Dave Chatters

[Canadian Improv Games, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to announce that last Saturday a nine member team from Westwood Community High School in Fort McMurray won the Canadian National Improv Games here in Ottawa.

They competed in a fierce battle with four other teams, but when the dust settled and the points were tallied the team from Westwood came out victorious.

When one considers the accomplishments of these students, it is obvious that the tar sands are not the most precious resource in Fort McMurray.

I wish to extend congratulations on a job well done to students Lucus Merger, Arlen Konopaki, Sean Parsons, Michelle Parsons, Mike Robertson, Laura Rushfeldt, Kyle Miles, David Zeglen, and their teacher, Karen Towsley.

[The Environment, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, given the president's and the vice-president's comments recently about making energy development a higher priority than the environment, just how would the minister and the government plan to achieve the transfer of those credits to Canada?

[The Environment, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, President Bush is looking to replace mid-east oil with North American oil. The Prime Minister has recently been promoting the tar sands in my riding for that purpose.

Increased tar sands production to the levels suggested by the Prime Minister would significantly increase levels of greenhouse gas emissions for Canada.

Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister stated that this government policy is to achieve our Kyoto commitments. If Alberta accepts this level of American investment to develop our tar sands, will the government also insist on the U.S. transfer credits under the Kyoto accord for our increased emissions?

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again on Bill C-3 to discuss the amendments to the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act. These two acts placed restrictions on individual and foreign ownership when Petro-Canada and Cameco were first privatized some years ago.

The bill intends to increase the companies' access to domestic and foreign capital and enable greater flexibility in using share exchanges and asset pooling to make acquisitions and strategic alliances. I cannot help but hope the bill will finally pave the way for the government to sell off its remaining 18% ownership or 49.4 million shares of Petro-Canada.

The bill does a number of things to make room for the sale. It raises the limit on individual ownership of shares from 10% to 20%. The 25% limit on shares that can be owned collectively by non-residents is removed. While it gives the company greater flexibility to manage its asset portfolio, the bill also provides a check against the company winding up its activities through the outright sale of assets.

The parliamentary secretary has told us that the introduction and passage of Bill C-3 does not pave the way for the sale of Petro-Canada. He says that the government will wait for the most favourable market conditions before proceeding with the sale. However, I, and I think most other Canadians, cannot conceive of a more favourable time than today. The industry is healthy, the company is strong and the conditions in my opinion could not be more favourable.

Given that, what does all this mean? Petro-Canada was created in 1975 as one of the mechanisms of the national energy program. The feeling of western Canadians, certainly myself and those representing ridings in the region, are well documented when it comes to the national energy program. We never did buy the Liberal line that the program was a vehicle for nationalist dreams and a ticket to energy self sufficiency. At the time Canadians were told we had less than 20 years worth of recoverable oil reserves and that high gasoline taxes were a justifiable means of guaranteeing our future energy needs.

When we look at where the oil industry in Canada currently stands, we see that our skepticism was appropriate. Twenty-five years later we know those empty threats were little more than Liberal hogwash, a simple money grab and a flagrant breach of the principles of Confederation by the federal government, a Liberal federal government. We now have proven oil reserves that will supply Canada's energy needs well into the future.

There is in excess of 200 years of recoverable reserves in the tar sands of northern Alberta alone. The Liberal government might have thought that it had fooled Canadians but we knew that it was the federal government poking its rather large and unwelcome nose into the oil and gas industry, an intrusion that was totally unasked for, unappreciated and clearly unnecessary.

Although the national energy program was eventually dismantled, Petro-Canada lives on, fed by taxpayer dollars without their approval.

Eventually the government changed its mind and in 1991 decided that it no longer needed a crown corporation in the energy business and began the privatization process. In the end, with the fluctuations in the markets, business setbacks and even the present political struggles, Petro-Canada ended up as an oil company much like any other oil company in Canada.

However, the government, or should I say the taxpayers, still owns 18% of the company and is the single largest holder of stock. Only the government could own more than 10%.

Back in 1994 I questioned the government why it would not sell off its national oil company while the industry was strong in order to recoup some of the billions of taxpayer dollars that were used to create Petro-Canada in the first place. I asked the government why it would not do something significant and use the revenue from the sale of Petro-Canada to reduce Canada's debt burden. In 1995 a Liberal budget promised to totally privatize Petro-Canada. We can see today how reliable that Liberal promise was and, like so many other budget promises, it is something that we should consider over the coming weeks.

