the language already in Bill C-4 provides flexibility for the ongoing board of directors to function in a most appropriate way and that the restrictions and the meaning proposed by the member for South Shore would really be counterproductive.

We cannot determine the value of directors in advance by arbitrarily saying that they will only have good ideas, that they will only serve in a proper fashion for one term and that then they will be burned out and we should cast them aside and get somebody else.

While it is desirable to have turnover, new blood and new ideas brought into the equation, it is better to leave Bill C-4 in the form as it presently stands, which provides flexibility in dealing with the terms of directors rather than trying to precisely describe when a particular director must leave office.

Directors who serve well, that bring energy, ideas, vitality and enthusiasm to their task, ought to continue, and perhaps indefinitely. They do not run out of ideas because they serve a certain number of terms or reach a certain age. These people may want to leave after one term. They may want to continue for three or four. We need to retain the flexibility to capture their maximum vitality rather than try to prescribe and limit in advance.

I simply do not accept the notion that we necessarily have to say in the legislation that they should be turfed out at a certain point. The legislation provides flexibility. It provides for appointment and then the possibility of reappointment.

Obviously at the time of reappointment an assessment would be made as to whether the person wants to continue and whether in the view of the responsible government of the day the person is making a valuable contribution that ought to be continued. It is proper to leave it flexible on that basis so that there can be rejuvenation from time to time and that those who are making valuable contributions can continue for the long term.

On the point about staggering, I certainly agree with the objective that we do not want all the directors coming and going at the same time. Obviously we would have to reinvent the wheel with each new board of directors every time.

That is a reasonable proposition. My only comment would be that the staggering of terms is already possible under Bill C-4 as it is currently drafted. Therefore specifically Motion No. 3 is unnecessary because the foundation already has the flexibility that is required to stagger the terms.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak once again to Bill C-4 and to speak to Motions Nos. 3 and 4. I will start by repeating my position that the bill has real merit. If the government sees fit to support my amendment in Group No. 3, we may yet have a chance as a party to support the bill at third reading.

Motions Nos. 3 and 4 are a credible effort by the member for South Shore to tighten up the bill, at least to some degree. Even if he were to achieve what he is suggesting in the motions, the bill would still leave a lot to be desired, but at least it would be a step in the right direction. We would be willing to support those two motions.

The whole bill has been created like a sieve, and I suspect that was deliberate on the part of the minister and the government. When the minister was before committee he suggested that some of the vagueness and loose wording in the bill was put there to allow maximum flexibility in the application of the principles of the bill.

That was admirable, but I think it is incumbent upon us, as an opposition to the government and in representing the concerns of Canadians, to demand some checks and balances in the bill that would protect value for money when we are spending taxpayer dollars. The issue of this particular group around the membership of the foundation and the directors of the foundation is one of the areas of concern.

The government refers to reasonable expenses and reasonable costs. To some degree it addresses the issue of remuneration for directors. It specifically leaves out any mention of remuneration for the chairman who is appointed by the governor in council or by the Prime Minister. This is reason to be concerned.

When we last visited the bill some days ago some members presented a number of examples of extravagant or ridiculous use of taxpayer dollars in government operations, boards, foundations and departments. Some of those examples were a bit extreme but they did point out why we should be concerned.

The example I would use concerns Mr. Ted Weatherill who was a government bureaucrat. He was under the same guidelines of reasonable expenses and reasonable remuneration. He turned in a bill to taxpayers for $21,000 in three years for his travel expenses. These things actually happen. It is not a figment of anybody's imagination. The concern is legitimate when we are dealing with this matter.

We could fix the bill. We could make it a bill that we could support in the interests of cleaner air and a cleaner environment. However we cannot support it because it is custom made for the abuse of tax dollars. It would not take an awful lot to fix it.

When we were last debating the bill the minister said that the criteria and the funding agreement would be tabled in due course and that if we or other members of the House had a problem with it we would have an opportunity to bring it forward and discuss it.

That is quite true, but if there is one thing I have learned in the seven years I have been here, it is that a member can bring things to the House and discuss them until he suffers from premature failure of his vocal chords and nothing will happen. The fact that we can discuss issues in the House does not mean that the concerns are ever addressed.

It would be much more prudent to fix the bill before we passed it and to address our concerns so that we could then support the bill.

