AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 15, 2001

• 1109

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)): I'm calling the meeting to order.

Today we're going to do our clause-by-clause, but the order of reference....

• 1110

I have an announcement here. Mr. Graham Campbell, director of the Office of Energy Research and Development, and Anne-Marie Fortin, legal counsel, are here from the Department of Natural Resources, if the members have any questions. You see them in the back, there.

The order of reference dated Tuesday, February 20, 2001 is that Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 of the bill is postponed.

We had slotted 45 minutes for the Auditor General, as requested by Mr. Chatters, but he was unable to be here because he's out of the country, so our understanding was that we would proceed to clause-by-clause of Bill C-4.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Madame Chairman, I would like to express my disappointment at the committee's refusal to allow the Auditor General to appear. He expressed just this morning a willingness to appear next Thursday. In view of the fact that this bill has been pulled from the parliamentary agenda, and it doesn't seem to be on the agenda for the House in the next month, I would think it would have been a reasonable request to hold off on the clause-by-clause until next Thursday. Certainly there doesn't seem to be a willingness on the part of the committee, and I submit to the majority rule of the committee, but I did want to express my disappointment at that.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters, I tried very hard to accommodate that. We spoke with the Auditor General's office. His agenda is completely full until March 29. We spoke to his scheduling assistant and he's out of the country until Monday. So we did make every effort. I spoke with the House leader, and Bill C-4 is still on the agenda. So we did make every effort to accommodate your request, but unfortunately it was not possible in the timeframe we have.

We understood that once we made those efforts to reach the Auditor General, if he could not come and his staff could not come either, we would proceed with clause-by-clause.

Mr. Cardin.

• 1115

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): The last time, when Mr. Chatters proposed a visit by the Auditor General, a representative was also mentioned. Now, you are saying that the assistant will be back next Monday. To me there is some inconsistency when Mr. Chatters tells us that Bill C-4 will not come before the House in the near future. You state that it is still on the agenda. However, if the bill does not come back very soon and if the Auditor General's assistant is back on Monday, it would be possible to allow him to testify. I think that it could be quite beneficial, with respect to this bill, if we could hear from a representative of the Auditor General who could answer the questions that a number of the members of this committee would like to ask with respect to the follow-up on this bill.

If the Auditor General's assistant is back next Monday, would it not be possible to meet with him next week?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): I don't think there's an unwillingness by the committee to hear Mr. Desautels. We agreed at the last meeting that we would make every attempt possible to have Mr. Desautels appear before the committee.

My understanding is that he cannot appear before March 29, and that is very iffy, as he'll be in the last couple of days of his mandate. If there were any reasonable expectation that we would be able to hear from the Auditor General in the next week or so, we would certainly reconsider. But my take on it is that whether we postpone or not, it would be almost impossible to have Mr. Desautels in the near future, so I would suggest we proceed as agreed upon at the last meeting and move to clause-by-clause.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

There is one thing that we should clarify. Canada's Auditor General always has authority, whether it be before or after, but especially after. This foundation was not created at the last minute, as was the case in Quebec, where foundations were created at the last minute, NPOs over which no one had any authority, established after a budget.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: Madam Chair, I'd like to respond to those comments.

Obviously there are mixed messages coming here. I spoke to the Auditor General's assistant this morning and he said the Auditor General would be available next Thursday to appear before the committee and was willing to do so. Obviously there's some confusion there. I don't think it would be appropriate for his staff to appear before the committee. Because of the questions I would like to put to him, I don't think anybody would be appropriate but the Auditor General.

However, the idea that the Auditor General can look at this bill before the clause-by-clause or after it passes through the House is erroneous, simply because this board becomes a crown corporation and the Auditor General does not have access to a crown corporation.

Either we listen and discuss with the Auditor General how we might make this bill better and more accountable before it becomes law, or forevermore the Auditor General does not have access to the bill. I want that understood as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

When I spoke with their office they said he was appearing before other committees next week, so either we're talking to two different people, or not. But his staff also were not willing to answer questions if it was not referring to particular chapters of a report, so that also made it difficult for his staff to be able to sit in for him.

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Sorry, Madam Chair, I lost track of the last statement.

The Chair: I would say that we would proceed with clause-by-clause as efforts were made to involve the witness, as Mr. Chatters required, but we were not able to accommodate that in the timeframe. So we'll proceed.

• 1120

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), we shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration, beginning with clause 2.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: There are amendments which were proposed by the Bloc Québécois. Do you have them? Is this the time to table them?

[English]

The Chair: I'm told they're out of order, because they are substantial amendments to the interpretation clause.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: So, it's too basic to discuss it here.

[English]

The Chair: I'm told this is the wrong place to place these amendments.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: So, there are other places where this can be done. Thank you, Madam Chair. Therefore, obviously, I am against section 2.

[English]

The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: I would like to call for a recorded division on section 2.

[English]

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5—Objects and purposes of Foundation)

The Chair: There's an amendment. We're just distributing amendments from the PC.

Does Mr. Keddy wish to move his amendment?

• 1125

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move that clause 5 be amended by replacing line 2 on page 3 with the following.... I will read it as it exists in the clause now:

The objects and purposes of the Foundation are to provide funding to eligible recipients for eligible projects.

The amendment would read:

The objects and purposes of the Foundation are to provide a portion of the funding, to a maximum of fifty percent, to eligible recipients for eligible projects.

The reason for this amendment is that the minister has stated time and again in debate in the House and when he appeared before the committee that the purpose of this bill was to leverage financing for various projects throughout the country. Nowhere in the bill is it stated how much leveraging is possible. There is not a minimum amount here, and there is not a maximum amount here. The minister's suggestion was we should take $100 million and leverage that into $400 million. The idea and the principles behind the bill I have no problem with. That this legislation, the way it's presented, doesn't clearly outline the guidelines I do have a problem with.

The members should realize that there's a lot of other funding out there for similar or like-minded projects. There is the program for energy research and development, which is applicable to 12 departments and agencies of the federal government and has an annual allocation of $58 million. There is the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, which is a private sector institution. There is the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which is $2.4 billion. There is Technology Partnerships Canada, which has an annual allocation of $300 million. There is the Industrial Research Assistance Program, which has $7 million. We have the Technology Early Action Measures, with an annual allocation of $57 million over three years.

If the point of this is to leverage additional dollars for sustainable development and reduction of greenhouse gases, then I think the bill should somewhere state a maximum amount of funding available. The intent here, as we have been told by the minister and the government time and again, is not to find funding for 100%. If we don't put a maximum amount in, then it's possible to fund any application for these dollars to 100%, and that is not the intent of the bill, as I recognize it.

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I think Mr. Keddy's amendment has some merit, and I think he's right in the assessment of the minister's comments. I can reassure him that no project will ever be accepted at 100%. But I would hate to put the board in a straitjacket at 50%. I think the board will have appointed and elected members, and we should leave that to their judgment. I would be afraid that they might get themselves into a situation where a project has extreme merit, but the foundation cannot go more than 50%, so that the project cannot be accepted. They might want, in certain circumstances, to go 75% or 80%—I don't know. But I think we should leave that to the good judgment of the members of the board. I would reject that amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I would like to say that NSERC is not a private enterprise, it is quite definitely an NGO. I would also say that if you are going to hamstring the eligible project, it means, as in clause 2,

...a project carried on, or to be carried on, primarily in Canada by an eligible recipient to develop and demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development, including technologies to address climate change and air quality issues.

