Ralph Goodale

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

moved:

Motion No. 8

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the House is once again considering Bill C-4 at report stage. A number of amendments were suggested subsequent to the work on the bill in committee.

We are dealing with motions that the Chair has designated as Group No. 2, specifically Motions Nos. 3 and 4 moved by the member for South Shore, in an effort to provide more restrictions in the bill to the terms of office of the directors.

I will deal with those specific points in just a moment, but I wish to make a couple of observations in response to the hon. member from the Bloc who has just spoken. Her criticisms of Bill C-4 were not in terms of what the bill is trying to achieve with respect to sustainable development.

As I understood them, they were twofold: first, there had not been ample consultation with all other players and stakeholders, particularly the provinces and, second, the foundation being proposed in some way duplicates that which is already in place in some provinces, most especially the province of Quebec. With the greatest of respect, neither of those criticisms is valid.

I say this for these reasons. First, Bill C-4 and all other measures included in Government of Canada action plan 2000 and identified in the budget of February 2000 with respect to climate change flow from over two years of the most comprehensive, open, transparent and inclusive consultation there has ever been on an environmental and developmental topic.

Members will recall that the Kyoto conference occurred in December 1997. In a meeting with the Prime Minister not more than 48 hours after the conclusion of the Kyoto protocol, the provinces insisted that there be a very thorough process of consultation. It would specifically include the provinces, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, the scientific community, the municipalities, and virtually all Canadians to fully scope out what the climate change issue was and what the implications of the Kyoto accord would be.

The Government of Canada agreed with that initiative and in the spring 1998 the consultation process began. It involved at least 16 different issue tables. It involved over 400 Canadians from every province and territory. It involved all municipalities that wanted to be involved, as well as scientific and non-governmental organizations. It included every dimension of Canadian life from coast to coast to coast. It was open, transparent, inclusive and comprehensive.

The idea for the sustainable development technology fund flowed from that process, which went on for the better part of two years. It cannot be said that there was not ample consultation. There was fulsome and very strong consultation which most definitely included the Government of Quebec and a whole range of non-governmental interest in the province of Quebec.

The proposed sustainable development technology foundation does not duplicate work that is already being undertaken by somebody else in some other jurisdiction. We have been very careful in defining the role of the new foundation. It is filling a gap in the innovation chain. It is not duplicating or overlapping with something that is already there. It is filling a gap that is problematic at the present time. There is common agreement among our private sector stakeholders that the gap needs to be filled and the foundation is the preferred method of filling that gap.

We have continuity from the very early stages of abstract and pure science through all the intermediate stages where that science becomes more defined and more applied, to the final end of the process where it is commercialized and put to work in the economy. This new fund and the new foundation will not cause an overlap or a duplication with something that somebody else is already doing in some other jurisdiction.

What it does is that it adds new funding to help us all meet the challenge of sustainable development. All federal, provincial and territorial ministers of energy and the environment, all those in the private sector that we consulted, the environmental organizations and the scientific community, would all agree that if there is one thing we need from all sources, federal, provincial and territorial with the private sector, is more money into the equation to help us find those sustainable development solutions.

We are not overlapping. We are not duplicating. We are acting on the basis of ample consultation, bringing another $100 million to the equation to help solve the challenges of sustainable development for the future.

When we have an absolute shortage of funding, adding another $100 million to the overall pot does not constitute overlap or duplication. It represents a very solid investment toward a larger solution.

Specifically on the points raised by the member for South Shore in Motions Nos. 3 and 4, Motion No. 3 is essentially aimed at staggering terms of office and Motion No. 4 is aimed at limiting the time in office that any particular director can serve.

While I recognize what the hon. gentleman is trying to accomplish, I respectfully suggest that the language already in Bill C-4 provides flexibility for the ongoing board of directors to function in a most appropriate way and that the restrictions and the meaning proposed by the member for South Shore would really be counterproductive.