We support this group of motions. They are well intended and move in the right direction, although they fall far short of fixing the bill. At least it is an honest effort in the right direction. When it comes time to vote we will be supporting the motions.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-4, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 6 with the following:

“viour for terms that do not exceed five years and that are staggered so that not more than four terms will expire in any year.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-4, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 6 with the following:

“for one term not exceeding five years.”

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 3 is an amendment to clause 10 which amends the terms held by the directors of the foundation.

As the legislation exists now, directors are appointed to terms of five years. The motion would ensure that terms are staggered in such a way that there would be a turnover of directors to bring in new ideas and prevent stagnation at the director level. In short, directors would serve staggered terms so we could bring in new directors. The directors would appoint new directors. We would continually bring in new ideas from professionals, university professors and many different segments in Canadian society.

At the same time, we would state that no more than four terms would expire in any year. That would mean continuity and that directors would never be left completely in a void. They would have some institutional memory of the board and would understand and have some knowledge of the history of the board. If we did not do that there would be a risk that they would lose that institutional memory. That is the reason for this amendment.

I would hope that the House and the members of the Liberal caucus and the government would support that amendment.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak at report stage to Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.

In other words, the federal government wants to get involved in one area so that the concept of sustainable development can be applied in several areas of our society and so that we can gradually eliminate any development that does not take environmental issues into account.

We all agree with this objective. I think we all want any future development to be sustainable and to comply with sustainability requirements. However this bill needs to be strengthened and expanded. It requires some additional elements.

The first group of amendments deals exactly with that. These amendments are designed to strengthen the rules for choosing the evaluation mechanisms and the criteria for the projects funded by the Canada foundation for sustainable development technology.

The proposed structure of the foundation leaves ample room for laxity. Members of the board of directors will be appointed in part by the government and those chosen by the government will then appoint the others. With such a structure, we could very well see projects being funded that do not necessarily meet the objectives of the foundation but rather those of the government's friends. This needs to be clarified.

Let us not forget that the auditor general has denounced the government's custom of creating more and more foundations that are not really accountable to the House since the cabinet ministers in charge of them do not in effect control their activities nor do they have criteria to ensure that projects were accepted correctly.

In the present case we would have expected firmer assurances from the government that the money would be spent appropriately. In fact, that is the main problem with this bill.

This bill does not take into account the fact that a fund has already been created in Quebec for the same purpose and that it would have been much simpler to give the money to Quebec in order to increase the effectiveness of the Fonds québécois pour le développement durable.

It is quite surprising to note that the bill defines the concept of sustainable development but does not quite define the objectives of the approved projects.

I even predict that one, two or three years down the road projects will be denounced in the House as being absurd because they would not correspond to the objectives of a foundation such as the one considered for the sustainable development technology.

I am therefore inviting the government to pay attention, to listen, to study and to analyze the amendments proposed in this first grouping.

They will provide us with precise criteria for the awarding of contracts. We will have mechanisms for measuring completed projects to see whether their bottom line has changed society, ensured that the development was indeed sustainable, and saved us from situations such as we have seen in the past, for example the catastrophic groundfish strategy. That is one development in which long term sustainable development was not taken into account.

Then there are far more subtle points relating to the whole greenhouse gas issue. The foundation also needs to be looked at in terms of its objectives. Will it give an equal opportunity to provinces that already have measures and programs in place to deal with the greenhouse gas issue?

I know that Quebec has already done its part, while other provinces have not. There is often a connection with their energy production. They might turn to this foundation for more funds. This does not mean, however, that people in all parts of Canada ought not to be entitled to their share of the funds set aside. I feel that the bill as it stands is too vague, too imprecise on these points.

We do not have sufficient guarantees that the effectiveness of the program will be assessed. That is why we want the criteria to be tightened up so as to ensure that by the time third reading is reached the bill will have integrated the amendments required to give it some teeth. It will then be possible, if ever the foundation made a poor choice of projects, for funding to be taken back and a warning issued to project managers to change their way of doing things and to make sure the money goes to the right places.

As for the appointment process, we really have no guarantee that three, five or ten years down the road the criteria will have been applied properly as far as sustainable development is concerned.

In short, Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology, is a good and desirable idea. However, it does not suit the Canadian situation because it does not respect provincial jurisdictions. It does not reflect the fact that Quebec is ahead because it already has its Fonds pour le développement durable.

