Gerald Keddy

[Division No. 52, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party votes no to the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 42, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes no.

[Division No. 41, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the PC Party vote yes to the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 40, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes no to the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division: )

[Division No. 47, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes no to the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the following division:)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-4, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 6 with the following:

“viour for terms that do not exceed five years and that are staggered so that not more than four terms will expire in any year.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-4, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 6 with the following:

“for one term not exceeding five years.”

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 3 is an amendment to clause 10 which amends the terms held by the directors of the foundation.

As the legislation exists now, directors are appointed to terms of five years. The motion would ensure that terms are staggered in such a way that there would be a turnover of directors to bring in new ideas and prevent stagnation at the director level. In short, directors would serve staggered terms so we could bring in new directors. The directors would appoint new directors. We would continually bring in new ideas from professionals, university professors and many different segments in Canadian society.

At the same time, we would state that no more than four terms would expire in any year. That would mean continuity and that directors would never be left completely in a void. They would have some institutional memory of the board and would understand and have some knowledge of the history of the board. If we did not do that there would be a risk that they would lose that institutional memory. That is the reason for this amendment.

I would hope that the House and the members of the Liberal caucus and the government would support that amendment.

[Petitions, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of Katimavik, a non-governmental organization funded by Heritage Canada, which over the last 20 years has provided tremendously valuable services to our country while serving as a model to many other countries in the world.

Katimavik has provided opportunities for more than 24,000 young Canadians to grow and mature through service to over 2,000 communities across Canada while contributing many millions of hours of volunteer work valued at over $36.5 million.

For the second consecutive year, Katimavik will have to turn down nearly 5,000 registered applicants because its present budget limits the program to fewer than 1,000 participants.

The petitioners call upon parliament to urge the government to allow, within its means, all young Canadians between 17 and 21 years of age to participate in Katimavik should they so choose.