House of Commons Hansard #38 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was foundation.

Topics

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands deferred.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-4, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 10 and 11 on page 15 with the following:

“(3) If an auditor is not appointed at the annual general meeting in any fiscal year, the”

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-4 be amended by adding after line 7 on page 16 the following new clause:

“28.1 (1) The accounts and financial transactions of the Foundation shall be audited by the Auditor General of Canada at such time as the Auditor General considers appropriate, and a report of the audit shall be laid before Parliament.

(2) The Auditor General of Canada has, in connection with any audit made under subsection (1), all the powers that the Auditor General has under the Auditor General Act in connection with the examination of the accounts of Canada.”

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain what Motion No. 8 standing in my name is all about with respect to Bill C-4.

It is a consequential and technical amendment. The clause was amended when the bill was before committee. The clause allows members of the foundation to select an auditor at the annual meeting of the members, thereby alleviating the need to hold a separate meeting to appoint the auditor.

The new language of clause 26(1), as amended in committee, is as follows:

At the first meeting of the members, and in any subsequent fiscal year at the annual meeting, the members shall appoint an auditor for.

Upon reviewing the bill and after the committee had finished its work, it became apparent that a consequential amendment was required in subclause 26(3) to make subclause 26(3) consistent with the change made in committee to subclause 26(1).

Accordingly Motion No. 8 now before the House dealing with subclause 26(3) is that consequential amendment to make sure subclause 26(3) at report stage is consistent with the change made during committee hearings to subclause 26(1). It is not a substantive amendment but obviously the two subclauses have to be consistent.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister's amendment. It is an amendment that we intend to support. However I would say that it is a bit more substantive and important than maybe the minister would like to think.

Part of the problem with the legislation is the fact that some very important issues and a number of smaller amendments like this one have been overlooked in the drafting of the bill. Somehow this was overlooked when we were dealing with it at clause by clause consideration in committee. It is a housekeeping article but it is a very important housekeeping article.

What the amendment to clause 26 would effect is the appointment of an auditor by the members of the foundation. Under the legislation as it currently reads, if an auditor is not appointed at the first meeting of the members in a fiscal year the previous auditor continues in that role. The amendment would change the clause so that the auditor would be appointed at an annual general meeting in the fiscal year.

This was an issue that was discussed in committee. It was suggested that having the auditor appointed at the first meeting in a fiscal year could delay the actual appointment of that auditor. With the amendment the auditor is appointed at the annual general meeting and would be in place to audit the books for the forthcoming year, which is very typical of most institutions.

It is an amendment that the PC Party supports since it improves the accountability of the foundation, something that we have tried to do with previous amendments to the bill. We will be supporting the amendment and I congratulate the minister in bringing it forward at report stage.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Group No. 3 at report stage. The Canadian Alliance supports the minister's amendment. I share the opinion of my colleague from South Shore who just spoke. It is reasonable that the minister would make the amendment.

It is the sixth amendment the minister has made to the bill and it has not even passed report stage yet. It is one more indication of how sloppily the bill was drafted. The wording should be right before it is brought before the House.

Group No. 3 contains my amendment, the only amendment that the Canadian Alliance is suggesting for the bill. It is an amendment, if accepted by the government, that would allow us to support the bill because my amendment would allow access to the foundation by the Auditor General of Canada.

I raised the issue in committee where we had some discussion. The minister suggested that what I was asking was unnecessary because the foundation under the bill has a responsibility to appoint its own internal auditor to do the auditing of the foundation's business.

His suggestion that it was adequate to provide value for money by the foundation was ludicrous because the internal auditor has the responsibility spelled out in his job description. The auditor's responsibility is to audit the figures of the foundation, to see that the columns of figures add up properly and that the figures presented by the foundation reasonably reflect the business of the foundation.

The internal auditor in no way has any authority to look at the appointments of the foundation members, the board members or the chairman of the foundation, to see if those people chosen by the government have the qualifications to sit on the foundation or the board of directors. The internal auditor would have no way of passing judgment on whether or not groups of people or projects applying for funding under the foundation met the criteria for that funding.

There must be some check or balance. The auditor general could provide that because we do not want a repeat of what we saw in the billion dollar boondoggle of the human resources department where taxpayer money was shovelled out to ministers' ridings and to friends of the government who did not meet the criteria laid out in the bill. That could happen here again.