The bill must be amended and refined to include many more of the elements that would make it an effective tool to stimulate initiatives in sustainable development so that, 10 years from now, we can say that Canada has in fact made the shift to sustainable development and that the foundation responsible for this has reached its objectives by respecting the specific characteristics of each region of Canada.

These things are missing from the bill. This is why we find the bill unacceptable in its present form. We ask the government to support the first series of amendments we proposed. Others will follow.

We hope that the government will accept our suggestions to avoid having to come back to the House in one, two or three years to completely rework the legislation or, worse, being faced with scandals or outrageous situations.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-4. I support the remarks made by my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, and who reported what he heard to us. We could almost say that he reported what he did not hear since, except for the minister and departmental officials, there were no other witnesses.

The Minister of Natural Resources told us before oral question period that there would be a consultation process. I would like to know if the bill is so perfect why there is a need for further consultation once it is passed.

It does not make any sense. Usually, when the government wants to introduce a bill, there is a consultation process which often takes place at the committee stage.

There is something else, something important. If the government really thought this bill was important, we know it would have passed it a long time ago. We also know that this bill replaces a bill—I think it was Bill C-46—that was introduced in the previous parliament.

I deplore the fact that once again the government is bringing back a bill that died on the order paper. Why did we have an election last fall? I know what it did to me. I was about to introduce a private member's bill that could have been passed and implemented before the election, but the Prime Minister decided to call an election before I had a chance to do that.

Now this bill is coming back to us as Bill C-4 to do what? To establish a new foundation. We could say yet another one.

Each time we in the Bloc Quebecois have questioned the relevancy of a new foundation. Generally speaking why is a new foundation needed? I took part in the debate on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, another government agency.

Let us remind members about the millennium scholarships foundation. It was used by the federal government to interfere in provincial jurisdictions and hand out scholarships, and yet education is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Now we have a new foundation to fund sustainable development and studies on new technologies. It is hard to be against a definition of sustainable development like the one we have in this bill, because it states the obvious.

The bill reads:

“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

I am told that the budget of the foundation will be about $110 million. That is not very much for the kind of work it will have to do, which is almost the equivalent of the program of the whole government.

Going through a foundation is a different approach than the one the government normally uses, either through its departments or through agencies over which there is some control by cabinet, and therefore parliament, because we can ask the ministers questions in the House every day, ask questions and try to get answers to understand the way things are done, why money was spent, and so on.

When the government tries to justify the creation of a new foundation, it tells us “It is important for this to be done by an organization operating at arm's length from the government”. At first glance, this looks interesting, particularly since we wonder sometimes, every day in fact, how certain departments operate.

It would be great if everything were at arm's length, but we need only look at the nomination process. The chair is appointed by the governor in council, or the cabinet. Six members out of 15 are appointed by the cabinet and the others are chosen by the ones appointed by the cabinet. That is not very reassuring. Then the members choose the officials who will be in charge of operations. All this is done in a very independent fashion, far from the usual rules for hiring public servants.

Nobody is against sustainable development. Like all the other parties the Bloc Quebecois supports sustainable development. The provinces also support sustainable development. Quebec has created a foundation, a special fund to finance projects on new technologies that do not impact on the environment.

Everything should be clear and all levels of government should agree. According to information I got, the consultations dealt with sustainable development and the objects and purposes, but not with ways of proceeding, not with the structure. This is a new structure will operate at arm's length from the government but be controlled by the government, the cabinet, not by the department. We know who is the boss in the cabinet right now; it is the Prime Minister.

It is somewhat like the ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister and responsible for watching over him. Here we have a process that turns itself around and could be fairly dangerous, even though it has noble objects.

Quebec has had for several years a foundation dealing with the same kind of projects. It would be normal that the federal foundation operate in co-operation with the provinces.

This is not so sure, since admissibility criteria are not defined in the bill or their definition is so vague and so unclear that anything or nothing can be done at the same time, notably things that are already being done by provinces.

Those are the main reasons why I feel we cannot vote for this bill. The bill itself, even taking into account the motions put forward, raises so many questions that we cannot vote for it because the bill is really vague and unclear. On the contrary, legislation should be clear, applicable and applied.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this detailed discussion about some of the aspects of Bill C-4.