That eligible recipient could be a university, it could be a technical college, it could be an NGO that doesn't have money for this, and the amount might have to be 75% or 100%. It is not in the bill, as I read it, that we're to make money with it. We are to solve a problem.

• 1130

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Keddy, I think you captured the spirit of what we all agree with in your suggestion. However, a number of the pots of funding you mentioned were related to the federal government. If it's all coming out of the same pocket, it seems to me that we don't need to force on a private foundation or anyone else a whole bunch of bureaucracy that will have them going around a whole bunch of federal government pots from the same taxpayer just to get the money.

I think your concern is going to be precluded, because I understood the minister to say the funding agreement with the foundation is going to get into this detail anyway. They will be precluded from giving anyone 100%.

The Chair: Last comment, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: As I understand it—and I think as we all understand it—the purpose of the bill is not what's under debate here. The fact under debate is that it's our job as parliamentarians to set guidelines for this piece of legislation, and right now there are no guidelines. The purpose of the bill was to leverage dollars, not to fund for 100%. It was never mentioned in the minister's speech or anywhere else that we would fund any project to 100%.

The reason I brought these other available sources of funding forward—and there are lots of other available sources of funding outside the government's money—is that there are other avenues.

I realize, Mr. Finlay, that some projects of merit may require 100% funding, such as if it's coming out of a university setting, for instance. But it certainly wouldn't be the job of this piece of legislation to find 100% funding. The minister continually used the term “25%”. We'd leverage $100 million to $400 million. I took the liberty of doubling that to allow the board some leeway and some flexibility in making their decisions.

I really think that in this piece of legislation it's incumbent upon us to have a maximum amount of funding available. If we don't give those guidelines to the board.... The board needs some flexibility and some leeway in making their decision. I'm not trying to hamstring them at all. But I'm trying to give them some guidelines that they need to work within.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: A final comment, Madam Chair.

I think the minister indicated that this will be addressed in the agreement between the government and the board. Again, I think it's wrong for us to put that kind of straitjacket on the foundation, so I would suggest we take a vote on the amendment now.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin, you have the floor.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Given the comments that we've heard, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Keddy's amendment. I also understand what Mr. Finlay says with respect to non-profit organizations. Therefore, there is a problem. It's like a pendulum: there is a range from profit-making corporations to non-profit corporations.

Therefore, there appears to be a flaw in the bill. It's understandable that, in order to advance research or technology, a non-profit organization, at times, requires 100% funding, but when it comes to profit-making corporations, it's not necessarily appropriate to provide 100% grants.

Clearly there's a significant flaw with respect to this issue. How could this be fixed? Perhaps there could be guidelines provided for non-profit organizations and for profit-making corporations. The Auditor General has often said that grants are sometimes given a little too freely. Therefore, by establishing a 50% limit, there are some savings.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien had something to say.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Chair.

What I fear in this motion—because section 19 refers to financial assistance and eligible projects—is that, if an excellent project is eligible for a grant of 52%, the person or the organization may decide to withdraw the project or to not present it. This is what I fear with the 50% maximum. Eligible projects could come in around 53 or 54%. That is where the danger lies. A university may present a project, require assistance, and the project may be eligible for 51%. I agree with the 50 + 1, as we say in Quebec, but the danger is at 52 and 53...

Mr. Serge Cardin: Fifty-one.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Fifty-one. That's a very good motion, but I am fearful.

• 1135

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?

Mr. David Chatters: I'd like to call for a recorded vote.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Are we voting on the amendment or the clause?

The Chair: On the clause.

(Clause 5 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

(Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 10—Terms of office of directors)

The Chair: I believe Mr. Keddy has amendments for clause 10.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

Madam Chair, the amendment for clause 10 would replace lines 34 and 35 on page 6. I will read those as they exist there and as I have changed them. As they exist now, they read:

A director is eligible to be reappointed for one or more terms not exceeding five years each.

Under the amendment that I'm proposing, those lines would state:

A director is eligible to be reappointed for one term not exceeding five years.

Again, Madam Chair, the reason for this amendment is that it's our responsibility to set guidelines, and it's up to the board to enact those guidelines and run their own affairs after things leave our hands. My concern on terms that exceed five years in length.... There are literally thousands, and probably millions of people out there who are perfectly capable of sitting in these positions. Five years in a term is a fairly long period of time. These will be paid positions, and this doesn't allow.... I guess it allows the directors, upon their whims, to move people in and out of the directorship.

What could happen, Madam Chair, is that we could get into a situation in which you simply have a static board. Things never change. They become paid appointments. You don't see change, you don't see innovation, and you don't see the willingness to bring new players into it, because it becomes a pretty cozy group.

Restricting them to five years is not a comment or an aspersion on anyone's technical expertise. I realize some people would be perfect in that position for a period of ten years. Hopefully, we wouldn't see this program continue for ten or fifteen years in the country. It would play out its $100 million and probably reach its life expectancy and simply fold. The responsibility here is that if it does survive longer than five years, then it's also time to bring in some new blood and some new ideas and to take another look at the situation.

That's the reason I propose that.

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Again, Mr. Keddy proposes some amendments that have some merit, but the danger, the other side of the coin, Gerald, is that you can find yourself in a situation in which.... Let's say they reappoint the same board for another five years. At the end of the ten years, everybody is gone at the same time.

Every organization has a mechanism for continuity. With your amendment, we could find ourselves in a situation with a brand-new board altogether, and that's dangerous. You would have to reinvent everything, so we have to find a.... That's why I think that, with the clause as it is now, it's possible to maybe reappoint half of the directors, and to then wait another five years to change the other half or whatever. But it's very dangerous here, because we could end up with a brand-new board altogether.

• 1140

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The continuity factor is a very good point, and I recognize that the continuity is an issue. I'll withdraw the amendment, and I'll put that amendment back at report stage. I'll ask you guys to consider it now, but I'll put back in at report stage that you can appoint the board and allow for staggered appointments, because this amendment doesn't allow for that.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Just as a suggestion, Gerald, maybe when you reintroduce it, you could include that formula—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, I will, absolutely.

Mr. Benoît Serré: —so that it's half and half, or whatever.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: For continuity.

The Chair: I'm advised that there needs to be unanimous consent to withdraw an amendment.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.

The Chair: Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?

A voice: No, he has another one.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, did you want to bring your other amendment forward?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The second amendment to clause 10—

An hon. member: Didn't it carry?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I withdrew an amendment. That was what we were voting on, as I understood it. I didn't vote yes, so there's no recorded vote.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I guess you will bring your other amendment, Gerald, but I think there's a lack of procedure here. I thought we had voted clause 10 as carried, but I guess it was a mistake of the chair. Go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

I move that clause 10 be amended by replacing line 40 on page 6, which reads.... I'll read the entire subclause:

A person appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of a director who has ceased to hold office before the expiry of the director's term of office shall be appointed to hold office for the unexpired portion of that term.