The fact remains that Petro-Canada cost Canadians over $5 billion. Petro-Canada has never provided any benefit to Canadians that could not have been provided by the private sector. When it was finally privatized Petro-Canada started making a profit and competing effectively in the industry.

Governments, since Petro-Canada was established, have never had the courage to admit to Canadians that they would only be able to recover less than $2 billion of the original cost of Petro-Canada. If the bill is indeed the first step in the process of the government selling off its remaining shares of Petro-Canada, my first response is that it is about time.

I am curious as to the timing of the bill. On Bay Street investors have driven up Petro-Canada share prices in anticipation of a move by Ottawa to sell its shares. Today Petro-Canada's shares are trading at $32.75 per share. That is over a 46% increase so far this year. There is the potential for the price to go even higher.

Bill C-3 would remove foreign ownership restrictions allowing for an expanded market and potentially an increased price. If the government were to sell its shares it could optimistically find itself receiving $1.6 billion. That is a $3.4 billion loss on what Canadians originally paid for Petro-Canada, a business transaction that anyone could identify as a total disaster.

However, the government could find itself in possession of $1.6 billion. What would it do with that money? Since it was originally taxpayer dollars that paid for Petro-Canada, the funds should return to the taxpayers in a direct fashion rather than being dumped into the general revenue fund that Liberal cronies could dip into whenever they felt inclined.

I would like to see the money go to debt reduction or into transportation improvements. Perhaps we could really be revolutionary and put the money toward lowering gas taxes. What an original idea. The Liberals recently voted against that in the House. I do not expect that they would really show too much interest in returning taxpayer dollars directly to taxpayers. That is too simple, too clean cut and too direct a responsibility for the government.

Bill C-3 does a number of things that I can support. Petro-Canada is moving toward opening up the ownership of the company to both national and international interests while ensuring that the majority of the company is Canadian. The legislation states that resident Canadians must make up the majority of the board of directors. It also stipulates that the head office of the company must remain in Calgary, which is a common practice of the government and one that is not necessary as it ties the hands of a number of companies that the government has followed this practice on.

The Canadian Alliance also supports the removal of restrictions upon Canadian businesses to allow for both domestic and foreign investing. We expect that Petro-Canada, once it is no longer manipulated by the government, would continue to show profits and growth.

Bill C-3 does not only address issues surrounding Petro-Canada. It also addresses issues relating to the sale of shares of Cameco, Canada's biggest uranium producer. Canada's Kyoto commitments have increased the need for Canada to find green energy. Nuclear energy is one option that is being examined. I do not wish to get into a debate on the merits of nuclear energy. That is a debate for another day. It is clear, however, that it is part of the package the government is examining in relationship to the Kyoto accord, along with the emission reductions that we are trying to achieve.

Uranium remains a source of nuclear energy. It is a vital factor in the world's efforts to reduce CO2 levels. It has been and will increasingly be a strategically important resource for the country. The bill raises foreign and individual ownership limits for Cameco. Individual non-resident ownership would increase from 5% to 15% and the limit on the total amount of non-resident ownership of shares would increase from 20% to 25%.

I am pleased to see that the legislation is mindful of the possible consequences of high levels of foreign ownership of uranium resources. The lower limits on Cameco shares reflect across the board government restrictions on foreign activity in uranium mining.

While the Canadian Alliance is all for Canadian businesses having all the opportunities to succeed, we must also be conscious of the need to keep such potentially volatile resources within Canadian control. The bill allows for greater flexibility in the selling of shares in Canadian companies, and I support that effort.

If the legislation leads to the government finally selling off its remaining shares of Petro-Canada it would be legislation that is long overdue. We will wait and see if that is the case. If Petro-Canada is sold off, we will see how much the Liberals think Canadians have forgotten the original purpose of Petro-Canada and the amount of money that taxpayers put forth to establish the company in the first place.

The Canadian Alliance and I will be supporting the bill as we have at each stage. We will continue to support the bill at third reading. We are pleased that the government is showing the initiative in opening up these companies to better investment and a bit more flexibility in the way that they operate.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know where to start on this one. Some of the comments are ridiculous. If wind power is the answer, and Canadians support wind power and it has the potential to supply the energy needs of Canada or the United States, then industry would invest in windmills and create wind power. The fact is it has a very limited potential to supply our energy needs. Therefore the investment is limited.

The tar sands have the potential to supply all of Canada's energy needs and much of the U.S. energy needs for the next 100 years. Industry is investing $35 billion. This old myth about the huge subsidization of the tar sands is exactly that. It is a myth.