I note that when the bill was debated at second reading and, for the most part, when the bill was before the committee, there was a great deal of positive commentary, not only from government members but also from members of the opposition, about what the legislation is intending to accomplish.

While some of the remarks made today have been critical and some, quite frankly, entirely off the mark, there has been, at least with most members, an undertone of support for what is being attempted here, the objectives of the legislation.

Specifically, with respect to Motions No. 1, 6, and 10 that we now have before us, Motions No. 1 and 6 are an effort to identify in the internal operations of the proposed fund and foundation a specific role for provincial ministers of the environment.

Quite frankly, I tend to agree with the remarks made by members of the Canadian Alliance and for the Conservative Party that such a technique would lend itself to the possibility of fragmentation, to potential confusion and perhaps even inconsistency as to what the foundation is attempting to accomplish. Therefore, I do not support Motions Nos. 1 and 6.

However, there are other reasons why I would not recommend Motions Nos. 1 and 6 to the House. First, this legislation is based upon more than two years of the most open, transparent and comprehensive consultation that has probably been undertaken with respect to any legislation. The provinces were thoroughly involved in that process, the municipalities were involved, the private sector was involved, academic institutions were involved and non-governmental organizations were involved. Every aspect of Canadian life was consulted in that two year process and the sustainable development technology foundation is the product of that process in which all of those players participated. The consultation was very thorough and included all of the provinces as well as Quebec.

When we announced the Canadian action plan with respect to climate change last fall, which included the concept of the sustainable development technology fund and foundation, the Minister of the Environment and I immediately took that concept to a joint meeting of ministers of energy and the environment that involved all of our colleagues, federally, provincially and territorially. At that meeting where all of this was discussed, the chair, who was the minister from the province of Quebec, was exceedingly supportive of what was being proposed in relation to our action plan and all of the other various elements of the approach that we are taking with respect to climate change.

Therefore, I can say with full confidence that the provinces have been engaged with respect to this process and have been very supportive with respect to the concept of a sustainable development technology fund and foundation.

I would also add that the process of consultation is not yet over. We have established a national implementation strategy. We have established a process of rolling three year business plans to continue the work with respect to all of the initiatives we would undertake with respect to climate change so the provinces and all other stakeholders would have further ample, ongoing opportunities to have input and be a part of this whole process.

Therefore, again I would say, based on that consultation which has taken place, based on the fact that consultations will continue through the national implementation strategy process, based on the need for national consistency, which I mentioned at the outset, and based on the very practical fact that this is a foundation at arm's length from government, meaning not only the Government of Canada but the governments of the provinces too, it seems to me that Motions Nos. 1 and 6 should not be accepted by the House and that the structure that has been described in the legislation itself should be proceeded with.

On Motion No. 10, I would simply make the point that the gist of the motion is already covered in the legislation itself. In other words, Motion No. 10 is redundant. Bill C-4 requires annual reporting on the foundation's activities. That reporting must include, among other things: the foundation's audited financial statements; detailed statements on the foundation's investment portfolio and its funding activities; a statement of the foundation's plans for fulfilling the objectives of the fund for future years; and an evaluation of the overall results achieved by the funding of projects year by year and accumulatively since the very start of the foundation.

If we read what is actually proposed in Motion No. 10 with a proposed change to clause 30(1)(c), it seems to me that in the language of the legislation every point that has been suggested and the amendment is already covered in the bill itself.

The reporting that would be required of the foundation would be made public. It would be tabled in parliament so that members of parliament would have access to it. If members wished to discuss that report in detail before any standing committee of the House, they would be at liberty to do that.

The funding agreement that is contemplated by this legislation would spell out the requirements of the annual report in detail. In addition, the funding agreement would call for an independent interim and final evaluation to ascertain the results that are achieved, including measurable results against the funds' objectives and, of course, the funding agreement would be available to the auditor general.

I simply make the point that while I understand what the Conservative amendment is trying to accomplish, all of the things that are contemplated in the amendment are already embedded in the legislation itself. Therefore, the proposed amendment is redundant.

For all of those reasons, I would recommend to members of the House that Motion Nos. 1, 6 and 10 should be defeated because they do not add anything that is material or new in terms of this legislation.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4 this morning. This bill seeks to establish a foundation to fund technological support for sustainable environment. We are currently at report stage and we are debating Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10.