What I did was take “the unexpired portion of that term” and add “and may only be appointed for one more term”.

This keeps the continuity of the idea of sitting for five-year terms. Obviously, if someone is appointed for six months or a year because one of the directors is deceased or they simply quit the board because they had other matters they wanted to deal with, this would allow that person to sit the year or two years, and because it's an extraordinary circumstance, they could also sit for another full five-year term.

That's the point of the amendment. It puts someone there for six, seven, or eight years, or up to a maximum of two terms, actually—or nine or nine and a half years, or whatever—but it would allow for that one more term and that continuity.

If someone is really.... I had looked at this with the idea that if one of the directors becomes deceased, if there's a year left in that person's term, the person who has learned how the foundation works would be able to serve that one year and another full term, to allow for that continuity.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Could you just repeat the amendment?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The clause would read:

...before the expiry of the director's term of office shall be appointed to hold office for the unexpired portion of that term

—that's to fill the unexpired portion of that term—

and may be appointed for one more term.

This is keeping within the guidelines and the idea of the five years.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: According to my interpretation, in the amendment that you are proposing, there are two mandates: the first mandate when he is appointed and the second when he continues for the second five-year mandate. It's as though you were telling a member who arrives at the House of Commons after being elected in a by-election in the last year, to begin a second mandate without an election. I find that difficult. With respect to the other amendment that you proposed earlier, according to the rules, there will be two distinct mandates.

• 1145

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: With the other motion that I withdrew, which I will put back with explanation, the intent was to put into the bill the fact that a director can sit for a five-year term. Obviously, if a director dies within the period of that term, that person needs to be replaced. If you replace someone for a year or two, then there should be a mechanism whereby that director can continue to serve an additional five-year term, instead of hog-tying the directors who serve two years and three years of another term, or something like that.

The clause is in the bill; it just allows that clause and the board some flexibility. That's the intent of it.

But also, to be very clear, the intent is to get away from having anyone on the board of directors for a period of 10, 15, or 20 years. There have to be some guidelines somewhere in this legislation.

The Chair: Mr. Carignan.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): If I understand the member's amendment, Madam Chair, we would respond to this with subsection (5). If there is a position to be filled, the administrator will finish the term. When the term ends, according to the previous subsection, it can be renewed for another five-year term. If I understand the amendment, the substitute would finish the term and be eligible for the following term. According to my interpretation, the previous subsection would allow for this.

In subsection (4), it states:

(4) A director is eligible to be reappointed for one or more terms not exceeding five years each.

The following subsection states:

(5) A person appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of a director who has ceased to hold office before the expiry of the director's term of office shall be appointed to hold office for the unexpired portion of that term.

According to the member the person would finish the term and then have an additional term of five years. According to me, the previous subsection, subsection (4), already allows this. Therefore I don't see the need for the member's amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I understand Mr. Keddy's motion for form. Basically, what we're suggesting we do is limit continuous service to ten years.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's a maximum—

Mr. John Finlay: A maximum of ten years.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: —in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. John Finlay: That's what subclause 10(4) will do, if we bring it back. They will only be appointed for one more term.

If we go along with what you're suggesting here, we're going to limit some people to five years and six months, or five years and one year. If they have to fill a vacancy and maybe there is a good person who comes in for a year and a half, you're saying they will serve the unexpired portion, the year and a half, and they can be appointed once more.

I would think you might get into any number of situations where you need someone rather desperately, so you go to someone and say you need them. They might say they have a good job and are doing this and that, and they might want to limit it to five years. That's fine, the director can resign when he wishes. On the other hand, he might also want to have ten years. So I think these have to be consistent.

With subclause 10(4), you are saying what we would be doing is limiting it to ten years. I'm not sure I have any big objection to that. This is a scientific body, or at least they have to understand those things, and with ten years, as you said, there's new blood, and so on. But we'll have to be careful with this, because it seems to me you'll have to change it a little bit if it's going to be fair. That's all.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, would you like to make one last comment?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The intent is certainly to look at changing the legislation for five-year terms. The intent of this particular motion is accepting the fact that if we have five-year terms, or even if we don't have five-year terms, when a position becomes vacant and there's three years left in that person's term, for whatever reason the vacancy has occurred, it would be a maximum of serving that three years, or possibly four and a half years—which makes almost a ten-year term, but it probably wouldn't be—and they would only serve a maximum of one more term, because they've come in under extraordinary circumstances.

That still allows some continuity and allows for shorter terms and being able to move more people from the scientific community and more experts in this field—hopefully they will be experts in this field—through the foundation.

• 1150

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Again, to be consistent, if we support that amendment, it would become at odds with subclause 10(4). What we're doing, in effect, is creating a special criterion for people who are just replacing, as opposed to permanent members of the board. If you're going to address that at report stage, that should be addressed at the same time. I would suggest that we turn down that amendment for now.

The Chair: So does the committee agree with the amendment?

Mr. Benoît Serré: No.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd like a vote.

The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?

Mr. Benoît Serré: He wants a vote on the amendment, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

(Clause 10 agreed to)

(On clause 11—Director representation and experience)

Mr. Benoît Serré: I have an amendment to clause 11, to replace, in the English version, line 23 on page 7 with the following:

(iii) not-for-profit organizations;

The Chair: Would you like to clarify that?

Mr. Benoît Serré: The original clause says “not-for-profit corporations”. That's not inclusive. There might be some organizations that are not corporations. It's consistent also with the French version of the act. It's just an administrative change.

The Chair: I am asked to advise that the vote on amendment G-1 applies also to amendment G-2. It is consequential to amendment G-2.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 12 to 14 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to)

The Chair: Do you have an amendment on clause 18?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: There will be some, but this is not the place, as you stated earlier, Madam Chair.

[English]

On division.

(Clause 18 agreed to on division)

(On clause 19—Funding for eligible projects)

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, do you have some amendments?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Clause 19 is a long clause. I'm going to take the liberty of reading the entire thing, and then I would recommend an amendment, subclause 19(1.1).

• 1155

From its funds, the Foundation may provide funding to eligible recipients to be used by them solely for the purposes of eligible projects in accordance with any terms and conditions specified by the Foundation in respect of funding, including terms and conditions as to repayment of the funding, intellectual property rights and the maximum amount and proportion of funding for eligible projects to be provided by the Foundation.

The amendment, as I've proposed, would read, “Subject to subsection (1.1)”, which would read:

Funding provided by the Foundation under subsection (1) shall not be greater than 50% of the total amount of funding available for each eligible project.

This is because, again—and I'm back to the 50% issue—there's absolutely nothing in this bill to limit funding. You can fund 10%; you can fund 100%. There's absolutely nothing there to control the amount of money spent. And 50%, again, is double the amount the government has talked about. There are other areas to access funding. The point here is to once again get into the 50% guidelines. And we can vote on that; we can discuss it. The government has already voted a number of times on the 50% guideline, and they voted, certainly, against it. But I'm willing to engage in more discussion, or you can go directly to the vote. It's up to you.

