Mr. Chair, I would just note from the outset, in responding to the honourable member's question, that when the Auditor General appeared before the committee.... I thought her comments were quite insightful. She explained that the nature of the structure of the organization created an inherent conflict.
To the honourable member's question, it's true. Having been at PCO for a long time, as I mentioned, I would say this is quite a novel structure. You have seven directors appointed by the GIC, and then those directors appoint eight other directors, and that whole board then appoints foundation members. They are “good behaviour” appointments, which means they can only be removed for cause, which is a very high bar for removing appointees. An example is if the government loses confidence or trust in the directors.
It was designed that way and approved by Parliament back in 2001. My understanding, from what I've read in the media, is that the intention at that time was to have a very arm's-length organization that would work in the clean-tech sector to support start-up companies, if you will. The committee is well aware of that.
From an appointments perspective, it is a novel structure, to the member's question.
Going forward, as the member has noted, the intention is to have it under the Canada Innovation Corporation. That legislation, again, was just recently passed by the House. The intention is to have a more typical corporation structure, if you will, whereby you have a chair and directors appointed by the Governor in Council, who serve at pleasure. Perhaps that will give the kind of structure that the committee is looking for in terms of accountability and transparency.