Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2005

Supply

[Sébastien Gagnon, Bloc, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Other hon. members have also addressed this question of the involvement of other partners with regard to these amounts.

I would like to get back to the essence of the issue. What is important for this House is that we have oversight, that we can follow the way this money is allocated and find out how it is used.

Perhaps we can see certain problems, and perhaps we will have an opportunity later to exchange ideas on the tangible form this audit may take. Here again, I make no claim to being an expert or doing the work of an auditor.

Still, what we need here in this House is reassurance. The sums of money involved may be large, as I said earlier. We are talking about billions of dollars. The important thing is that we know what the money is used for and that it can be audited under the auspices of the Auditor General.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, accountability can be defined as responsibility to account for and/or explain actions undertaken. Public accountability is where it is incumbent upon a government body, an agency, board or commission, to account to the electorate, or the wider public, for a decision, for example, on policy or involving the expenditure of public funds. This is a definition we all know and understand. It is a principle that should be the basis of good government.

However we are again talking about how the current Liberal government has once again failed to be accountable to the citizens of Canada.

In 1997 the then finance minister created foundations, non-profit corporations, considered to be at arm's length from the government. He has since put more than $9 billion into foundations and yet $7.7 billion sits in the bank. What mystifies me is that the government has recorded these payments as expenses, even though the foundations do not expect to use the money for a number of years.

The majority of Canadians cannot afford to have their government hoard their money away for years, unspent, while continuing to be overtaxed. What Paul Martin and the Liberals have done is used an accounting tool--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I would just remind the member for Simcoe—Grey that it is against the rules to use a member's name. She should use the member's title or the member's riding, but not the member's name, please.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister and the Liberals have done is use an accounting trick to mislead Canadians. They have told us that our surplus is much lower than it actually is because the excess money sitting in these foundations is, according to them, money already spent. However, the $7.7 billion surplus has been sitting in an unaccountable foundation out of sight and out of grasp of the Auditor General and outside the scope of the Access to Information Act.

While the Liberals have been throwing billions of dollars at unaccountable foundations, they continue to delay tax relief on hard-working Canadians, hard-working Canadians like the local farmers of my riding of Simcoe--Grey who continue to battle with the Canadian agriculture income stabilization program, the CAIS program, a program that has been universally rejected by producers across the country as a policy that unfairly hurts farmers.

Farmers in Simcoe--Grey have told me that the CAIS program is not working and it is not meeting their needs. In fact, the Liberal government has made the CAIS program so difficult that farmers must pay significant fees to farm accounts just to apply for the program.

It astounds me that government can so easily throw billions at unaccountable foundations to do whatever they please. However, it develops complicated funding programs for hard-working Canadians in desperate need.

The farming community is just one example. Municipalities across Canada have been looking for financial assistance to meet their infrastructure needs and have been left out in the cold.

Our seniors who have worked so hard for our country have been neglected by the government. Seniors should not have to worry about how they will pay for their medication. They should not have to take jobs long into retirement because the money they receive from government puts them below the poverty line. What really bothers me is, according to the Retirement Planning Institute, a significant number of Canadians do not receive proper Canada pension benefits. The government should be focusing on assisting our seniors. They should be respected and given the dignity they have earned.

The government needs to get its priorities straight. It needs to take immediate action to provide funding in areas that have been neglected, and it needs to be accountable for its funding decisions.

The Conservative Party of Canada agrees with the Auditor General when she said:

--decisions on funding and accountability should be based on the need for sound management of public funds; they should not be based on the goal of achieving a desired accounting result.

In other words, spend money where money is needed and account for it only when it is spent.

The Auditor General looked at three areas of accountability with respect to the foundations. She looked at reporting to Parliament, ministerial oversight and provision for external audit and evaluation. Her conclusion was that overall progress had been unsatisfactory.

This is the fourth time that the Auditor General has raised the issue of foundations with the government; first in 1997, then in November 1999, then in April 2002. The Liberals keep ignoring the warnings just like they did with the sponsorship program.

The bottom line is that the foundations are failing the most basic fundamentals of accountability. They are not answerable to Parliament through a minister, the Auditor General does not have access to them and Canadians have no idea if they get value for their $9 billion in hard-earned tax dollars.

The Auditor General also has indicated that the Treasury Board transfer policy, which came into effect in June 2000, requires departments to report to Parliament on transfer payments exceeding $5 million. They must include information such as objectives and expected results in reports on plans and priorities and evidence of related results achieved in departmental performance reports. However, the information tabled by the departments focused mainly on the foundations' expenditures and activities or on broad objectives that in many cases were not measurable. The outcomes or benefits for Canadians' hard-earned $9 billion was not adequately reported.