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Madam Chair, this is the same rationale as the previous clause. I would reject that and I propose to go to a vote.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Except if there's something new—

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes. There's been some introduction, if I understand it. I need to get my head around this part that follows the subclause. So if in fact this was rejected on the 50% scenario, would there be still some merit to this? Does it stand alone, aside from the subclause 19(1.1), or not?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No. The point is that funding shall be not greater than 50% of the total amount of funding available. What it's saying here is that there is absolutely nothing in the legislation now to establish the 50% range.

The other thing that quite frankly worries me a little bit is repayment of funding. I've dealt with that in another section. This was my preferable insert, and I have two other ones to deal with the—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: There would be some value in terms of some of the other things here that you talked about, in terms of repayment and so on, if that's not covered elsewhere. But you can't salvage. If subclause (1.1) goes down to defeat because of the 50% and objection to that—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I have two other ones. I'll break it up.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You'll break it up. Do you want to do that later?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Immediately. I have three amendments here.

The Chair: Okay. Does the committee agree—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I hope to get one of these across. These are clear-thinking, very easy-to-get-along-with members here.

The Chair: So does the committee agree with the amendment?

Mr. Benoît Serré: No.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, you have another one.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have another amendment.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We're going to try again.

This amendment would read:

19.(1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the Foundation may, from its funds, provide funding to eligible recipients to be used by them solely for the purposes of eligible projects in accordance with any terms and conditions specified by the Foundation in respect of funding, including terms and conditions as to repayment of the funding, intellectual property rights and the maximum amount and proportion of funding for eligible projects provided by the Foundation.

(1.1) Funding provided by the Foundation under subsection (1) shall not be greater than 50%—

Is that the same amendment?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.

The Chair: Do you want to read another one?

• 1200

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me that time to try to figure out which one of these amendments I have in front of me. So I ask for a little bit of understanding from my colleagues here.

The point of the next one is actually to deal with—and again, it's easier to read the entire thing.... It will be 19(1), and I have another amendment, if this one isn't successful. I've got too many amendments in front of me.

Subject to subsection 1(1), the Foundation may, from its funds, provide funding to eligible recipients to be used by them solely for the purposes of eligible projects in accordance with any terms and conditions specified by the Foundation in respect of the funding—

We simply leave out “including terms and conditions”.

—including terms and conditions as to repayment of the funding, intellectual property rights and the maximum amount and proportion of funding for eligible projects provided by the Foundation.

Funding provided by the Foundation shall not be greater than 50%.

This is slightly different from the first amendment, which really included amendments 4 and 5.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I'm going to ask Mr. Keddy.... There's no difference in subclauses 19(1.1). Subclause 19(1.1) in both amendments that I'm looking at—marked 4 and 5, to C-4—here is the same. The difference is in subclause 19(1); in the one I have, it says in the middle:

solely for the purposes of eligible projects in accordance with any terms and conditions specified by the Foundation in respect of the funding, including terms and conditions as to repayment of the funding, where that funding is subject to repayment.

You've taken those little seven words out and put in “conditions as to the repayment of the funding, when applicable”.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Exactly.

Mr. John Finlay: I'm not sure how that improves it, but I don't think it changes it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It changes it totally. When you read it for “repayment of the funding”, that would infer that you would have repayment of the funding in every case.

Mr. John Finlay: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's not the intent of the bill. The bill's intent is not to have the funding repaid. So there may be some circumstances where companies go bankrupt or companies simply abscond with funds where there would be perhaps criminal charges laid, where the government may want to have that funding repaid. But it has to have some leeway in the bill, “when applicable” to have it repaid, not in every instance.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, if I understand correctly, the first motion that you put had “when applicable”. The one that you're doing now doesn't.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: “When applicable”.

The Chair: That one was defeated—as far as I understand.

We're looking at reference 12217 in your amendment. That doesn't have the two words, “when applicable”, right? Do I understand correctly that in the amendment we're dealing with now, you took out those two words?

Mr. John Finlay: Right you are, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Because we defeated the amendment earlier that had the words “when applicable”—

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Madam Chairman, I think we're spinning our wheels here. We're probably discussing the same motion as a while ago, except for those two words. I think the key word here in the original version of the clause is “may”—it's not compulsory. It says “the Foundation may”, and I would suggest that without further discussion we vote on that amendment.

The Chair: Okay.

I just want to make sure we're dealing with the same amendments that Mr. Keddy is discussing so we have it on record that reference 12215 in your records was defeated, and now we're dealing with reference 12217.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you. Vote.

• 1205

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

The Chair: I understand you have one more amendment on the same clause.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There's no point in making it. I'll introduce it at report stage. I'll withdraw it for now.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: No. At section 19, I had said no. You went a bit too fast.

[English]

(Clause 19 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 20 to 25 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 26—Auditor)

Mr. Benoît Serré: I have an amendment to clause 26. I move that clause 26 of Bill C-4 be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 14 with the following:

26.(1) At the annual meeting in each fiscal year, the members shall appoint an auditor for

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: A point of order, Madam Chair. The amendment tabled here is only in English.

[English]

A voice: The French is on the other side.

The Chair: Did you check the other side?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Cardin: The page is blank.

[English]

The Chair: The clerk will give you her copy.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: I will tell you right away that it's the same for G-3, G-4 and G-5. I will point out that printing on both sides of the page does allow for savings, but on my copy, one side was forgotten.

[English]

The Chair: My apologies for that.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: With respect to this amendment, I have some additional information. We know how corporations work: there are regular meetings, and in many cases, there is a mandatory annual general meeting.

• 1210

In the French version, it says “au cours de l'assemblée annuelle”. If this foundation's charter specifies clearly that there is a mandatory annual general meeting, that is fine, otherwise it could mean approximately the same thing as is found in the English version, in other words “during the first meeting of each fiscal year”. It depends on how this is interpreted. If there is a mandatory annual general meeting at the beginning of each fiscal year, then fine. But if this is not specified anywhere, it would have to be done at the first meeting of each fiscal year.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: Yes, it doesn't.... I'd like to know what the intent of the amendment was, because it seems to me that the auditor should be appointed by the board at the first meeting of the year. The annual meeting of the board where they present the work of the board for the year should include the presentation of the auditor's report to the public.

You shouldn't be appointing an auditor at your annual meeting. How will the public have any confidence that the matters of the board were conducted in accordance with proper auditing principles if you only appoint the auditor at the annual meeting? He should be reporting to the annual meeting.

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I've been a member of many boards in my life, and it's the usual practice at the annual meeting for the auditor to present his annual report and for the budget to be put before the board. At the end of the exercise you appoint the auditors for the next fiscal year, but of course—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: For the next year.

Mr. Benoît Serré: For the next year.

Mr. David Chatters: But that isn't clear in your amendment. You should add that they appoint the auditor for the following year. In the initial year of incorporation the auditor should be appointed at the first meeting.

The Chair: Doesn't subclause 26(3) cover that?

Mr. Benoît Serré: Well, I'll ask the legal consultant to come and comment, but my suggestion would be that for the first year—I don't know if that's doable—the appointment should be made at the first meeting and then at each annual meeting thereafter.