I would challenge the solar industry, the wind industry and any other energy industry to compete with the same subsidization level as the fossil fuel industry. It is there. The market is there. If it has potential it will be built.

My opinion on the development of energy is that we as a country should look at all forms of energy and put a total cost on the development of each particular source of energy. We should choose to develop the lowest cost form of energy first and move up the scale. As the natural or finite energy sources are reduced we move into the next level, then into the next most expensive and on up the line.

That would be the reasonable approach and I would certainly do that. Many of the tar sands players, energy companies, I would add, are involved in the wind power industry, the nuclear industry and in a number of other sources of energy. They are multifaceted companies which have just as much concern for the environment and supplying Canada and the world's energy needs as anybody else. I think some of these myths are just that.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, this has always been a favourite issue of mine so I thank the member for his question.

It has always been my position that the provinces should be treated equally. Nova Scotia, or Newfoundland or British Columbia, where this is just becoming an issue, should be treated no differently than Alberta. If the provinces where the industry develops are expected to provide the infrastructure to support the industry, they should reap the benefits of the development of that industry. That can never happen if the federal government continues with its greed to demand ownership of a resource and benefit from a resource and then dribble money back to the province in whatever formula it thinks is appropriate for that province.

It has always been my and my party's position that the responsibility for the management, development and regulation of offshore resource development should be with the provinces. While constitutionally the supreme court chose that the federal government would own that industry, there is absolutely nothing to prevent it from delegating responsibility for the resource development, and therefore accruing the benefits of the resource just like Alberta does. The sooner that happens the better.

If we start meddling with equalization and start allowing the producing provinces to keep their equalization at the current level and at the same time enjoy whatever benefits the federal government thinks the province should have of the royalties, then again we are skewing the way the provinces are treated. That is a mistake.

If we simply delegate responsibility to Nova Scotia for offshore development or the same for Newfoundland, then those provinces take on the same responsibility as Alberta did to conduct the regulatory and environmental protection process. They develop the infrastructure then they enjoy the benefit. As that benefit increases with the development, the provinces lose in the gradual process that equalization and they become a have province the same as all other provinces that have achieved that status through resource development. That seems to be the fair way to do it.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, we are all in a learning process tonight of how this format will work. It is a refreshing idea and I am pleased to be a part of it. So far the debate has been somewhat broader than I had expected, ranging from issues of rural communities and on from there.

We came as a party prepared to discuss natural resources specifically and the state of Canada's natural resource industries from a number of different directions. My direction will be the issue of energy as that is where my interest lies. My riding currently supplies 15% of Canada's fossil fuel energy and it is a huge issue.

We currently have some $30 billion to $35 billion worth of committed investment going into the riding and the development of heavy oil and tar sands. All this is in view of the discussions that have been ongoing between Canada, the United States and Mexico on a continental energy program. It is of great interest to us.

At this time not only we in opposition but the industry as well seems to be wondering what the government is talking about and what its position is particularly in view of the Prime Minister's recent announcement of the creation of an energy cabinet committee with a number of the most senior cabinet members in Canada's government sitting on it.

There is a curious emphasis put on an issue, particularly because Canada some time ago when it entered into the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement committed to a certain position on energy that binds Canada's energy industries essentially to supply.

The free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. made commitments on behalf of Canada to guarantee delivery of Canada's energy to the United States. The Americans are allowed to buy it at the same price that we Canadians are allowed to buy it. We are not allowed to ration those energy resources to the Americans any more than we ration them to ourselves. It really has the industry and many western Canadians curious that the issue of the continental energy policy might be more than what is already committed.

There are issues dealing with the Mexican petroleum industry and issues around the North American electrical industry that need some discussion, investment and development. However, regarding the fossil fuel energy industry, it seems we are addressing ghosts that do not exist.

Going back to the whole issue of the free trade agreement and how we got into that position in the first place is curious and of some concern to me. It is part of Canada's history that we went through a national energy program under a former Liberal government which raided the natural resource of the fossil fuel industries of Alberta and the west to the tune of some $60 billion.

The reaction to that program and that raid on the wealth of one of Canada's provinces resulted in a move by the premier and the energy minister of that province to fight very hard on behalf of my province and the natural resource industry in my riding to protect the industry and the province from that ever happening again.

That was a serious mistake, not only on behalf of a previous Liberal government but on behalf of a province in Canada that moved to protect its interests the way it did. If Canada had been behaving as a country should have in a time of crisis with a short energy supply and threats of energy interruption from other parts of the world, it should have moved to provide the assurance of energy supply and price to all of Canada.