We cannot determine the value of directors in advance by arbitrarily saying that they will only have good ideas, that they will only serve in a proper fashion for one term and that then they will be burned out and we should cast them aside and get somebody else.

While it is desirable to have turnover, new blood and new ideas brought into the equation, it is better to leave Bill C-4 in the form as it presently stands, which provides flexibility in dealing with the terms of directors rather than trying to precisely describe when a particular director must leave office.

Directors who serve well, that bring energy, ideas, vitality and enthusiasm to their task, ought to continue, and perhaps indefinitely. They do not run out of ideas because they serve a certain number of terms or reach a certain age. These people may want to leave after one term. They may want to continue for three or four. We need to retain the flexibility to capture their maximum vitality rather than try to prescribe and limit in advance.

I simply do not accept the notion that we necessarily have to say in the legislation that they should be turfed out at a certain point. The legislation provides flexibility. It provides for appointment and then the possibility of reappointment.

Obviously at the time of reappointment an assessment would be made as to whether the person wants to continue and whether in the view of the responsible government of the day the person is making a valuable contribution that ought to be continued. It is proper to leave it flexible on that basis so that there can be rejuvenation from time to time and that those who are making valuable contributions can continue for the long term.

On the point about staggering, I certainly agree with the objective that we do not want all the directors coming and going at the same time. Obviously we would have to reinvent the wheel with each new board of directors every time.

That is a reasonable proposition. My only comment would be that the staggering of terms is already possible under Bill C-4 as it is currently drafted. Therefore specifically Motion No. 3 is unnecessary because the foundation already has the flexibility that is required to stagger the terms.

[The Environment, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the principle of carbon sinks is embedded in the Kyoto protocol itself. The Canadian position with respect to carbon sinks in either agriculture or forestry is squarely based upon sound science.

The hon. gentleman sitting next to the leader of the NDP, coming from Saskatchewan, should know that the very best science in the world on sinks comes from Saskatchewan. He should be proud to stand up for that, to think of the world.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

But he says he supports it in principle.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this detailed discussion about some of the aspects of Bill C-4.

I note that when the bill was debated at second reading and, for the most part, when the bill was before the committee, there was a great deal of positive commentary, not only from government members but also from members of the opposition, about what the legislation is intending to accomplish.

While some of the remarks made today have been critical and some, quite frankly, entirely off the mark, there has been, at least with most members, an undertone of support for what is being attempted here, the objectives of the legislation.

Specifically, with respect to Motions No. 1, 6, and 10 that we now have before us, Motions No. 1 and 6 are an effort to identify in the internal operations of the proposed fund and foundation a specific role for provincial ministers of the environment.

Quite frankly, I tend to agree with the remarks made by members of the Canadian Alliance and for the Conservative Party that such a technique would lend itself to the possibility of fragmentation, to potential confusion and perhaps even inconsistency as to what the foundation is attempting to accomplish. Therefore, I do not support Motions Nos. 1 and 6.

However, there are other reasons why I would not recommend Motions Nos. 1 and 6 to the House. First, this legislation is based upon more than two years of the most open, transparent and comprehensive consultation that has probably been undertaken with respect to any legislation. The provinces were thoroughly involved in that process, the municipalities were involved, the private sector was involved, academic institutions were involved and non-governmental organizations were involved. Every aspect of Canadian life was consulted in that two year process and the sustainable development technology foundation is the product of that process in which all of those players participated. The consultation was very thorough and included all of the provinces as well as Quebec.

When we announced the Canadian action plan with respect to climate change last fall, which included the concept of the sustainable development technology fund and foundation, the Minister of the Environment and I immediately took that concept to a joint meeting of ministers of energy and the environment that involved all of our colleagues, federally, provincially and territorially. At that meeting where all of this was discussed, the chair, who was the minister from the province of Quebec, was exceedingly supportive of what was being proposed in relation to our action plan and all of the other various elements of the approach that we are taking with respect to climate change.