Mr. David Chatters: For the following year.

The Chair: But doesn't subclause 26.(1) say that? “The members, at their first meeting in each fiscal year, shall appoint an auditor for the Foundation”. It's on line 30 on page 14.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's what he's trying to change, to amend. His amendment would replace that.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's why we're saying that as it stands, it's probably more acceptable.

The Chair: Do you have a question, Mr. Cardin?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: I wonder if there are any specialists in this room who could explain this to us quickly. They could sit down in front and quickly go over these specific legal terms, in order to avoid any confusion.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Madam Chair, I think Mr. Chatters' point about taking care of the first year is well taken, and I would suggest redoing the amendment in this manner: “that the members at their first meeting and on every subsequent annual meeting shall appoint an auditor”, etc.

Mr. David Chatters: Sure.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: For the next year.

The Chair: Could we get that written out by the clerks, please, and then we'll read it out and make sure we all understand it.

• 1215

I will read out what we've written:

At the first meeting of the members and in any subsequent fiscal year at the annual meeting the members shall appoint an auditor

and the rest will be the same. Is this what...?

Mr. Serré.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré: Madam Chair, just to clarify what Mr. Cardin brought up earlier, as to whether or not the bill should mention an annual report, I'd like to indicate that this issue will be addressed in section 29. The annual general meeting is statutory. In answer to your question, I would say that members of the committee must ask for an annual general meeting; it is statutory.

[English]

The Chair: Would you like me to read the amendment again? Mr. Keddy, do you have a question?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No.

• 1220

The Chair: Okay. I'll read the amendment one more time.

At the first meeting of the members and in any subsequent fiscal year, at the annual meeting the members shall appoint an auditor for

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Say it again.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Read it one more time.

The Chair: It would read:

At the first meeting of the members and in any subsequent fiscal year at the annual meeting the members shall appoint an auditor for

and then the rest of clause 26.

Mr. David Chatters: Yes, that works. It's better than what was there.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 26 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 27 agreed to)

(On clause 28—Audit committee)

Mr. David Chatters: Madam Chairman, I'd like to speak to clause 28. I did have an amendment to clause 28, which I will now introduce at report stage, but I want to address my concern with clause 28, and in fact with a number of these audit clauses.

I really would like to support this bill. I think it's a great idea and the principle is well meant. But I really think we're being irresponsible in the way this bill is drafted and, as guardians of the public purse, in simply passing this bill with the lack of control that's in it.

The minister, of course, argued that the appointment of this internal auditor would address my concerns, and it doesn't, Madam Chairman. The auditor who's appointed, operating within the rules and the standard audit procedures of his licence to operate as an auditor, simply has the responsibility to examine the books of the foundation, essentially to verify that the columns of figures add up correctly and that they represent fairly the yearly spending of the foundation. What this bill requires is a much larger and broader scrutiny of the foundation.

This bill is so loose at every point. It refers to eligible projects and eligible recipients, and that could mean anything. The internal auditor has no power to examine whether a particular organization or individual met the criteria to be eligible for that money. Also, the auditor has no power to judge whether or not the project should have been eligible under the criteria. The auditor simply looks at the figures that are available.

The Auditor General, however, has the power to look at and to make judgments on those things. In his last report tabled in the House of Commons the Auditor General went on at some length about the unsuitability of certain directors who are appointed by the government to boards. The internal auditor certainly isn't going to have an opinion about the suitability of a government appointed director to the foundation.

This bill is begging for political interference and political mismanagement of funds, and it needs a broader scrutiny, by the Auditor General, than is available to the internal auditor who is appointed. I think it's irresponsible of us, as parliamentarians and as members of this committee, to approve this kind of loosely worded bill. The intention is very well meant, and I support it 100%. I think it's a good use of tax dollars. But we need checks and balances that aren't there. We have a responsibility to do that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

• 1225

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a question for Mr. Chatters. It states clearly in subclause 28(2) that the auditor is “to ensure compliance by the officers and employees of the Foundation with management and information systems and controls established by the board.” So your point—and I want to be clear—is that there's nothing here whatsoever, nor is there in subclause (1), to allow the auditor to look at the criteria of the separate projects, and there are no criteria laid out.

Mr. David Chatters: No, the—

Mr. Benoît Serré: I have a point of order, Madame Chair.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, it's a question.

Mr. David Chatters: The internal auditor—

Mr. Benoît Serré: I know, but it's still a point of order on that.

The Chair: Okay, Monsieur Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I think we're discussing an amendment that has not been proposed. I let the members speak to this point and it was well taken, and I let the other member state his views there. But I think we're out of order, because we're discussing an amendment that has not even been proposed. I think we can carry on this discussion at report stage.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You're right, Benoît.

Mr. David Chatters: Actually, Madam Chair, I don't think that's the case. As a member of the committee, I think I have a right to speak to my amendment whether I table it at committee or not. I may be wrong on that, but—

Mr. John Finlay: Wrong? If we don't have it before us, we can't discuss it.

Mr. David Chatters: At any rate, I was simply speaking to my concerns with this particular clause of the bill. I certainly have the right to do that.

I would answer Mr. Keddy's question by simply saying that the internally appointed auditor has no authority to look at the issues that Mr. Keddy raised. The internally appointed auditor simply looks at the figures, verifies the correctness of the figures, and sees that those figures balance at the end of the year. He has no authority to look at the suitability of the projects or the appointees or the individual who receives the money. That's beyond the scope of the internal auditor.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay, on the clause.

Mr. John Finlay: Well, Madam Chair, I don't want to get into a long debate. I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Chatters. The minister and Privy Council are going to appoint the directors, and the criteria for the directors are perfectly clear. They have to be people who know something about what they're supposed to be doing, and they appoint others to assist them. We then appoint fifteen members to sort of keep an eye on them.

I have problems with the Auditor General, and I have had problems with him for years. I like the Auditor General, and I've been a member of the public accounts committee. But the Auditor General has a penchant for straying into policy. That's Mr. Chatters' business and my business and Mr. Vellacott's business and the business of the people sitting around this table. You're not going to hire the Auditor General. He will comment. He comments on health, he comments on all kinds of things.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Mr. John Finlay: I want him to audit the books, that's what I want him to do. I don't want him to be telling the board of directors what to do and how to do it.

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: On the same point of order, Madame Chair—I did it for the opposition, and I do it for my colleague—I think this discussion is out of order. We probably all have good, different points of view on the Auditor General, but I think this is out of order. I would suggest we carry on with the clause-by-clause.

The Chair: I surmised that the debate was relevant to the clause, so I allowed the discussion to go on.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Okay.

The Chair: I believe we can deal with the clause now.

(Clause 28 agreed to)

(On clause 29—Annual meeting)

The Chair: Turning to clause 29, I believe you have some amendments, Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Yes, I have an amendment to clause 29: that Bill C-4, in clause 29, be amended, first, by replacing line 12 on page 16 with the following:

examining the audited financial state-

second, by replacing line 15 on page 16 with the following:

examining the annual report of the and third, by replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 16 with the following:

examining the operating budget and the capital

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: Could I ask the parliamentary secretary what the rationale is for that amendment?