It should have provided an assurance from the west as the national energy program had proposed to do and at the same time returned or exchanged that assurance of supply and price from the western producing regions to central and eastern Canada. The return should have been some kind of benefit to those provinces to counterbalance the loss of income from those provinces.

Had that happened we would have been behaving like a country should have in the interests of the entire country. We would have been in a better position today to deal with the energy crunch we faced last winter and that we will face again. We are looking at perhaps record gasoline prices for Canadian consumers this summer. All of that is related in some way to the history of the whole national energy program and the reaction to it in Canada.

Even as recently as a couple of weeks ago in committee, some government members were using some of the language I heard so often back in 1980 about the national interest and how the government had a responsibility to act in the national interest when dealing with energy prices and protecting the interests of consumers across Canada. That scares the heck out of people in my part of the country because of the history.

While the government today gives assurances that we will not revisit the national energy program, there are still concerns that the interests of a more populous region of Canada will take precedence over the producing regions in the national interest. It would be a shame to do that.

As we move into this negotiated continental energy program, the power that has been presented by the government in the creation of this energy cabinet committee again raises concerns. We do not understand what is going on. Everyone is hoping the government will provide some clarity and assurance that when we start negotiating with Mexico and the United States to engage in this continental energy program that the interests of all Canadians will be paramount. The benefits of the development of the energy supply to the United States from primarily Alberta will certainly provide great opportunities for Albertans, for Canadians from coast to coast and for people from all over the world who would come to my part of Canada, my riding, to find employment in highly paid, skilled jobs.

We do appreciate and want those great things but at the same time we want the interests of all Canadians to be kept in mind. Albertans are fair-minded and are willing to consider those benefits but we should do it in a national perspective. If a compromise is asked for in one area to achieve an objective, then there should be give on the other end as well.

In the negotiations on this national energy policy we could all come out winners if we do it properly. Some of us, or perhaps even all of us, could come out serious losers if we fall to the interests of the Americans who, quite frankly, do not give a sweet tweet about the Canadian environment or Canadian rural communities. They want our energy and they will have our energy one way or the other.

I would like assurances that the Government of Canada will fight hard and negotiate hard in the interests of Canadians and of rural Canadians in particular.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey Central. I thank my colleague across the floor for the heartfelt presentation he just gave. It moved me deeply.

I am pleased to rise once again on Bill C-4. I will begin my presentation, as I have at every stage of the bill, by expressing support for the concept of bringing a group of experts together in green technologies. Our party supports the concept of creating a foundation and leveraging a fairly significant amount of dollars in the big scheme of things many times over in the private sector through partnerships to help in the development of new technologies.

It is a concept worthy of support. Our party was ready to support the bill if we could have had a simple amendment to it, just one amendment to provide some transparency and accountability. It was denied unfortunately at report stage when the government decided not to allow it. It makes me wonder why it would do that. It makes me fear that the concerns I have expressed about the bill are true and there is a reason the government does not want transparency.

The bill is a simple continuation of a process started three years ago in December 1997 when the Kyoto protocol was signed and Canada agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels for the period 2008 to 2012.

There are many experts who feel that such a dramatic reduction is not possible or feasible as the goal of a 6% reduction represents about a 25% reduction from projected 2008 to 2012 emission levels, using a business as usual trend of rising greenhouse gas emissions as the basis.

To further complicate these projections Canada's levels of greenhouse gas emissions have risen steadily in the last few years to a much higher level than was previously projected.

Despite these complications the government continues to attempt to meet the Kyoto commitments with a variety of actions. For example, one such action was the government's action plan 2000 which proposed what strategic actions the government would take to meet our Kyoto commitments.

The problem is that the plan only aims to reduce the emissions by 65 million tonnes per year during the commitment period of 2008 to 2012. That is only one-third of the way toward the Kyoto commitment.

We had a good discussion this morning in committee with the climate change secretariat. It was obvious that the government would have great difficulty even reaching the one-third milepost toward the Kyoto commitment. There was also increasing evidence that climate change however much it was influenced by man's activities was inevitable. The government should move to some degree toward helping Canadians to adapt to climate change rather than perpetuating the myths that somehow the Kyoto commitment would prevent it, would reverse the trend and would save the world.

In September 2000 Environment Canada reported that the United Nations revealed that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions were 13% above 1990 levels in 1998. These levels have risen consistently due to factors such as the greater use of coal to produce electricity. If natural gas prices remain high, and we have seen evidence of that in Alberta, coal could be used even more than it is now. If Canada continues its business as usual, it is quite possible that the gap between projected emissions and the Kyoto target would be 26% or significantly higher.