Therefore, I can say with full confidence that the provinces have been engaged with respect to this process and have been very supportive with respect to the concept of a sustainable development technology fund and foundation.

I would also add that the process of consultation is not yet over. We have established a national implementation strategy. We have established a process of rolling three year business plans to continue the work with respect to all of the initiatives we would undertake with respect to climate change so the provinces and all other stakeholders would have further ample, ongoing opportunities to have input and be a part of this whole process.

Therefore, again I would say, based on that consultation which has taken place, based on the fact that consultations will continue through the national implementation strategy process, based on the need for national consistency, which I mentioned at the outset, and based on the very practical fact that this is a foundation at arm's length from government, meaning not only the Government of Canada but the governments of the provinces too, it seems to me that Motions Nos. 1 and 6 should not be accepted by the House and that the structure that has been described in the legislation itself should be proceeded with.

On Motion No. 10, I would simply make the point that the gist of the motion is already covered in the legislation itself. In other words, Motion No. 10 is redundant. Bill C-4 requires annual reporting on the foundation's activities. That reporting must include, among other things: the foundation's audited financial statements; detailed statements on the foundation's investment portfolio and its funding activities; a statement of the foundation's plans for fulfilling the objectives of the fund for future years; and an evaluation of the overall results achieved by the funding of projects year by year and accumulatively since the very start of the foundation.

If we read what is actually proposed in Motion No. 10 with a proposed change to clause 30(1)(c), it seems to me that in the language of the legislation every point that has been suggested and the amendment is already covered in the bill itself.

The reporting that would be required of the foundation would be made public. It would be tabled in parliament so that members of parliament would have access to it. If members wished to discuss that report in detail before any standing committee of the House, they would be at liberty to do that.

The funding agreement that is contemplated by this legislation would spell out the requirements of the annual report in detail. In addition, the funding agreement would call for an independent interim and final evaluation to ascertain the results that are achieved, including measurable results against the funds' objectives and, of course, the funding agreement would be available to the auditor general.

I simply make the point that while I understand what the Conservative amendment is trying to accomplish, all of the things that are contemplated in the amendment are already embedded in the legislation itself. Therefore, the proposed amendment is redundant.

For all of those reasons, I would recommend to members of the House that Motion Nos. 1, 6 and 10 should be defeated because they do not add anything that is material or new in terms of this legislation.

[Research And Development, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, of course we take very seriously the timing considerations and the magnitude of this particular science proposal. That will all be considered very carefully.

In the context of the due diligence that the opposition would want us to give in the economic choppy waters to which the Leader of the Opposition refers, we have to be very careful about spending decisions that could total $500 million in this one case.

[Research And Development, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to pay tribute to Mr. Hec Clouthier, a former member of parliament, who was and remains a vigorous advocate of this particular project.

The government is examining the funding requirement for a neutron facility with all due diligence and care. It could well become a very important part of the research establishment within this country. We will be considering in due course where it fits within the important priorities of research for the future.

[Energy, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has totally misunderstood the discussions yesterday in Washington.

I am happy to tell him that in the time I spent with Secretary Abraham, the United States secretary of energy, at least equal time in that conversation was devoted to topics about energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewables, alternative sources of energy and new technology, as compared to the conventional sources of fuels.

I would also remind him that in our budgetary plans from last year we have booked a total of $1.1 billion for the advancement of Canada's climate change objectives.

[Gasoline Pricing, February 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman tries to impugn the integrity of the conference board. I point out to him that the membership of the conference board includes Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec, Confédération des caisses populaires et d'économie Desjardins du Québec, École des Hautes Études commerciales du Québec, Institut de la statistique du Québec and le ministère des Ressources naturelles du gouvernement du Québec.

[Gasoline Pricing, February 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when the report was commissioned last year, we indicated at the outset that we expected to receive the final documentation from the conference board around the end of the year 2000. That is approximately when the material was available. The conference board has proceeded to publish the official document almost on time. As was originally expected, it had absolutely nothing to do with any election campaign.