Before telling the House how the government should have dealt with these amendments, let me say that sustainable development is an issue about which I care a great deal. It is important to provide sound development and a sound environment, for ourselves and for future generations.

However, we must recognize that the federal government is putting this priority behind its visibility. The bill creates new duplication and intrudes on provincial jurisdictions. This will have a negative impact on the protection of the environment and on sustainable development.

Once again, the federal government is opting for confrontation instead of co-operation with the provinces. Unfortunately, this cavalier attitude has become a trademark of the Liberals. The creation of the foundation is yet another example, after the millennium scholarships and the legislation on endangered species. Do not get me wrong: I support sustainable development.

What I am objecting to today is this unacceptable duplication by the federal government. Let us take the case of the endangered species. We all know that habitat protection is a provincial jurisdiction. The Minister of the Environment has introduced a bill, now in committee, that protects habitats but not species on federal crown lands. There is an inconsistency here.

Someone suggested this analogy earlier. The federal government is behaving like a parent who tells his neighbour how to raise his kids but is incapable of parenting his own properly. It is not surprising that groups such as the Sierra Club have given the federal government a failing grade as far as environmental protection is concerned.

In short, the federal government is only concerned about visibility, not about funding sustainable development technology. This dear government is so proud of waving its beautiful red and white flag in every part of the country but what it is really involved in is nation building, desperately trying to create a Canadian identity.

To take another example of development, this time one related to the economic development of the regions of Quebec, at the present time the federal government is financing the CFDCs, the Community Futures Development Corporations, to the tune of more than $100 million yearly. Yet the government of Quebec already has regional development mechanisms of its own.

Then there are the CLDs. Instead of following the Quebec trend of allowing considerable leeway for concerted efforts at the regional level, the federal government is focusing everything on the centre, that is Ottawa, while disguising this operation by a series of initiatives targeting specific groups.

The most indecent thing is that the federal government imposes criteria of visibility in its contracts. Of the four economic development agencies in Canada, only the one for Quebec is under the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue. It requires the Canadian flag to be raised in exchange for funding. This is what makes me say that the federal government is more concerned with its visibility than with regional development and the examples of this keep on increasing.

It is clear that the funds allocated to the foundation responsible for funding sustainable development will be tied to the same mandate: acting as a foil to the foundation that already exists in Quebec.

I point out that the Quebec Fonds d'action pour le développement durable has a budget of $45 million to integrate and promote sustainable development and establish ecological infrastructures and biodiversity, that it is experimenting with technology which has an environmental impact, and that it provides fellowships and internships.

Having seen the success of the Quebec model, the federal government is trying to duplicate it from scratch at the federal level. If the Liberals were really serious in their desire to promote sustainable development, they would have acted together with Quebec. But no. Once again the story is confrontation, as in the case of the millennium scholarships. Instead of creating a foundation the federal government should send money to the provincial organizations working toward the same goal as foreseen at the issue table and having the expertise.

The members of this foundation would practically all be appointed by the governor in council. The bill provides that the governor in council, on the recommendation by the minister, shall appoint 7 of the 15 directors of the foundation. However, the other eight are appointed by them, by those appointed by the governor in council. How ridiculous. Finally, the chairperson and all the directors can be removed for cause by the governor in council.

This method of appointment seems to be a roundabout way for the federal government to hang on to the reins in an area of provincial jurisdiction and to maintain control over an organization that would not be accountable to parliament. As I said earlier, I am in no way opposed to sustainable development.

Through the very able member for Sherbrooke, the Bloc Quebecois is moving various amendments, the purpose of which is to improve the bill and to allow the Quebec fund to continue to operate independently of the federal government.

We are asking that those provinces that so request, or Quebec anyway, should be able to opt out with full compensation, i.e. 25% of the fund, so as to prevent amounts being paid to an eligible recipient when a similar project already exists in the province concerned. In this case, the amount should go to the already existing projects, first, if the province concerned so requests and, second, if it justifies its need for additional funding in terms of objectives set at the beginning of the project.

In addition, through the voice of our very able colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, we wish to include a clause requiring that the members and directors of the Canadian foundation be bilingual and, finally, that documents produced by the organization be accessible in both French and English.

I will stop here. The bill, as drafted, does not require the organization to be bilingual, which is unacceptable. We all know that the Liberals are completely incapable of ensuring the survival of French outside Quebec. Furthermore, the official languages commissioner observes year after year that the Liberals are not taking corrective action. They have a wonderful opportunity here to do something about this state of affairs by supporting our amendment.

