Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 22 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:37 a.m. to examine the Main Estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this is the twenty-fifth meeting of our standing committee, and I remind honourable senators that this committee's field of interest is government spending, either directly through the estimates or indirectly through bills.
Before we begin our meeting with witnesses, I wish to bring forward a matter raised with me by Senator Ferretti Barth. I draw your attention to a letter that is before you from Ms. Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Ms. Stoddart appeared before our committee as part of our examination of the estimates on February 16, 2005. In her testimony, in response to a question from Senator Ferretti Barth she answered that members of her External Advisory Committee were not remunerated for their work. In a follow-up letter addressed to me as chair dated March 2, 2005 and circulated along with appendices to all members on April 4, 2005, Ms. Stoddart stated in paragraphs 2 and 3:
First, in response to a question by Senator Marisa Ferretti Barth, I indicated that the members of the Office of Privacy Commissioner's External Advisory Committee were not paid an honorarium for the work they did as members of the Committee. In fact, the members of the External Advisory Committee are paid an honorarium of $500.00 per meeting. Please accept my apologies for initially providing you with inaccurate information on this matter.
The External Advisory Committee meets about twice a year. It is comprised of seasoned privacy experts, as well as public sector scholars and practitioners and provides expert advice on strategic direction for my Office.
Honourable senators, I would like to thank Senator Ferretti Barth for drawing this to our attention. It would be appropriate to append the letter to our minutes of proceedings of today's meeting. The letter clarifies the record. As the appendices to the letter are quite voluminous, I suggest that only the letter be appended. The appendices already form part of the committee's official record through its archives.
Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
On Monday, March 7, 2005, our committee was authorized to study and report on the expenses forecast in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006.
[English]
Other than our general interest in the Main Estimates, this committee is interested in examining the federal government's practice of creating foundations and endowment funds to achieve specific policy objectives.
[Translation]
On December 1, and also on February 22, the committee heard the Auditor General, Ms. Sheila Fraser, on the foundations.
[English]
On February 3, we heard from three foundations: the Green Municipal Investment Fund, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and Canada Health Infoway. On April 13, we heard from the Comptroller General of Canada and officials from Treasury Board. We learned about what leadership and guidance the Treasury Board has provided to departments that sponsor foundations and how they have responded to recommendations by the Auditor General in both her 2002 and 2005 reports.
Honourable senators, this morning we welcome an official from the Department of Finance, Mr. Peter Devries, who will discuss with us the accountability and accounting issues relating to foundations.
Welcome to our committee. After you make your opening comments, honourable senators will pose questions to you.
Mr. Peter Devries, General Director, Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, for this invitation to appear before this committee to discuss various issues concerning the role of the Department of Finance in the creation and funding of foundations.
As you are aware, there are a number of alternative approaches that the government uses to deliver its programs and services. The most common is through direct departmental management. However, other organizational structures include special operating agencies, Crown corporations, local airport authorities, partnerships with other levels of government and not-for-profit organizations. The use of foundations falls into this latter category.
On June 12, 2002, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions appeared before this committee and outlined the principles under which the government would consider using foundations rather than one of the more traditional vehicles for the achievement of its policy objectives. These principles were repeated in the backgrounder on accountability of foundations, which the department put on its website following the release of the Auditor General's February 2005 report, which included the chapter on foundations that this committee is currently studying.
These principles are: Foundations should focus on a specific area of opportunity in which policy direction is provided generally through legislation and/or a funding agreement; foundations should harness the insight and decision-making ability of an independent board of directors with direct experience in and knowledge about the issues at stake; decisions by foundations should be made using expert peer review; foundations should be provided with guaranteed funding that goes beyond the annual parliamentary appropriations to give foundations the financial stability needed for comprehensive medium and long-term planning that is essential to their specific area of opportunity; and foundations should have the opportunity and hence the ability to lever funds from other levels of government and the private sector — upfront funding is an essential requirement for the levering of such additional funds, and contributors would be reluctant to make funding commitments if they were worried that the financial tap could be turned off in midstream.
