Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak to this motion. This is not something new that has come along. We have heard so much about how much money is in these foundations.
Let us go back to the supplementary information in the Public Accounts of Canada 2001-02 on the first page where the Auditor General said:
Since 1997, the government has recorded as expenditures some $7.5 billion in transfers to various foundations to achieve its public policy objectives, even though most of the money is still in their bank accounts and investments accumulating interest. As reported last year, I am concerned with the accounting for these transfers.
That was in 2001-02. She went on to say a number of other things about the same situation on page 1.35 of the Public Accounts of Canada:
Economic substance would be better represented in the Government's financial statements if expenditures were recorded in the years when the foundations make grant payments to the ultimate intended recipients or use the money themselves for the Government's ultimate intended purposes.
She went on to say:
[This] leads me to question whether these foundations are truly “arm's length” from the Government, and therefore whether the Government's accounting for transfers to them as if they are “arm's length”, is appropriate.
The Auditor General went on to say:
I am also concerned about the accountability and governance of the foundations--in fact, more concerned than about the accounting for transfers to them--for a number of reasons, including--
She referred to chapter one of her April 2000 report for more details. She concluded by saying:
I urge the Government to change its accounting policies as they relate to the foundations to properly account for the substance of these transactions.
In the next year, 2002-03, the Auditor General said much the same thing in the supplementary information to the public accounts on page 2.29 and so on. In 2003-04 again in the supplementary information she said the same thing. She said on page 2.28 of the 2003-04 public accounts:
I have also expressed concerns about the accountability regime for the foundations and that accounting considerations may be preventing the Government from making all the necessary improvements. In other words, the accountability and governance structures for the foundations may be influenced by the desire to ensure that transfers to foundations can be treated as expenses immediately.
She is concerned about the government manipulating the perception of what is going on. Going back to when the government took over in 1993, members may recall there was a big deficit at that time. What did the government do? It created not for profit organizations called the airport authorities, so that they were off the balance sheets as they were required to go out and borrow billions. We know that the Greater Toronto Airports Authority has borrowed about $4 billion or $5 billion to build that new airport, all guaranteed by the Government of Canada. We are the last resort if they cannot pay their bills, but there is no mention in our financial statements that we are on the hook for the airport investments around the country.
Who has ever heard of Milit-Air? Milit-Air is a not for profit organization. Has anyone ever heard of a not for profit organization going into capital markets and borrowing $720 million? A not for profit organization is in debt because it got an absolute no cut, guaranteed contract, series of payments from the Government of Canada to Milit-air, that went down to the United States and bought some jets so it could give them to Bombardier to train our air force personnel. We are on the hook for this $720 million debt that Milit-Air borrowed on the capital markets, but it does not show on our financial statements.
Then the economy improved. The tax revenues are coming in and now we are in surpluses. What does the government do? It says, “Let us turn this thing around. Rather than having off balance sheet borrowing, we will have off balance sheet investing foundations, a great idea. Set them up at arm's length from the government and give them all kinds of cash but do not expect them to spend it”. It would be nice if we could believe the President of the Treasury Board when he talks about the great probity in these financial institutions, but we know how it is.
Eric Maldoff, the person who was in charge of Canada Health Infoway, was a former adviser to Jean Chrétien and is known as being a very close friend of the Prime Minister. He made a $10,000 donation to the Liberal Party. He was a lawyer at Heenan Blaikie in Montreal, the law firm which was home to Pierre Trudeau and now to Jean Chrétien. He became the head honcho at Canada Health Infoway. When he moved on, along came Mr. H. Arnold Steinberg. Mr. Steinberg also gives money to the Liberal Party and is now the top dog at Canada Health Infoway.
When we talk about Heenan Blaikie, that bastion of liberalism, Mr. Roy Heenan, the number one guy himself, is chair of the board of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation which got $125 million of taxpayers' money. Mr. Heenan has also made $8,000 in donations to the Liberal Party since 1993. This is Liberal largesse that we are talking about. This is about looking after one's friends.
The point is that when we were trying to get the Auditor General to look into these things, I asked a lot of questions about how much these guys were getting paid, how big were their expense accounts and what they were actually doing. The answer was that it was arm's length and the government could not tell us because it did not know. That is why we have a concern. It is stacked with Liberals, Liberal appointees and Liberal friends.
I have no idea why these lawyers think they know all there is to know about health infoways and other things like that. Is it that they happen to be good Liberals? I guess that being good Liberals makes them knowledgeable on these issues, or maybe it does not and they just get paid as if they may be knowledgeable on these issues.
The taxpayer has a right to know. That is the intent of today's motion. If they are that good and deserve the big paycheques for doing the job, let us know what they are doing. That is not a lot to ask, is it?
Getting back to the Auditor General's reports, this one is dated April 2002. Chapter 1 is titled, “Placing the Public's Money Beyond Parliament's Reach”. The President of the Treasury Board acknowledged this morning that Parliament's role is to supervise the cash and here the Auditor General is saying that public money is now beyond Parliament's reach.
In addition, exhibit 1.3 in that chapter states things that these organizations are required to do, such as reporting expected performance to Parliament. It is a simple thing like a corporate plan; one would expect that to come here, but for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, no. Reporting performance results to Parliament? No, it does not do that either. Reporting audited financial statements to Parliament? No, it does not do that. Reporting evaluation results to Parliament? No, it is not into that either. How about ministerial oversight? Strategic monitoring by the minister? No, it does not have that. Ministerial direction and action? No, it does not have that either. Departmental audit and evaluation? That is not done around here. Those are the types of things the Auditor General is telling us.
Exhibit 1.4 is about performance expectations or information on results reported. The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences does not do that. The green municipal enabling fund and the investment fund do not look after that either. We find these types of things all over the place.
Getting back to the real nub, let us talk about the roles and responsibilities of federal appointees to boards of directors. Remember that we were talking about Liberal appointees. In exhibit 1.6 the Auditor General states:
Most of the federal appointees told us they were not responsible for reporting back to senior officials of sponsoring departments or to the minister on the activities or accomplishments of the arrangements.
I rest my case. This is an affront to democracy. It is an affront to Parliament. The government seems to think it is just great that it can take $7 billion of taxpayers' money and set it aside to spend when it feels it is appropriate, maybe a week before the election, or for a great big announcement saying it will do this, that or the next thing and use that money to pay for it. Parliament is being abused. That is why we put forward this motion today.