To date Liberals continue to deny the Auditor General access to foundations for no good reason. They claim foundations are doing good work for Canadians. If that is the case, why not open the books? What do they have to hide?

Canadians deserve results for their hard-earned tax dollars. The Auditor General's report on foundations has demonstrated that the Liberals continue to throw money around with little ministerial oversight, non-existent parliamentary oversight and with no accountability for their actions.

Once again, we see that the Liberal government and the Prime Minister have proved their lack of commitment toward running an open and transparent government.

I support today's motion, which reads as follows:

That the House call on the government to implement the measures recommended in the latest Auditor General's report to improve the framework for the accountability of foundations, in particular, to ensure that foundations are subject to performance audits that are reported to Parliament and that the Auditor General be appointed as the external auditor of foundations.

Canadians deserve accountability from the government, and they are sure not getting it from the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to straighten out a few facts. Foundations are asked to be audited, and they are audited on a regular basis. The departments responsible for those foundations have to ensure that those moneys are well spent.

It is not that the foundations are not audited. It is that the Auditor General cannot on her own go in and follow the money. That is what one says when one wants to have value for money audits. That is why we have been talking on this side about allowing the Auditor General to follow the money and not necessarily have to do the external audit every year, because she does not do the audits of every department every year. We should check with public accounting firms that can well do the audits. I think the problem would be solved if the Auditor General were allowed to do her own value for money audit.

I do not think the Auditor General has asked to be the external auditor of every foundation every year. I do not think that is in her report. However, she does want to have access to them, and we believe she should.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite is neglecting to understand here, and what I hearing in the House, is typical arrogance. The Liberals want to keep running business as usual. They are comfortable that the foundations are being run, and it is a secret to Canadians as to what is goes on in them.

The Liberals are ignoring the many calls from the Auditor General and Canadians to be accountable for the tax dollars. My constituents in Simcoe--Grey want to know what is going on with the $7.7 billion sitting in the bank.

The Liberals will not support the motion because they feel they do not have to answer to taxpayers. They continually talk the talk on accountability, but have failed to deliver.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to build a little on the last question and comment. This morning the minister said in the House that he felt these departments or agencies were being audited enough already. We do not believe that is true.

He also said that the board of directors should be able to pick the accounting firms to do the auditing. The member for Prince Albert pointed out the conflict that often arises from that situation, particularly in corporate circles. We expect, given the record of the Liberal government, that we would have some of those same problems there as well.

There is also a second problem with a board of directors being involved in auditing. We see that in the Canadian Wheat Board for which I am responsible as critic. The Auditor General was asked to audit the board, but the board set the parameters of the audit. All that could be audited was the office management and information systems to see whether they were set up efficiently. The Auditor General was not allowed to audit the important things, like whether the board had done an effective job of selling grain or any of its real financial systems.

I have a great concern that we trust the Liberal government to do the right thing for taxpayers. I think the member shares that same concern. There is a reason that this money has been removed from the sight of taxpayers, and that is so the Liberal government can carry on its social policy as it wishes, away from the scrutiny of the public.

Would the member like to make some comments about why the Liberals would assume that taxpayers would trust them behind the scenes with their money, given the terrible record they have with regard to other situations such as sponsorship and the gun registry. The Wheat Board audit would be another one of those issues.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I cannot come up with any good reason as to why anyone in my riding would trust the current Liberal government on any of the decisions it makes with respect to the Auditor General auditing the foundations.

Canadians want to know what is happening with their hard-earned tax dollars. I constantly receive correspondence in my office about the sponsorship scandal. They are watching it on television, but they are not getting answers. I receive that comment on a regular basis.

Because this is the fourth time the Auditor General has raised this issue and questioned it, they are concerned that they are seeing another sponsorship program unfold.

Therefore, I firmly support the motion that is in front of us today. I wish the Liberal government would do so as well.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair, and I am pleased to participate in this important debate. I congratulate my colleague from Simcoe-Grey for her very insightful comments with regard to the motion before the House. Similarly, I think the real crux of the issue was referenced by my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands when he said that this had all the earmarking of another boondoggle, another scandal as we have seen with the likes of the gun registration, the long gun registry, that was going to cost $2 million. We know it has escalated and is now approaching $2 billion. We know the situation involving the sponsorship program has criminal investigations ongoing. We know the Gomery commission is continuing to deliberate over massive misspending and misappropriation of public money.