Government documents regarding the bill state that Canada is a world leader in many climate change and energy efficiency technologies with emerging strengths in other areas. That is a term that the minister uses often in committee and in the House. I have to question why, if what he says is the case, Canada is relying so heavily on sinks and tradable credits in its Kyoto strategy? If we combine the increase in emission levels with the fact that the Kyoto protocol has virtually fallen apart over the issue of carbon sinks, it is clear that much needs to be done before Canada can consider itself well on the way to a significant reduction in emissions.

Canada is in serious trouble and serious trouble calls for serious solutions. If Bill C-4 lays out the groundwork for a key part of the government's climate change plan then we are all in trouble. The government should be providing a solid, accountable, transparent and responsible plan that would translate into a foundation. That plan should be producing real benefits to Canadians rather than the current legislation that plants the seeds to grow an enormous patronage plum, and I do not mean a tree.

There are a number of problems with the bill that I hoped to see addressed either in committee or at report stage in the House. For example, the issue regarding the accountability of the foundation and its reporting practices. I would like to see the auditor general have access to the foundation's books. The auditor general should bring forward regular audits to ensure that the foundation is being run in a reasonable and responsible manner.

As things stand now, rather than having the auditor general perform an audit of the foundation's books, perhaps the foundation could use the government's demonstrated standards of bookkeeping. Members must forgive me if I do not find that a particularly comforting thought. After all, for the last 10 years the auditor general has given his opinion on the financial statements of the Government of Canada.

During that period the government has flunked the exam seven times. Only three times has the auditor general been able to give a passing grade to the government's bookkeeping. That is a terrible average. It gets even worse if we look back further than just 10 years. The former auditor general could give only one clear opinion during his entire 10 year term.

If the government is to hold the foundation to those standards we are in for more mismanagement and bungling, for we know how fond those Liberal members are of spending money without requiring any sort of framework, authorization or even paperwork. I had hoped they had learned their lesson.

No one doubts the intention of the bill. It is sound. I would have supported an organization that exists to promote the development of new technologies to assist in sustainable development, including those technologies that address climate change and air quality issues.

Canada has some serious climate change issues that need to be addressed. Since the government is already committed to a certain course of action, we had better start producing rather than just talking about it.

Descriptions of the bill contain all sorts of glorious sounding intentions. For example, the fund will encourage innovation by helping companies develop new technologies and bring them to market. The fund will complement other federal programs, build on efforts to engage external partners, and promote the efficient use of resources and technologies.

According to the government new technologies developed by this fund will provide the opportunity for Canadians to access the opportunity side of the climate change equation. Again I have to question the bill. The government is making taxpayer dollars available on extremely vague criteria. Is that what it means by opportunities being created?

My impression is that the opportunities being created were supposed to be for the development of new technologies that would benefit all Canadians, not for the friends of the government to benefit simply from the receipt of Canadian tax dollars.

The foundation will be composed of fifteen members. The fifteen members of the foundation are assembled first and seven are appointed by the governor in council who then appoints eight other members. The chair and six members of the board are then appointed by the governor in council, and those seven people appoint eight other members for the board. Both the foundation and the board have fifteen members and fourteen of the total thirty members are handpicked by cabinet.

The chair and directors of the board are eligible for five year terms. Directors and members can be reappointed for one or more terms. It all sounds rather cushy to me. If someone has a friend in the right place, he or she could be appointed to the foundation.

There are two rather frightening aspects to this process. Just as the chairperson, directors and members are appointed by the governor in council, they can also be removed for cause by the governor in council. Notice that reads cause, not just cause.

If members of the foundation are to be kept on at the whim of cabinet or the Prime Minister, what are the chances that they will ever make a decision independently? For example, what if the chairperson makes a reasonable but unpopular decision and turns down a grant to a friend of the Prime Minister? Will that person then be removed from the board?

What if a director recommends that a project be denied but the chairperson is a Liberal crony? Would that be considered cause? What if a member is doing a terrible job but is a close friend of the Prime Minister or the privy council? Does the member then get to keep the job and the money and cannot be removed by anybody but the Prime Minister?

We have certainly heard many examples in the House recently about the Prime Minister and how he can assert his influence over those he personally appoints.