What happens if a business acquaintance of the minister or the Prime Minister, and we have just seen it with the Business Development Bank of Canada, applies under this foundation for funding for a project and does not meet the criteria laid out in the bill? The minister then suggests to the appointed chairman of the board that he would surely love to see this person's project qualified. Suddenly there is a change of heart and the project is qualified and away it goes.

It is fundamentally wrong. It is unethical and it has happened. I have used two example of how it has happened within the last couple of years with the government. There is no guard against that same thing happening with this foundation. That is unacceptable.

I would love to hear the minister defend how that would be prevented in the bill. It is a good initiative and we want to support it. I was sorry to listen to the Bloc Quebecois in debate going off on a tangent congratulating the new premier, most of his cabinet and all the rest of it, and talking about $100 million not being enough money to do what the foundation does.

The idea has merit. Even the flexibility built into the bill allows the government to take $100 million and leverage that many times over through the private sector to do some real good things.

If it is simply used to reward friends of the Liberal Party through misuse of the criteria and guidelines, and to shovel taxpayer money on to those who donate to or support the Liberal Party, that is unacceptable. We cannot accept that.

We in the Canadian Alliance are just as concerned about global warming and climate change. We want to do as much about it as we can. We support the idea of developing technologies that have the potential to reduce fossil fuel emissions and make the world a better place for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren.

At the same time we have a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars in a proper, ethical and legal way. I cannot help but conclude that the bill is deliberately drafted as loosely as possible to allow the abuses to continue. It is such a mistake.

One of the members in committee suggested that somehow we were straying from our fundamental philosophy of smaller and less intrusive government. When I suggested I would rather see the initiative stay in the Department of Natural Resources than be hived off to a foundation at arm's length from the government and out of reach of the auditor general, the member suggested that was somehow a breach of our basic philosophy.

I cannot see how whether the foundation is within the department or at arm's length from it would affect the size of government in any way, except to make government bigger and make eight more patronage appointments available to the Prime Minister.

Much is wrong with the bill. The safeguards required against the squandering of taxpayer dollars could be put in the bill by giving the auditor general access. I have not yet heard, either in committee or from the minister in the number of times he has addressed it, why that cannot happen.

I heard him defend the bill loudly last Friday when someone referred to the foundation as a crown corporation. He was quite adamant that it was not. Why, then, does he not allow the auditor general access to it so he can judge whether taxpayers are getting value for their dollars and whether it is achieving the wonderful things the minister suggests it can achieve?

It would be in the government's own interest to allow that to happen. It could then hold it up as such a shining example of an initiative toward cleaner air and the Kyoto commitment. It appears it will be much like everything else the government has said about the climate change initiative in the Kyoto accord. The government is forever talking about it and essentially doing very little about it.

The minister referred just minutes ago to his implementation plan to meet the commitment under the Kyoto accord. That too is quite ridiculous. If every objective including this one under action plan 2000 was met, it would take us only one-third of the way to meeting the government's commitment under the Kyoto accord.

I am truly disappointed that the government has not been more responsive to my suggestion. If it would accept it and allow us to go forward we would love to support the bill.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I will give the floor briefly to the member for South Shore under the auspices of a point of order. I will let him make a request and then I will take the matter up with the House.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I replied to the minister's comments it had slipped my mind that we were in Group No. 3 and that the motion of the hon. member for Athabasca is included in that grouping as well. It was my intent to reply to both motions. I replied to the minister's motion. I should have waited until the minister and the member for Athabasca both had a chance to have their say and then I could have raised it and had my say. I would ask the House to allow me a few minutes to sum up the member's statement.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the House give its unanimous consent to the hon. member for South Shore?

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my colleagues in the House. I will try to be fairly brief.

Motion No. 9 by the member for Athabasca on the sustainable development technology act is extremely relevant, important and substantive to this piece of legislation. The amendment would allow the auditor general to review the accounts and financial transactions of the foundation.

Within the realm of the House, the bounds and confines of parliament and what we strive to do as parliamentarians, surely that would be second nature to all of us. We should expect the auditor general to be able to review the account of any organization, especially one set up with government funds. The amendment would improve the accountability of the foundation and it is certainly one the PC Party supports.

It should be noted that the foundation will be established with $100 million of taxpayer money and may at any time be allotted more money by the federal government. I support the amendment so that the auditor general may oversee the use of this public money and ensure it is used in a way that promotes air quality and sustainable development.