I think Canadians are most struck with that. It is the absolute magnitude of the amount of taxpayer money involved in these programs.

The motion quite clearly calls for the window to be opened, to air out the government's activities, to shine a light in the corner of the government's spending practices. Clearly, this would be of benefit to everyone. Quite frankly it would be consistent with what the Prime Minister speaks of when he says there is a democratic deficit. It is beyond the pale. It is beyond any excuse why the government would resist this type of motion which seeks to accomplish the very words of the Prime Minister in addressing the democratic deficit.

In the absence of doing so, the democratic deficit widens. What Canadians perhaps do not understand about this exercise is it is aimed at allowing the Auditor General to do what she has done before. For had it not been the work of Sheila Fraser and the Auditor General's office and officials, perhaps the sponsorship scandal would have never been broken wide open.

We did our work here in the House of Commons, and there is a partisan element to that. What was most telling was what the Auditor General disclosed about the sponsorship program. She similarly disclosed in previous reports that the government was breaking every rule in the book to cover up and keep secret its activities around the spending of public money.

The motion is meant to empower and enable the Auditor General to continue with the good work that she has done in the past, and also previous auditor generals, in holding the government to account, bringing about greater transparency and responsibility in spending. Any resistance to this effort is really inexcusable on the part of the government.

Ironically, and I say this as an aside, what we saw happening in the wake of the sponsorship scandal was efforts to curtail the Auditor General from her good work by cutting her budget. That was the government's true response. Then there was the political exercise of putting it off to one side by calling for the commission.

It is incredible, at a time when the public inquiry is still ongoing into the very workings and inner workings of government, that the government would be resistant to somehow expand the mandate of the Auditor General to allow her to have the powers of an external auditor in these foundations to ensure that they are up to par and that they are subject to performance audits by her department. There should not be any question. There should be no hesitancy whatsoever that this should be the case.

The member for Simcoe--Grey laid out a very compelling argument as to what benefits would accrue if the Auditor General were permitted to do this good work. She raised concerns about accountability of these foundations going back to 1997.

In that 1997 audit, the auditor general observed that the Canada Foundation for Innovation, as an example, did not have to report on the results of how it spent $800 million. In 1998, the auditor general again criticized the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, saying that the government was transferring money even before the foundation legally existed.

How can this happen? How can this be allowed to occur when it involves such substantive amounts of public funds? What was the government doing? What were its actions? How was it able to ignore the wishes of Parliament on such an important matter?

Going back to 1996 and coming forward to just this past Auditor General's report, the federal government has transferred $9 billion into foundations beyond the realm, the reach and the examination of the Auditor General.

Let me say that figure again: $9 billion, a staggering amount. If amounts in the range of $100 million and $250 million are being absconded with in the sponsorship program, what is to give assurance to Canadians that this money is not involved in a similar type of monkey business and partisan vote buying that we have seen in the past and which is the very subject of the current Gomery commission?

The Auditor General in her 2002 report stated:

It will be years before the ultimate intended recipients--students, health care providers, and others--receive the money.

This is about diverting money away from where it was intended to be into a potential scheme in which there is partisan activity and reward accruing to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Auditor General revealed in her report last week that $7.7 billion of the original amount that was put into the bank accounts of the foundations is still sitting there. The Auditor General questioned that the transfers were essentially pre-funding foundations for a number of years. The policy has been that they should not pre-fund, or this is what the Auditor General herself is saying, but these would be exceptions.

It has been suggested by some that the transfer of funds into foundations is a convenient way to reduce the surplus, in other words, cooking the books. We saw that in the finance minister's attempts to somehow tell Parliament and the Canadian people that there was only a $1.9 billion surplus, which later was revealed to be a $9.1 billion surplus. As my colleague from Medicine Hat said, it was a severe case of fiscal dyslexia. There have been lots and lots of examples of the government grossly underestimating what those surpluses were going to be and then somehow money is discovered between the cushions of the finance minister's couch.

The Auditor General has consistently asked that Parliament allow her to examine this information that is available only through an audit of the foundations. Her financial statement for the government for the year ending March 31, 2002 revealed that Parliament is not receiving reports on independent, broad-scope audits that examine more than the financial statements of foundations, including compliance with authorities and propriety and value for money.

It is a very clearcut case, a compelling argument and a plea from the Auditor General for the opportunity to look into these foundations and see that the money is being spent properly. What could be simpler than that?