In short, I will conclude by saying that, through this bill, the government is trying to raise its visibility in exchange for protecting the environment. All the federal government is doing is hurting Canadians: millennium scholarships, regional development. Once again, it has failed, as it did so monumentally in the case of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to debate, at report stage, Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.

Just to remind members, as well as the people who are watching the debate today, in the 2000 federal budget the Liberals announced that they would be creating a sustainable development technology fund and that they had earmarked $100 million in initial funding to the sustainable development technology fund. It was a very good initiative that should have been taken a long time ago, but they took eight or nine years to implement their own red book one promise.

For the benefit of those who are watching, 10 amendments have been put forward at report stage. They are grouped into three different groups. In the first group we are debating Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10.

Members of the Canadian Alliance support the intent of Bill C-4 but we have a few reservations and some amendments to suggest dealing with the non-involvement of the auditor general in the whole process. We are also concerned with the patronage appointments to the board of directors. We feel that the government is using this bill for patronage appointments of failed candidates.

With respect to Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10, Motions Nos. 1 and 6 are very similar in nature. They would bring provincial ministers of environment into all discussions regarding the criteria of eligibility for receiving funds. Being so, it would introduce different criteria of acceptance into every province, The 10 different provinces may have 10 different criteria, that is the potential.

The bill desperately needs uniformity. It is so poorly worded and poorly drafted that even the minister has had to put forward amendments at this late stage in the debate. We believe that the uniformity, which is desperately needed in the bill, may be lost when different criteria for funding are applied to different provinces and territories. By allowing these amendments to pass, it would make already cumbersome legislation much more clumsy and difficult to deliver. Therefore, the Canadian Alliance will be voting against Motions Nos. 1 and 6.

We will be supporting Motion No. 10, which was moved by the Progressive Conservative Party member, because it attempts to curtail some of the vagueness in the bill by including the eligibility criteria for receiving funds.

On behalf of the people of Surrey Central, I will be pleased to support Motion No. 10 and oppose Motions No. 1 and 6. I will keep the rest of my comments in reserve until the bill comes back to the House for third reading.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first off, let us say that Bill C-4 provides for the establishment of a foundation, so we should oppose it right from the start.

Why should we oppose it? Because the Bloc Quebecois has certain concerns about the creation of foundations. We have already had experience with the millennium scholarships foundation, which involves an area under the jurisdiction of a province, Quebec.

Obviously the points of concern and the Bloc's position relate primarily to the division of jurisdictions. Quebec already has foundations for environmental action.

The matter of concentration of power in a foundation is also of some concern. There will be an opportunity to develop this a little more later.

The definition of the expressions is also another matter. The bill refers to “eligible project” and “criteria of eligibility”. There was a national issue table on the environment and there are fairly substantial inequalities in this regard.

As concerns Motion No. 1, subclause 18(1) talks of meeting the eligibility criteria it sets out. As I was saying earlier, subclause 18(1) is not necessarily very clear about work or criteria.

Even though the government's intentions in establishing a foundation are noble, Quebec already has foundations for the environment, so it is understandable that our intention is to avoid a duplication of efforts.

When it comes to the environment intentions are always noble, but we wonder about the process. Right now we can see that there will again be duplication. We have no details on eligible projects and on criteria of eligibility. At this point we are still in the dark, which means that there will certainly be an abuse of power, given the provisions of the bill.

For all intents and purposes, the Prime Minister will appoint seven members to the foundation who in turn will appoint eight other members. The Prime Minister will again be able to appoint people. As the auditor general often pointed out in his reports and recommendations, those appointed to various foundations and organizations should first have the required qualifications, instead of being close friends.

Let us look at Motion No. 6, which deals with subclause 18(1). It proposes the following wording for that clause:

18(1) The Foundation, the Governor in Council and a provincial minister responsible for the environment may, by unanimous consent, establish criteria of eligibility to be met by the eligible recipients who carry on or will carry on eligible projects primarily in the province of that minister.

This was one of the first concerns that I expressed to the House: duplication and up to a point interference.

Things should be clear. Even though the foundation's ultimate goal is a noble one, provincial foundations including those in Quebec also have major environmental concerns. In order to avoid duplication it is obvious that ideally the provinces should have the right to opt out with full compensation so that they can decide on fundamental measures regarding the environment.