Mr. Benoît Serré: Yes, the rationale is that we've been advised by the legal department that it's standard procedure to use the word “examining” instead of “approving”. It's consistent with other foundations, the act itself, and the procedures in all other government agencies.

Mr. David Chatters: So how did “approving” get into the original version of the bill? If the legal department advised you that it should have been “examining”, how come it's “approving” in the original version?

• 1230

Mr. Benoît Serré: Well, I don't know who prepared the original version, but I think this happens often. When you prepare a bill like this, some words need to be replaced upon further examination.

Mr. David Chatters: It's another example of the looseness of the wording of this bill, and it concerns me.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I don't know if you want to vote amendment by amendment, but there are other amendments to clause 29. I don't know if you want to vote on all of them at one time, or vote on each one of them.

Mr. David Chatters: I think we have to deal with each one of them because of the previous amendment that you put for subclause 26(1). I think there's a problem with that next amendment on clause 29, so I think we should vote on this amendment that you have.

The Chair: I've been advised that we have to deal with them separately also.

Mr. Chatters, are you calling for a vote on this one?

Mr. David Chatters: No, on division.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chair: Mr. Serré, you have another amendment.

Mr. Benoît Serré: The amendment is put in order to be consistent with the previous amendment to...I believe it was clause 19. It's proposed that Bill C-4 in clause 29 be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 16 with the following:

made by the board;

(e) appointing an auditor under subsection 26(1); and

(f) considering any other matter respecting

The Chair: Are there any comments?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You're adding a line?

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: There seems to be a problem. There seems to be some discrepancy there with the numbering of the lines. It just doesn't seem to work. Perhaps you could have a look at that. Line 25 reads:

made by the board; and.

Mr. Benoît Serré: The change is very simple. For matters of the annual meeting, the original simply states “considering any other matter respecting the operation of the Foundation”. With the amendment, we now make it statutory to appoint an auditor under subsection 26(1), which we just amended a while ago. We're just making it statutory to appoint the auditor at that annual meeting.

Mr. David Chatters: I have no problem with what you're trying to achieve, but it's lines 26 and 27 you're working with.

A voice: It starts on line 25.

Mr. David Chatters: Does it? I don't think so.

A voice: The words “made by the board; and” are on line 25.

Mr. John Finlay: Madam Chair, when we talked about the appointment of an auditor, I believe Mr. Chatters pointed out that we hadn't appointed one. It didn't say we did so until maybe the end of the first fiscal year. Well, it seems to me this is the place to emphasize it.

Maybe someone else found the same thing as Mr. Chatters, and we're therefore going to make appointing an auditor something the board will do at their annual meeting, which is normal. We've really sort of covered it before, but....

The Chair: What I'm understanding, Mr. Chatters, is that you're referring to a correction: that lines 26 and 27—

Mr. David Chatters: Yes, I think we're replacing lines 26 and 27.

The Chair: It's more a technical—

Mr. David Chatters: I have no trouble with what we're replacing it with, but....

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chatters, I just noticed that. We have the wrong line here on the amendment, so if we can just correct the line—

A voice: No, they have the right lines.

The Chair: So our amendment should read that Bill C-4....

The clerk is advising me that those are right—lines 25 and 26—and that we're creating a line 27.

Mr. David Chatters: Yes, I understand it.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clause 29 as amended agreed to)

• 1235

(On clause 30—Annual Report)

The Chair: I believe there are two amendments to clause 30.

Mr. Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: In paragraph 30(1)(c), we read:

(c) a detailed statement of its funding activities;

We are adding, after “activities”:

activities and information on the extent to which the eligible projects for which funding was provided will lead to measurable environmental gains with respect to air quality;

We would like the annual report to indicate, at a given time, specific results obtained further to activities, an indicator to truly assess the environmental gains.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any questions on the amendment by Mr. Cardin?

Mr. Serré.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré: I would like you to reread the amendment, please.

Mr. Serge Cardin: In paragraph 30(1)(c)...

Mr. Benoît Serré: What number is your amendment, please?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Number 12205.

[English]

The Chair: It is 12205. It says B-4 in the right-hand corner.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: You are hesitating?

Mr. Benoît Serré: Intelligent men take the time to read the wording properly and to give some thought to the matter rather than immediate approval or disapproval.

Madam Chair, I think that this issue was already raised elsewhere in the bill. The minister was very clear when he appeared before the committee: the Auditor General, when he takes a second look at the agreement entered into between the government and the Foundation, will have the mandate to measure sustainable results. I do not think it is necessary to add this amendment.

Mr. Serge Cardin: If it is not mentioned anywhere, the annual report presented at the first general meeting may contain only numbers, just numbers, and no assessment of measurable environmental gains. I think that we must always bear in mind that we do not give money for the pleasure of doing so. We provide grants in order to obtain results. Consequently, it is very important that there be an analysis based on results or on measurable environmental gains. You are telling us that this has been provided somewhere, but there is no harm in restating the case here. We could include this measure in two places.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think the amendment has a lot of merit in what it does as to the annual report. The annual report is laid out very clearly. They are going to deal with financial statements. They are going to give a detailed statement on investment activities, and they say “a detailed statement of its funding activities”, but that's a bit vague. This takes that vagueness out of paragraph 30.(1)(c). It says “eligible projects for which funding was provided and which lead to measurable gains in respect to air quality”.

• 1240

That's what the intent of the legislation is and that's what the intent, I believe, of the amendment is. It's very clear. We want some guidelines in this piece of legislation to tighten it up a bit. This will present a few more benefits to the Canadian taxpayers, who will be able to look at this piece of legislation and say, yes, it's doing what it was meant to do.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I was going to say that I don't see the harm in it. I think there would be a lot of benefit to it. Frankly, in most reports I see you have a statement where it indicates whether you're meeting objectives or to what degree. I don't think anybody's hands are tied at the level of detail required. General broad-brush statements with respect to that are quite common for annual reports. I don't know why this would be any different or why we'd want to diverge from what's—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's doing what it was meant to do.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's fairly common practice out there with all kinds of agencies whenever there's an annual report to indicate to what degree they're meeting objectives and to provide their assessment of that in broad-brush strokes. I can't see the harm of it. I think there would be some definite benefit to it. I don't understand why the department officials would recommend not to accept the amendment. It would be a little incomprehensible to me.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Madam Chair, this amendment provides for a detailed statement of its funding activities. But if you look at paragraph 30(1)(e), a little bit further on, we read that the Foundation will include "an evaluation of the overall results."

When you talk about an evaluation of overall results, that includes many things. This paragraph of the bill states the following: "an evaluation of the overall results achieved by the funding of eligible projects by the Foundation." That is where it is found. When you talk about an evaluation, you are not talking about an evaluation of money, you are talking about an evaluation of the overall results achieved. This is an overall evaluation. This is where the measure can be found. Reference is made to amounts of money, a detailed statement. That is perfect. The evaluation referred to in paragraph 30(1)(e) is exactly what the member is suggesting. That is where it can be found. This is my personal opinion with respect to the evaluation. He refers to measurable results rather than an evaluation. Personally, I by far prefer an evaluation of all of the projects.