In last year's budget the government stated that the foundations will be subject to independent evaluations, comprehensive performance reporting and compliance of audits for the use of federal funding. Despite that assurance, it did not happen. The Auditor General as recently as last week said she is still concerned about accountability. She is still concerned about how this money is being spent and hidden away.

She stated that the government has no commitment to provide for performance audits reported to Parliament. She went on to say:

Thus, Parliament does not have adequate information and assurance on the use of more than $9 billion in public funds already transferred to the foundations.

What do we know about how these foundations are spending the money? We know very little. We know of a couple of examples.

Canada Health Infoway, the foundation that was set up to develop efficient health data, spent $30 million administering $51 million. It spent $30 million administrating over $51 million. It started with $500 million in 2001. It got another $600 million the following year and another $100 million in the year after that. In fact, the foundation has so much money it has earned interest. The foundation has earned $32 million in interest on that money while it tries to make up its mind.

The 2001 audit said that foundations such as the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology and Canada Health Infoway had a limited number of directors with signing authority over millions of dollars, even before a full board of directors was established and operating. Again it is a cart before the horse mentality.

Foundations are not subject to access to information. Only a small number of the foundations have actually had annual reports tabled in this place. Only three of the foundations are required to table their annual reports, with enabling legislation. Some of these foundations did not have any provision for the return of funds or assets to the government if they were to dissolve. This is being changed only after the Auditor General complained.

Again, it is the cover-up. It is the efforts after the fact to do the right thing, rather than simply doing what is good for Canadians and allowing for full disclosure.

The assurances of the President of the Treasury Board and his recent ramblings and fulminations do very little to give Canadians the assurances they are looking for. The present government more than any other in the history of this country has not a leg to stand on when it says, “Just trust us with your hard-earned dollars”.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that as the member said so eloquently, the issue really is what the Liberal government is doing with our money. This morning the President of the Treasury Board was accusing people of throwing out the aura of dishonest and inappropriate behaviour and not discussing the issues fully. I think that today we have discussed the issues fully and the aura around the government is more of a stench than it is an aura of its behaviour.

One of the illustrations of the government's mismanagement is that the NISA farm program had worked fairly well for farmers, but it built up a surplus of $3 billion. That was farmers' money and partially government money. When I came here in 2000 it was clear that the government was bound and determined it was going to force that money out of the NISA program, and it has done that. The Liberals said that their intention was to get it out of that system because they could not stand that farmers had that kind of money locked up. Yet the Liberals turned around and put $7 billion to $9 billion into these foundations with no accountability.

We are discussing foundations today, but I do not think that is the real issue. Is the real issue not the fact that the Liberal government refuses to be accountable and responsible for taxpayers' money?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands has cut to the chase. In his plain-spoken way he speaks volumes as to what should happen here.

It is nothing short of a shell game to take the money from one unaccountable and stealth-like program and put it into another foundation where we cannot track the money. The Auditor General herself has no ability, other than voluntarily if that foundation so chooses, to reveal the spending practices. For the Auditor General, there is very little assurance when the President of the Treasury Board says that the government is going to do this in a way that is consistent with other practices. All of this bombast is really just reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic . We are headed for a disaster if these foundations are allowed to continue to function without any accountability, without direct reporting to Parliament, without the Auditor General having the ability to have her officials go in and examine how the money is being spent.

This is what it is about. It is about responsible spending practices and the Auditor General giving the public the ability to judge for themselves whether that money is being spent properly, as we are seeing now with the Gomery commission. Clearly the jury may be out as far as the commission is concerned, but most Canadians know that buying advertising, and buying it only through Liberal friendly advertising firms, is not consistent with how they would like their tax dollars spent.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with a number of my colleague's statements. For any of us who have listened to the Auditor General's survey of the different foundations, she genuinely draws real concern for taxpayers' dollars.

In regard to the comment about the ad scandal, somewhere in my travels in the last couple of years, someone mentioned that possibly that same type of process might be happening within some of the regional funds, whether it be western diversification or ACOA, where instead of money flowing directly from them to their projects it would go through another agency which took a commission. Has the member heard anything like that over the last number of years?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in fact rumours abound about a number of the programs that are currently operating in the country. Until we are able to have full disclosure and full transparency, this is the great fear that all Canadians share. The Auditor General is perhaps the person with the most credibility at the current time to give those assurances that the money is being spent properly and that there are proper accounting practices.