I submitted a number of motions to the committee in that regard. Some members of the committee told me that such changes would be too substantial. These changes would not have substantially affected the noble objectives relating to the environment. However, from an operational point of view, these changes were obviously major ones. The changes proposed in the amendments did respect jurisdictions and sought to avoid duplication.

When a government reaches the point where it collects way too much tax, given its mandates and responsibilities it always ends up intruding on something. The foundations are a prime example of that.

Under the bill the government is prepared to invest over $110 million. Again, this is not enough. At one point during the consultation process it was said that an investment of close to $1.3 billion was required for new technologies and sustainable development so as to fight greenhouse gases.

I believe, therefore, that the amendment contained in Motion No. 6 concerning subclause 18(1) is relevant, helps respect jurisdictions, and will enable us to prevent duplication so that the priorities of the provinces and of Quebec will be better served. The foundation's objectives, I repeat and will continue to repeat, are noble ones. There is money available, but people are already working hard in these areas. They have the expertise and the know-how to identify their priorities.

Obviously we agree with the motions in Group No. 1, that is Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10. Motion No. 10 moved by the member for South Shore also meets with our approval because during a meeting of the committee we moved a similar motion telling the government that the foundation would have to put in place screening mechanisms.

If the federal government puts large amounts into intentions—obviously there is even applied research—and only into intentions, there is a strong risk that money will be spent in sectors or on studies that will go nowhere.

What is needed is some screening within the foundation with respect to eligible projects, criteria and results. It goes without saying that this is important and we also support this motion.

The Bloc Quebecois will oppose the establishment of this foundation because it does not respect jurisdictions. It does not prevent duplication and it perhaps does not respect other priorities. It is very vague in terms of eligible projects and criteria, with the result that directions are not clear. In addition, people will be appointed to this foundation who also do not know what direction they will head in, but who will know very soon when the Prime Minister has had a word with them.

We will therefore be supporting Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-4, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 41 and 42 on page 16 with the following: c ) a detailed statement of eligible projects for which funding was provided and of the extent to which those projects may lead to measurable gains in respect to air quality and sustainable development;”

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague, the member for South Shore, who has been very instrumental in the clause by clause consideration of this piece of legislation, Bill C-4, in committee. The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, and I on his behalf, put forward an amendment that did not go to the committee. I thank the Speaker for his ruling that the amendment should, and well could be, placed on the floor.

As I indicated earlier this morning to the Minister of Natural Resources, there are some good amendments that come forward from the opposition side, and this is one of those amendments.

As the member for South Shore has indicated, there should be a detailed statement of eligible projects for which funding was provided. This speaks to the issue of the funding that has been put forward in the legislation. It has a tendency not to allow projects to have a closed portion of the funding. Also, there is a section which speaks to access to information where there should be transparency.

We have talked quite frequently in the House about the openness and transparency of the government. Certainly the foundation being proposed under the legislation should also fall under the rules where there should be openness. Public money will be expended and certainly those funds should be identified by the projects themselves and come back so that members of parliament recognize exactly how the funds are expended.

I put Motion No. 10 forward on behalf of my colleague. I suspect the government will look very seriously at passing the amendment.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-4, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 29 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2 with the following: b ) meets any criteria of eligibility established under section 18.1; and”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-4 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 11 the following new clause:

“18.1 The Foundation, the Governor in Council and a provincial minister responsible for the environment may, by unanimous consent, establish criteria of eligibility to be met by the eligible recipients who carry on or will carry on eligible projects primarily in the province of that minister.”

[The Deputy Speaker]

This is the ruling concerning the groups at report stage of Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.

There are 12 motions on the notice paper relating to the report stage of Bill C-4.

As I mentioned in my statement of March 21, the Chair does not intend to provide justification for the selection of amendments, or reasons for the non-selection of amendments, except where this is deemed necessary or appropriate.

Since this is the first report stage ruling since my statement, I feel that it would be appropriate to briefly outline my approach to this bill.

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources considered this bill at clause by clause on March 15. This was prior to the statement that I made in the House outlining the guidelines that I will be following for the selection of motions at report stage. Since members could not have known about the new application of these guidelines at that time, I intend to be more generous in exercising my discretionary powers of selection.