The amendment was very similar to an amendment I put forward. It was discussed at committee and had a lot of to and fro from the government side and the opposition side. Those types of amendments are necessary because they are an opportunity for the foundation not only to review how the funds are spent but to review the projects themselves.

When we are dealing with $100 million of public money and the possibility of hundreds of millions more being added to the account, it is only fair that the auditor general be involved.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on Group No. 3 concerning the establishment of a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.

Group No. 3 includes two motions, Motion No. 8 and Motion No. 9. Motion No. 8 is simply a housekeeping motion. The motion was moved by the Minister of Natural Resources to change his own bill. We have seen in the House that many bills tabled by the government are poorly worded, poorly drafted and very sloppy. Many times they are not clear, concise, comprehensive or transparent. Many times what we see is one or two ideas and then a huge paper load of regulations following the bill.

I am glad the hon. minister has recognized that his bill is sloppy. He had to amend it six times. This amendment just deals with translation and is of a housekeeping nature, so we will support it.

We would ask ministers when they table bills in the House to look at them carefully. Bills should be properly drafted with contents where there is some vision of the government's direction on the issues. We do not want the government to govern the country through the back door, through the regulations. Let it govern by the bills which are debated in the House. The regulations are not debated in the House, so I call them governance through the back door.

Motion No. 9 also deals with the auditor general's staff. This is a new clause moved by my hon. colleague from Athabasca, who is the Canadian Alliance chief critic for natural resources.

According to the hon. member's motion, we are adding two clauses. They are:

The accounts and financial transactions of the Foundation shall be audited by the Auditor General of Canada at such time as the Auditor General considers appropriate, and a report of the audit shall be laid before Parliament.

It is a beautiful addition. The second clause is:

The Auditor General of Canada has, in connection with any audit made under subsection (1), all the powers that the Auditor General has under the Auditor General Act in connection with the examination of the accounts of Canada.

They are very attractive amendments. I will give a little background on the necessity of these amendments moved by the hon. member for Athabasca.

While the foundation provides an annual report each year to parliament, the foundation appoints its own auditor and has final approval of its reports before they are made public. While the legislation sets out rules as to who is eligible to be auditor, the government refuses to allow the Auditor General of Canada access to the foundation's books. That is not acceptable.

It is no wonder the government does not want the Office of the Auditor General of Canada involved. We have seen many scathing reports, one after another, criticizing the government very badly. The Liberals have had a difficult ride from the outgoing auditor general. His recent report was probably his most scathing indictment yet of the government. Each auditor general's report on the mismanagement of the Liberal government is worse than the previous one.

The official opposition wants these issues, the questions of who will audit the foundation and how appointments will be made to it, to be dealt with.

We are talking about an initial contribution of $100 million. Let us look at the multiplier effect when the private sector is involved. We are talking about a significant contribution of taxpayer money. We will not allow those two concerns to be swept under the carpet by the Liberals. That is why we have moved the two amendments.

The bill, as I said, is well intended. We would support the bill if this amendment were accepted by the government. However the current bill seems deliberately vague, perhaps to allow patronage, nepotism and misspending of taxpayer dollars to creep into the cracks.

By bringing in the Auditor General of Canada to examine the foundation's books, taxpayers would have greater protection against unchecked Liberal spending. I would therefore be very pleased to support Motion No. 9 because it attempts to restore accountability and transparency to the whole fund. It would protect the interests of Canadians and not just friends of the Liberals.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Before calling for a resumption of the debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West, Fisheries; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Agriculture; the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, Social Housing; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Fisheries.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the third group, Motion No. 8 deals with a technicality. However, Motion No. 9, presented by the hon. member for Athabasca, is essential. It is truly essential and fundamental in the context of the creation of a foundation.

As we all know, this government has made a habit of creating organizations, foundations and agencies to ensure that the auditor general cannot, for all intents and purposes, take a close look at these institutions or organizations.

We are all familiar with the work of the auditor general, which involves evaluating the objectives, the actions, the money spent and even the administrators. In some cases he did evaluate the performance of administrators and the appointment process of these same administrators since that process often seems to have more to do with rewarding an individual than determining his or her qualifications.

The objective of the government is to ensure that the auditor general does not have the opportunity to take a close look at the foundations as such.