One example which has been the subject of some discussion in the latest sponsorship scandal involved the Bluenose trust. A very sacred symbol of this country and of my province of Nova Scotia was tainted by this spectacle of money being spent inappropriately, cheques being picked up and commissions being paid for simply delivering a cheque to a crown corporation or to a government foundation.

This type of spectacle absolutely drives cynicism through the roof when it comes to how Canadians view government, view the practice of Parliament and view the spending of their money.

The half measures that are being proposed by the government and the President of the Treasury Board are like being told that we can have a sandwich at the buffet; we are not going to get access to the full disclosure and the full transparency that should come, but we should be satisfied just to take this half measure.

We are not satisfied with that. We are asking the government to move, to support this motion and to get on with doing the important business of giving Canadians value for their money.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on foundations and accountability.

Let me make it clear that the government welcomes the report of the Auditor General. We are committed to open, effective, accountable government and we take her findings and recommendations very seriously. I believe that we have taken significant action to date to enhance the accountability of foundations, and we will continue to do so.

The Prime Minister has described accountability not as a buzzword, but rather as our benchmark in changing the way Ottawa works. Certainly it is a subject well worth discussing, particularly when we are talking about responsibility to Parliament and to Canadians. Today I will focus my comments on the issue of accountability as it relates to foundations.

The government has been outspoken about its commitment to improving accountability. We have gone beyond words. We have backed up our words with concrete actions to build and strengthen accountability across government. For example, last week the President of the Treasury Board released a report containing the most comprehensive review of crown corporations in over 20 years.

We are equally committed to ensuring proper accountability within foundations. The proof of this commitment is that we have been working solidly over the last few years with a view to building the right accountability framework for foundations. It is important to acknowledge that when dealing with foundations, we are dealing with unique institutions, institutions that were specifically designed to work at arm's length from government.

In this respect foundations are no different from hundreds of other not for profit organizations that depend on federal grants and contributions. The big difference is that with foundations, the assistance is up front and long term in nature. It is essential to realize the importance of that fact. We have to recognize that the independence of foundations is one of the important factors of their success.

Let us look for a minute at why arm's-length foundations are used to achieve public policy.

And to do that, we have to think about the changing environment in which governments and the private sector operate, and how they evolve. This environment demands innovative ways of partnering with others through alternative means of service delivery.

During consultations by the government in the mid-1990s, business leaders and academics spoke of the need for increased funding and a more innovative investment approach to ensure that Canada became a research leader. They encouraged the government to explore new funding mechanisms, and to look at the possibility of achieving public policy objectives through independent organizations that could apply expert insight to effectively target specific issues.

In the 1997 budget, the first large foundation was born, the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Today there are many more and they are doing fine work.

As one enthusiast of the CFI put it in a letter to the Prime Minister last December:

I'm sure you're aware what an impact CFI has had on Canadian science. A very important corollary to this is the incredible boost of morale or dose of optimism that has been injected into Canadian science.

Of course, while clearly recognizing the benefits of arm's length expert foundations, the government has also recognized the need to ensure transparency and accountability.

Concrete actions were set out in the 2003 budget which announced a number of changes to improve the accountability of foundations to make them more accountable to Canadians and parliamentarians. These changes were in direct response to recommendations of the Auditor General.

The budget also set out in very clear terms the principles under which foundations are used by government to deliver public policy. They are as follows: Foundations should focus on the specific area of opportunity in which policy direction is provided generally through legislation and/or a funding agreement; foundations should harness the insight and decision making ability of independent boards of directors with direct experience in and knowledge about the issues at stake; decisions by foundations should be made using expert peer review; foundations should be provided with guaranteed funding that goes beyond the annual parliamentary appropriations to give the foundations the financial stability that is essential in their specific area of opportunity; and foundations should have the opportunity and hence the ability to lever additional funds from other levels of government and the private sector.

The budget laid out steps to improve the accountability of both ministers and foundations in a number of areas, starting with parliamentary review.

The government set out measures to ensure that the establishment and funding of foundations is adequately reviewed by Parliament.It also committed to ensuring parliamentary approval of purpose and funding through direct legislation for foundations that are significant either from a policy or financial perspective.

And it was agreed that, in all cases, Parliament needs to approve funding for foundations. Each individual grant is listed separately in the estimates. These measures increased accountability to Parliament. But we also looked at how to improve public reporting. And we took action.

For example, today, foundations are required to provide corporate plans annually to the minister responsible for administering the funding agreement. These are required to include planned expenditures, objectives and performance expectations relating to the federal funding. And it is important to note that summaries of these plans are to be made public by the responsible minister and to be provided to Parliament.