I do not think I have to tell anybody about the issue of the governor of the Business Development Bank and about the billion dollar boondoggle in Human Resources Development Canada where ministerial interference directed money to constituencies and to organizations that did not meet the criteria of the program. Those issues are fairly well known by everyone in the House and I would expect fairly well known by everyone across the country.

We had hoped that at least there would be some safeguards against this practice in the bill, but unfortunately those safeguards are sadly lacking.

Another concern regarding the way the foundation will be staffed relates to the provisions for expertise in its chairperson. The bill states that the appointment of directors is supposed to ensure expertise of its directors and that the board should be representative of persons engaged in the development and demonstration of technologies to promote sustainable development. Curiously, though, the bill makes no such provision for the appointment of the chairperson.

It seems to me that the bill is just leaving the door wide open for patronage and just waiting for some friend of the Prime Minister to walk through.

I also have some concerns regarding how members of the foundation will be compensated for their contributions. The bill states that the directors may be paid remuneration that is fixed by the foundation's bylaws and that they are entitled to be paid reasonable travel and living expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties.

If the board is setting their own bylaws, where are the checks against unreasonable salaries? It sounds like a great opportunity for these appointed cronies to find themselves a tidy, new source of cash.

The House will remember Ted Weatherhill and his expense account. He is the bureaucrat who charged Canadian taxpayers $21,000 in three years for his travelling expenses. Certainly he was entitled to collect reasonable expenses for the job he was doing for the government. Perhaps the possibility of that happening exists under this foundation. Those could hardly be considered by anyone to be reasonable expenses. Even the Liberals who fired him over the issue did not think his expenses were reasonable.

At least there is some mention of the salaries of directors in the bill. Bill C-4 makes no mention of the chairperson's salary and how it will be determined. Quite frankly with the way the government likes to throw money at its friends, I would just as soon not leave this sort of thing up to chance.

At the beginning of my comments I made mention of my concerns regarding the financial operations of the foundation. I would like to take some time to expand somewhat on those concerns. The bill is terribly vague on how its financial operations will work. I have to question exactly how the foundation intends to sustain its financial viability without an ongoing infusion of taxpayer dollars?

The bill states that the board shall establish investment policies, standards and procedures that a reasonably prudent person would apply with respect to a portfolio of investment to avoid an undue risk of loss and obtain a reasonable return. I wonder if the same standards of investment will be used as those that guide Canada pension plan investments. If so, the financial stability of the foundation is doomed.

On February 15, 2001, the CPP fund, made up of $41.6 billion in assets invested mostly in bonds, reported a $453 million loss on stock investments in its fiscal third quarter.

In the bill currently before the House the government is trying to prevent public scrutiny of how the Canada pension plan fund is performing. It seems to me that this fund made up of billions of taxpayer dollars is just a bit too large to sweep under the carpet. At the very least it would make a large lump in the carpet that would be pretty tough to ignore.

If this is the pattern that the foundation will follow, we might as well go ahead and buy ourselves some gas masks because there will be little progress on the development of climate change science and technology.

There are many serious problems with the legislation. I would like to know why we need this new Liberal friendly and expensive bureaucracy when there are many other funding vehicles already in place that could accomplish the same goals.

There are regional development groups that receive federal funding and have local boards which approve high risk investments and give loans. There is also the Federal Business Development Bank. All these groups are under the purview of the Auditor General of Canada. They could cover the responsibilities of the foundation and prevent establishing another expensive bureaucratic mess.

While I am sure the Prime Minister would like to ensure that his friends retire comfortably, when it comes to taxpayer dollars I would like to see a better guarantee of an open, accountable, transparent and responsible organization than what this confusing legislation would suggest.

Before my colleagues across the floor accuse me of being anti-environment, I should like to quote from the Canadian Alliance policy which states:

We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species, and to sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations. Therefore we will strike a balance between environmental preservation and economic development. This includes creating partnerships to promote meaningful progress in the area of environmental protection.

Clearly the Canadian Alliance is in favour of taking steps to ensure cleaner air through new technologies. However, as I have already mentioned, this foundation has the potential to be so riddled with patronage that little if anything meaningful will be accomplished.

The Canadian Alliance believes, as the auditor general indicated in his latest report to parliament, that government agencies, boards and commissions must be staffed with competent, experienced people who are appointed through an open and accountable process based on merit. Quite frankly there is sadly little merit present in either this bill or the foundation it will create.

It is because of the lack of merit shown in the many ways I have mentioned that I will be voting against the legislation. I urge other members of the House to do the same.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 28th, 2001]

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 Act, March 28th, 2001]

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.”