If the auditor general had the opportunity to take an indepth look at the results, as they relate to the budgets or the objectives—the objectives are always laudable, but sometimes the means used to achieve them are not the best ones—he could evaluate the means used by the foundation to achieve its objectives.

If the auditor general could audit the foundation, it would alleviate the main concerns of the Bloc Quebecois regarding the establishment of that foundation. There are six such concerns and I will mention them briefly. The division of jurisdictions is one concern of the Bloc Quebecois. The fact that Quebec already has a fund is another concern, as is the fact that there is a concentration of powers within the foundation. The fact that the bill's definitions are risky, and even imprecise, is another concern. The inequality between the recommendations of the issues table and the bill, or the foundation, also concerns the Bloc Quebecois. Another concern, obviously, is the amounts allotted.

Therefore, any future audit of this foundation would examine the various points I have just enumerated, almost certainly justifying Bloc Quebecois concerns.

I will come back briefly to the division of jurisdictions. It would seem obvious that this is just an underhanded way for the federal government to intrude once again in the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec. Unfortunately, the bill has a very broad scope, leaving the door open to investing in an area of jurisdiction belonging to a province or to Quebec.

If an auditor general had an opportunity to audit the entire foundation, he could also comment on this aspect of jurisdiction, as it relates to objectives.

What is more, we know that problems often arise, that they are identified during audits, and that they justify the concerns of the opposition and of the Bloc Quebecois. Why not take pre-emptive action?

Furthermore, we asked that the auditor general be invited to appear before the committee, but this did not happen. Imagine how beneficial his presence would have been for the members of the committee who basically want the bill to be as effective as possible. The auditor general could have given his views before the fact because he would have been able to examine the bill and knowledgeably anticipate potential obvious problems. Unfortunately this did not happen.

Worse yet, the bill ensures that the auditor general will never be allowed to comment on the foundation.

The answer to that will be that there is an internal auditor. I have been involved in company auditing. My mandate was to balance the books, to see whether money had been spent in the right place, if everything balanced, if everything was okay. This is fundamental, because without the praiseworthy objectives relating to the environment this foundation would not exist. Are the financial actions that will be carried out by this foundation really in line with its objectives, or do they have some other aim in mind, one I shall leave to our imagination?

Another point on which the auditor general might voice an opinion when he audits the foundation is its very pertinence, compared to what is in place elsewhere.

As I have said, Quebec already has a fund. The creation of this foundation is surprising, given that Quebec already has its $45 million Fonds d'action pour le développement durable. This foundation divides its budgetary envelope four ways. I will spare you the list, but I will point out that the first one is again subdivided into three areas of concern. One of these is atmospheric issues in connection with sustainable development.

Instead of creating a foundation such as this, the federal government ought to simply transfer the funds to provincial bodies, including the Quebec foundation, that are already active in the area set out by the issue table and possess excellent expertise in this area. This would make it possible for use of the funding to be tailored to the financial means and priorities of the provinces and of Quebec.

For all intents and purposes, this would be one of the auditor's mandates if he were able to audit the foundation. He could say that the best way of attaining the foundation's objective would, in a number of cases, be to hand the money over to the provinces, Quebec included, given their existing expertise and the fact that they are in some cases far better equipped in terms of human resources and potential technological resources for sustainable development. In Quebec this technology has already been showcased internationally in connection with sustainable development.

The auditor general could also offer an opinion on the concentration of powers. The foundation members are nearly all appointed by the governor in council. The bill provides that the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister will appoint seven of the 15 directors of the foundation. However, the other eight directors will be appointed by the directors who were appointed by the governor in council.

Finally, the chairperson and all the directors may be removed for cause by the governor in council. This type of appointment seems to be a twisted way to allow the federal government to oversee matters in a field that is the jurisdiction of the provinces, or Quebec, and to keep control over a body that is not accountable to parliament.

We can see the relevance of the work of the auditor general in evaluating the reason for the appointments and the ability and relevance of some directors who, for all intents and purposes, are appointed for life, unless the Prime Minister decides to remove some of them whom he may find unsuitable in certain instances.

In short, it would have been very relevant to have the auditor general testify before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, so that before the fait accompli he could speak on the fact that he was not invited to audit the foundation and the fact that there are innumerable problems. In some instances we are totally in the dark.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion No. 8 agreed to)

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.