Mr. Serge Cardin: It is precisely...

Mr. Guy St-Julien: We do not have to have it indicated in two places.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Serré, please.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Madam Chair, maybe this is one of the occasions when I would like to call on our expert to comment. I think we have a problem with the terminology here in terms of what we're trying to accomplish, so I'd like Mr. Campbell to comment on the amendment.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Graham Campbell (Director, Office of Energy Research and Development, Department of Natural Resources): If you look at the amendment as proposed, an observation would be that there are perhaps two areas of difficulty with the amendment. One is with respect to the concept of measuring the results of these projects. It could be that we're at the developmental stage of a technology for which the funding provided by the foundation will improve efficiency or performance, but to be able to measure the results as they pertain to either climate change or clean air is a very difficult thing to do.

The clause we have before us speaks about an evaluation of the overall results during the year-end review and since inception, so there's very clearly an intent to provide an assessment or an evaluation of the results achieved by projects.

The second point I would like to make concerns the phrasing with respect to air quality. The bill has set for purposes of the foundation both climate change and clean air. The phrasing refers in particular to climate change and clean air. So I would suggest there's also an area of difficulty with respect to that latter part of the amendment as proposed.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

[Translation]

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I would like to go back to what Mr. St-Julien was saying.

This is often what happens. This is the risk you run with an evaluation of the overall results. At times, specific projects can be somewhat lost in evaluation. The bill refers to eligible projects that have been funded, but this is a little bit more in- depth. They may therefore be evaluated, to a certain extent, but on an individual basis.

• 1245

In overall terms, we can try to plough the issue when it comes to certain eligible projects. However, if eligible projects have to be measurable, and if results have to be measurable, according to what was said earlier, we could perhaps make a slight amendment to the wording, but this is about all I am prepared to concede. As for the measurement indicators for the projects, even if these projects are still under way, the fact remains that when we agree to provide a subsidy, we already have anticipated results in mind, and as the project progresses, it is also possible to measure whether or not it is on the right track.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré: Madam Chair, I would like to vote on the amendment immediately.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have a question. Is there a concern that in giving too detailed a statement there in terms of the projects, and measurable gains and so on with respect to air quality, there could be a possible divulging of a proprietary kind of information? Would that be the concern?

Mr. Benoît Serré: I think that's the concern. I think the concern is about asking the board to do something in terms of measurability that cannot be done technically at this point in time.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm less comfortable with that, but if it is about protection, because they've gone so far in terms of their research and the technology and you don't want to get into the detail of that and expose it in an annual report, I can accept that. But if it's just because they're not able to get at an evaluation, then I am concerned about that, because it's saying we're not really concerned about results in any concrete manner.

If it's wanting to shelter a little bit of the work that's in its very infancy, the seminal work on something, I can accept that.

The Chair: Mr. Serré and then Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Benoît Serré: There might be an element of that, Mr. Vellacott, but my understanding is that any new technology or new result that is going to derive out the work of the foundation as much as possible would become public property so that the whole world benefits from the work of this foundation. But there certainly might be an element of that.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien, you had a comment, and then Mr. Finlay, and then we'll deal with the amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: The clause is very specific. "A detailed statement of its funding activities" must be provided.

The member from the Bloc talks about clouding the issue. Listen, it may well do just the opposite as well. His amendment reads as follows:

will lead to measurable environmental gains with respect to air quality;

You could turn that around. Air quality could cloud the environmental measurements or just the opposite, because reference is made to an evaluation of the overall results achieved. As far as I am concerned, I am satisfied and I would like to vote on the matter.

An Honourable Member: Someone has already called for a vote.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: We will ask a second time.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to ask Mr. Finlay for his comment and then we'll deal with the amendment.

Mr. John Finlay: Madam Chair, I like aspects of this amendment, and I agree with Mr. St-Julien that he does say overall results. I'm hearing what Mr. Vellacott said.

I'm wondering whether one word change might solve the problem, and I'm going to suggest it. It is:

activities and information on the extent to which the eligible projects for which funding was provided may lead to measurable environmental gains with respect to air quality...

And what was the other thing?

The Chair: Climate change.

Mr. John Finlay: Climate change. We don't know necessarily, and if we say “will lead”, are we going to be tentative about things we might do that would improve things? Are we going to then leave the board or the foundation open to saying you couldn't prove this so why did you spend that money?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is that a proposal or an amendment?

The Chair: It's a subamendment.

An hon. member: An amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Let's vote on the amendment.

Mr. John Finlay: I'll vote for my subamendment.

An hon. member: Go on, John.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You'd have to be deal with the subamendment he's proposing before you deal with the amendment. He's asking for“may” instead of “will” and then climate control—

The Chair: We have to deal with the subamendment put forth by Mr. Finlay.

• 1250

Mr. Benoît Serré: The question is are you keeping that as a subamendment, John, or—

Mr. John Finlay: Yes, a subamendment.

The Chair: Does the committee agree with the subamendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Pardon me, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: One moment.

Mr. John Finlay: Just the “may”, Madam Chair. Just the “may”.

The Chair: The concern that's being brought forth is the amendment as it is is very limiting when the whole bill deals with sustainable development and just having it very narrowly focused might conflict with the bill itself overall, but we'll deal with your subamendment, and as far as I understood, we would have accepted the subamendment to the amendment.

Mr. Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: I missed a little bit of this, and so, for my benefit, could you please repeat the subamendment?

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Madam Chair, through you, I'm merely suggesting on this thing we have here where it says “which funding was provided will lead to measurable environmental gains with respect to air quality”, that “may” would be more in keeping with the scientific nature of what we're dealing with and less binding and less open to—

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes, that is fine.

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Do you still wish to add the climate change?

Mr. John Finlay: No, I don't think so, because I think air quality, yes, we can measure, but as for climate change, if you go by this year we could doubt global warming.

The Chair: So my understanding is the subamendment is carried.

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: You want to vote on Mr. Finlay's subamendment.

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I said I don't necessarily want to vote on that subamendment, but I don't have a choice, so please call the vote on the subamendment.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have one comment on the subamendment. And I understand what Mr. Finlay is saying about the air quality, but I think he still has to add climate change there, because that covers the entire scope of the bill, and it's air quality and climate change.

I think just to make sure that everything is covered, understanding that some projects will fail, you still have to include them both. So if the subamendment includes “and climate change”, I can support it.

The Chair: We can only deal with one subamendment at a time. So we're going to deal with Mr. Finlay's subamendment.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm trying to find out if he's prepared to have all of what he had initially suggested.

The Chair: All he did was change one word, from what I understand, from “will” to “may”.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: He initially actually had some other wording. If he's not prepared, then you have to go to the vote on it.

The Chair: Clarification, Mr. Finlay?

Mr. John Finlay: Someone on the other side of the table suggested that elsewhere in the bill it mentioned air quality and climate change as being primary concerns of this foundation. I think that's correct.

• 1255

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And sustainable development.