Therefore motions which could have been proposed in committee stage but were not will be entertained on this occasion. However, in keeping with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), motions which were defeated in committee will not be entertained once again at report stage. Consequently five of the motions submitted by the hon. member for South Shore at report stage, namely Motions Nos. 2, 5, 7, 11 and 12, will not be selected for debate because they were defeated in committee.

Seven motions will be selected for debate in three separate groups. The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the Table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make the weekly business statement and to indicate to the House that I intend to do my utmost to have order paper questions answered as rapidly as possible.

This afternoon we will resume debate on Bill C-12 respecting compensation for judges. We will then continue with Bill C-18, the equalization bill, which we started this morning. That will be followed, if there is time, with Bill C-17 respecting the innovation foundation.

On Friday we will consider report stage of Bill C-4 respecting the sustainable development foundation, and any time left will be used on second reading of Bill C-7, the youth justice bill.

In an effort to complete consideration of the youth justice bill, we will continue discussing that bill on Monday next.

Next Tuesday we will commence report stage of Bill C-8 respecting the financial institutions legislation. Should that be completed, we would then continue with Bill C-22, the income tax amendment. As previously announced and as adopted by the House, in the evening there will be a special take note debate on the summit of the Americas.

Next Wednesday, March 28, we will debate Bill C-2, the employment insurance amendments, at report stage and hopefully have third reading on next Thursday, March 29.

That is the agenda of the House for next week.

Committees Of The House

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources relating to Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology. It was agreed on Thursday, March 15, 2001 to report it with amendments.

Privilege

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend you for listening to the representations that were made in the House. I also commend you on your fairness and your integrity. I believe that when members of the House voted for you to take the chair, these are the kinds of fair and well thought out decisions that members were expecting from you.

This decision certainly does not disappoint me. You in fact are upholding the integrity, not only of the rights of individual members but of the House with respect of your ruling. I think in the past the government has got away with some of these issues.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, you want me to move the motion, but I want to say that the steps you took were important to stop this slide. Therefore I move:

That the matter of the question of privilege raised on March 14, 2001, by the Member for Provencher regarding the Department of Justice briefing the media on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts, prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons and at the exclusion of members of parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Again I commend you, Mr. Speaker, on your fairness and your integrity with respect to your ruling. I will make a few comments before concluding this matter in the House.

Over the past number of years there has been a gradual slide in terms of the respect to which parliament is entitled. This ruling by you today does much to ensure that the integrity of the House and the process here is continued.

I challenge the Liberal majority in the House and on the committee to put aside its partisan issues, come to the aid of parliament and preserve its dignity, its authority and that of its members.

What you are doing today, Mr. Speaker, gives us an opportunity to take meaningful steps to deal with this very contentious and difficult issue.

I would like to put a few other situations on the record which I think may form part of the discussions that we will have in committee concerning the prima facie contempt that you have found that has occurred in respect of parliament.

I refer, to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board matter dated October 23 of last year. A government news release announced that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the new Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The nominating committee was to have been set up under a clause that had not yet been adopted by the House.

Similarly, on January 21, 1998, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4, tabled at report stage by opposition members, had not been debated, and while the House was still in the process of debating how many directors should be elected, the minister was in fact holding meetings as though the bill were already law.

We recognize that the Liberal government has a majority in the House and in committees but, for the integrity of the process, it is essential that members of the opposition, who were also elected by the people of Canada to represent their views, be given that opportunity.

While we have witnessed a gradual slide in the respect that the government has shown to the institution of parliament, your ruling today, Mr. Speaker, will, if the Liberal members opposite co-operate, bring about rules that will perhaps govern this kind of situation in the future.

This is not simply a matter that I, as an opposition critic, have been embarrassed or that my colleagues, who received phone calls asking for their comments, have been embarrassed, it is for the integrity of the House and for the voters who sent us here.

With those few brief words, Mr. Speaker, I again thank you. We appreciate the fairness that you have demonstrated. We look forward to working on a co-operative basis with all opposition members and Liberal members of the House whom I believe your ruling will also benefit.

If we follow the matter to its appropriate and proper conclusion, it will once again put parliament in the hands of the individual elected members. It will remind the members of the executive that even though they are appointed by the Prime Minister they must serve each and every member of the House in the same manner that we as individual members serve the people of Canada.