I would say that I think this is a flaw in the bill with respect to Mr. Pacetti, the sponsor, because the bill in clause 4 does not specify the instrument for prospective restitution, as it refers to. It doesn't specify that this would be in compliance with existing terms and conditions of Treasury Board guidelines or any other elements of the Government of Canada's financial management framework.
We had good-faith discussions with the four communities that signed this agreement. It's an agreement, by the way, that calls for no apology and no compensation. They asked if we could please set up an endowment, make a transfer to an endowment, and I said I'd be happy to look into that.
The officials came back and looked at the Treasury Board guidelines and they looked at the Minister of Finance's investment management framework for upfront funding. I'll boil this down. I guess one of your colleagues is not interested in the facts here. It essentially says that the organization has to have a certain track record of managing significant amounts of funds, have a strong accounting framework, etc.
When we looked at the foundation that they were asking us to fund an endowment for, it had $521 in assets, no revenues for that year, and hadn't filed its annual report. It indicated an intention of dissolving and had essentially no activities to report. It would be effectively illegal. I'll put it this way: it would certainly be a violation of all of the accounting and financial rules of the Government of Canada to vest an endowment fund in such an instrument, in such an organization.
That's not an insult against the people involved. I'm sure they're very good people, but for whatever reason, they hadn't maintained the management of this fund. They were not giving us something to work with. I told them that if they had a legitimate, well-structured foundation that could qualify, I would absolutely be willing to discuss transferring endowment funds.
Now, Ms. Minna has been saying--I think quite unfortunately, playing one community against another--that somehow I'm suggesting the Italian community couldn't manage funds and the Ukrainian community could. Look, the officials looked at the facts, not at opinions, not at community politics. The particular NCIC foundation clearly did not qualify, based on the analysis not of me but of the officials. The Taras Shevchenko Foundation, on the other hand, is a large foundation that has managed millions of dollars for many years with very robust activities and extremely robust accounting practices. It qualified according to the finance investment management framework.