Mr. John Finlay: I'm not prepared to go that far, because I don't think we have those measures yet. So I like the idea that the board would try to assess which of the projects are eligible, which of them work best, and which of them create a measurable change. But I want to make it possible for them to do that. As I say, I don't think we can do that in one year, or year by year, for climate change.

I put it in because someone over there mentioned it. I thought at first, yes, let's make it consistent, but I'm no longer sure that it should be consistent.

The Chair: That's different from the one you're dealing with.

Mr. John Finlay: That's right.

The Chair: So as far as I know, you only changed “will” to “may”.

Mr. John Finlay: I would like to make my subamendment a change from the word “will” to “may” and leave the amendment as Mr. Cardin put it.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Madam Chair, we understand the Bloc Québécois' amendment. But as for the amendment, I move a sub- amendment that would merge paragraphs (c) and (e) of subsection (1) of clause 30, and that would be that. We have the evaluation. This is an annual report of financial statements, and when you look at paragraph (c), it is clearly indicated: "a detailed statement of its funding activities." Finally, paragraph (e) talks about "an evaluation of the overall results." Paragraph (e) must include the evaluation so, while we are at it, we should put paragraph (c) and (e) together, and everything will be perfect, everything will be included.

Paragraph (e) of the bill refers to "the evaluation of overall results." We know that initial funding will be earmarked for two major sectors, namely, climate change and air quality. The mandate of the Foundation is to fund technologies, namely, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce carbon emissions, etc. We know what the mandate is. But we have gone further, namely, we are now at the evaluation phase. I think that we are getting things mixed up a little bit.

Madam Chair, I think that this has been done very well. The bill refers to a detailed statement of funding activities. This is an annual report and paragraph (e) pertains to the evaluation of projects. Project evaluations is found there. We can see it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Madam Chair, we've been on this amendment and subamendment for about half an hour now. I think we've discussed this at length. I would call for the vote right now, please, on the subamendment.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Would you read the subamendment, please?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Read the subamendment, please.

The Chair: Does the committee agree with the subamendment replacing “will” with “may”?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: A recorded vote.

The Chair: We have a tie vote, four to four.

I disagree with the subamendment, because I think it's too limiting. So I'll defeat the subamendment and go with Mr. Cardin's amendment. I think there's been enough discussion.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3)

• 1300

Mr. Benoît Serré: I have also an amendment to clause 30. It's to be consistent with the amendment we just made on clause 29. It says that Bill C-4, in clause 30, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 17 with the following:

it shall be approved by the board and examined by the

So the word “examined” is inserted there.

The Chair: This is amendment G-6. Do you all have that in front of you? Does the committee agree with the amendment?

Mr. John Finlay: Madam Chair, can I ask what this amendment is changing and what the reason for it is?

Mr. Benoît Serré: The reasoning is very simple. It's to be consistent with what we did on clause 29. Instead of having “approved by the board and by the members”, it's “approved by the board and examined by the members”.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clause 30 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: From what I understand, this room is being taken over by another committee. I have to get some direction. Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Yes, in about two minutes. I don't think there are any more amendments or whatever, so just go fast.

The Chair: We have two more amendments.

(Clause 31 agreed to)

(On clause 32—Property to be divided)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Clause 32 deals with the winding up of affairs if this foundation serves its purpose and is folded up. I'll try to speed it up a little.

I propose that clause 32 be amended by replacing lines 36 to 47 on page 17 and lines 1 to 3 on page 18 with the following:

liquidation shall be paid to the Receiver General.

As it reads now, it states

If the Foundation is wound up or dissolved, its property remaining after its debts and obligations have been satisfied shall be liquidated and the moneys arising from the liquidation shall be distributed among all the eligible recipients that have received funding from the Foundation and that are, as of the day the distribution begins, still carrying on projects to develop and demonstrate new technologies to promote

—and so it goes on.

Madam Chair, you could have a project that was fully funded by the foundation, by the directors, but the funding has expired; it's still carrying out its business, but the initial investment's been made. They don't need additional funding to finish their project. They would all be included in this blanket clause, because under that clause everybody who is still carrying out operations would have to receive their portion of whatever funding is remaining. The day this thing is folded up, we don't know how much money will remain on the books. There may be $50 million there, or there may be 50¢ there. We have no idea.

Again it's the looseness of the legislation, and I think we have to say, you will assume the debts are paid, that every organization carrying out a project under this umbrella will have been given the last dollar they applied for—not extra. Any moneys remaining would be returned to the coffers of the Government of Canada. We can't put a piece of legislation out there with a blanket clause in it that says, you've got 25 projects remaining, they're still carrying on business, we've got $10 million, and we're going to divide it up so everybody gets a portion.

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

• 1305

Mr. Benoît Serré: Madam Chair, I think this amendment isn't appropriate because this is an arm's-length foundation from the government. The money that is left at that time could, in a ratio of 5:1 or 10:1, belong to private enterprise from donations or whatever. I think that the act itself assures that the money will be distributed only to recipients who are still carrying on projects that follow the criteria under the guidelines of the foundation. I would suggest we not carry that motion for amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: I do not agree with Mr. Serré, however, I do agree with Mr. Keddy, because if the Foundation were ever to be wound up or dissolved, would this not be the clause that would apply? It is as if the purpose of this was to distribute all of the money remaining in the Foundation amongst various programs that already exist or that are perhaps over. I would imagine that the people would be sufficiently responsible so as to terminate their commitment before thinking about dissolving the Foundation. Consequently, if the Foundation were to be dissolved or wound up, the remaining money would not, at any rate, belong to the organizations that have already received funding. This money comes from the government and it belongs to it; consequently, the money must be returned to it in the case of dissolution.

I support this amendment.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 32 agreed to)

(On clause 33—Official Languages Act Applies)

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: I would like to make an amendment, Madam Chair, to clause 33. I would like to add a new clause 33.1:

33.1 For the purposes of the Access to Information Act, the Foundation is deemed to be a government institution within the meaning of section 3 of that Act.

Considering that this is a transparent foundation, it would be subject to the Access to Information Act. That is what the amendment is all about.

Mr. Benoît Serré: While the committee is deciding, I move that we vote on the amendment without discussion.

Mr. Serge Cardin: We will vote.

[English]

The Chair: Do you want a recorded vote?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes, that is a good custom.

[English]

(Amendment negatived: nays 5, yeas 2)

(Clause 33 allowed to stand)

(Clause 34 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 35 to 39 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 40—Coming into force)

• 1310

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: As clause 40 reads now, it states that:

The provisions of this Act come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

The amendment would read:

This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

Madam Chair, we can get a legal briefing here this morning, but it's my understanding if we go with “day or days”, that allows part or portions of the bill to be introduced at a time. That would actually allow portions of the bill not—

Mr. Benoît Serré: I'll save you a lot of problems. I accept your amendment.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Very good.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Kill some time.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Not a problem.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 40 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill with the amendments to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Clerk: Shall the committee order a reprint?

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Legislative Clerk): No, absolutely not.

The Chair: Just for your information, at Tuesday's meeting the minister will be able to meet with us from eleven till noon on Bill C-3 and then the steering committee should meet from noon till one to decide on future business.

Thank you.