In addition, the departmental reports on plans and priorities, which are tabled in Parliament, now include the significant expected results to be achieved by the relevant foundations and are required to situate these within the department's overall plans and priorities.

As well, the department responsible for administering the funding agreement is required to report on the significant results achieved by the foundation, or foundations, in its departmental performance report for the duration of the funding agreement and to situate these within the department's overall results achieved.

The annual report for each foundation, including relevant performance reporting, audited financial statements and evaluation results, is presented to the minister responsible for the funding agreement and made public. The reports of foundations created explicitly through legislation are tabled in Parliament by the responsible minister.

All foundations' annual reports must contain performance information, as well as audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The accountability of foundations was further enhanced through the following measures that touch on compliance with funding agreements.

Foundations are required to conduct independent evaluations, present these to the minister responsible and make them public. Departments then incorporate any significant findings in their annual departmental performance reports, which are tabled annually in Parliament.

Funding agreements with foundations contain provisions for independent audits of compliance with funding agreements and for departmental program evaluations.

The compliance audits can be undertaken by departmental internal auditors, external auditors or, at the request of the responsible minister, by the Auditor General.

There are also provisions for intervention in the event the responsible minister feels there have been significant deviations from the terms of the funding agreement.

Further, in all new funding agreements, provisions are put in place so that the responsible minister may, at his or her discretion, recover unspent funds in the event of winding up.

I trust members will agree that I have just outlined a very comprehensive government program of increasing the accountability of foundations. I want to emphasize that our commitment to enhancing the accountability of foundations continues today.

Since the measures announced in budget 2003, the government has taken numerous steps to strengthen the overall accountability and transparency of foundations. Not only have our actions addressed many of the earlier concerns of the Auditor General but in some cases we have gone beyond the recommendations. We have done this while still respecting the spirit and intent behind the establishment of the foundations.

Let me start by talking about reporting to Parliament and the public.

All statutory reporting requirements of Parliament are being met. For many years now, ministers have tabled in Parliament the annual reports of foundations, which contain audited financial statements representing 80% of all transfers to foundations as identified by the Auditor General.

Foundations regularly report on their plans and results to departments that are required to incorporate significant items in their reports on plans and priorities and departmental performance reports to Parliament. The Treasury Board Secretariat has issued guidelines on these reporting requirements.

Let us consider a few points on the reporting by sponsoring departments. Result based management and accountability frameworks have been developed. Many departments now have the ability to undertake evaluations that can assess the horizontal integration of their programs with those of the foundations.

On another front, progress has also been made when it comes to the question of ministerial oversight. Changes have been brought to strengthen the default provisions of the funding agreements to enable corrective action. These changes respect the independence of not for profit organizations and do not involve the unilateral redirection of funds by the government.

Funding provisions and legislative changes have been made to permit the recovery of unspent funds should a foundation be wound down.

Transfers to foundations are accounted for in a manner that is consistent with the treatment of other transfers such as those to provinces which the Auditor General has accepted. Such transfers provide long term, stable funding that is needed to attract financial resources and expertise. Government has the financial flexibility to fund these priorities. Such decisions and announcements have been made throughout the year and not only at year end.

I have outlined just some of the many actions that the government has taken in response to recommendations from the Auditor General on foundations. While there are still some areas of disagreement, there is also agreement that good progress has been made.

For example, last week's Auditor General's report noted some positive developments, for example the fact that improvements have been made in reporting to Parliament and the public, and that provisions for corporate plans and annual reports have improved. There were many other positive comments.

In closing, I think it is worth mentioning that lots of very good work results from these foundations. All of their websites provide more comprehensive information on their plans and results and these foundations are working across the spectrum, from health research to green initiatives for the environment, to strengthening the research capabilities of our universities.

I do not support the motion before us today because it goes too far in asking that the Auditor General be the one to do both performance audits and the annual audit of each foundation. I do not think the Auditor General has to do the audits of each foundation every year but I think she should be allowed to do performance audits.

We remain committed to continuing to work with the Auditor General to improve the accountability of these foundations so they can continue to do their good work.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between all parties and I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the sponsor of Bill C-313, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibited sexual acts), be transferred from the member for Calgary Northeast to the member for Lethbridge.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among all parties and I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the Certificate of Nomination of a Chairperson of the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, tabled in the House on February 2, 2005, be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and be referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Committees of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study on Fiscal Imbalance, 5 members of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Edmonton, Alberta on May 1 and 2, 2005, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)