The decision to establish a foundation through legislation or to provide additional funding to an existing foundation is done through the annual budgetary process. Submissions are received from cabinet ministers, parliamentary committees, interest groups and the general public, among others, through the pre-budget consultations. Traditionally, the Minister of Finance's fall economic and fiscal update to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance launches this process. The committee will hear briefs from interested parties and present its recommendations on what it heard to the government in early December.
Ministers, through their applicable cabinet committees, will seek approval in principle for funding for priority initiatives in their area of responsibility. The minister holds cross-country town hall meetings and receives briefs from interested parties outlining their priorities for inclusion in the upcoming budget. These various demands are taken into consideration and funded based on the government's overall priorities and the availability of sources. As a department, we assess these various proposals, including those related to foundations, and provide advice to the minister. Final decisions, of course, are made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
If incremental funding is provided to a foundation, officers in the Department of Finance would work closely with the sponsoring department and the Treasury Board secretariat to ensure that the legislation, if required, and the funding agreement are consistent with Treasury Board's policy on transfer payments as mentioned in the testimony of Mr. Charles-Antoine St-Jean to you earlier.
The department also works closely with officials from the Office of the Comptroller General and the Office of the Auditor General on accountability issues with respect to foundations. In response to recommendations made by the Auditor General in 2002, a number of changes were announced in the budget of 2003 designed to strengthen the accountability and reporting framework relating to foundations. This included the requirements for compliance audits and evaluations, the submission of corporate plans and annual reports, improved reporting to Parliament through the reports on plans and priorities and departmental performance reports, and default and dispute resolution clauses, including the ability to recover funds in the event of breach in the funding agreement or wind down. These provisions are currently in place in all current funding agreements.
These discussions are ongoing and, just as the views of the Auditor General have been evolving, especially with respect to her role in auditing foundations, so too has the government's. After considering the recommendations of the Auditor General in her February 2005 report and in her letter to the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the government has proposed to expand the mandate of the Auditor General. The budget implementation bill includes a proposal to amend the Auditor General's Act to provide for performance audits of foundations that have received $100 million or more in federal funding in any five consecutive fiscal years. All new funding agreements will include this provision, and the government will seek to renegotiate existing agreements to include this provision as well.
Accounting standards are always subject to some element of professional judgment. As a result, there may be differences in interpretation between the Auditor General and the government. However, as we have witnessed, by working together, we will continually strive to resolve these differences.
This concludes my opening remarks. I will be pleased to respond to questions.
The Chairman: Thank you for that excellent overview. Can you tell me why you decided to cut off performance audits for foundations receiving $100 million or more rather than those receiving $50 million or more?
Mr. Devries: It was to try to be as broad as possible. The $50 million is a number that is somewhat smaller, so it would pick up more people, but $100 million was also proposed in a private member's bill that is currently before the other place. In that regard, it was $100 million over 12 consecutive months. We are proposing $100 million over five consecutive years, in the budget bill currently before the House, so it pulls in more money that could be allocated over a longer time period. The Auditor General was happy with the $100 million. She realized that a lower amount would put a strain on her resources, and that was not necessarily what she was looking for. She was looking at the big picture. As you have seen in her appearance before the committee, as well as Mr. St-Jean's, most of the money has been allocated to a few large foundations. The smaller amounts have gone largely to endowments, and she is not interested in the endowments.
The Chairman: Over five years means it could be $30 million in one year, $20 million in another, and by the end of the fifth year, if it is cumulative, it would be $100 million?
Mr. Devries: That is correct.
Senator Ringuette: It is my understanding that the government foundations — we have a list of over 30 — are set up on the same basis as a private sector foundation. Is that the case?
Mr. Devries: That is the case with the exception that there are government members on the board of directors. The government does appoint a number of directors.
Senator Ringuette: Are government foundations subject to the same rule of law as private sector foundations?
Mr. Devries: There are some differences between the private sector foundations and, say, Crown corporations in that respect. Crown corporations come under the rules of Parliament. Private sector foundations come under the rules of the private sector. There may be differences between the two.
Senator Ringuette: There is an interesting bill before the Senate, Bill C-33. You are probably very familiar with it. In that bill, changes are proposed to foundations, which leverage the playing field between foundations and charities. Right now, before Bill C-33, there is a legal provision for foundations that requests that 4.5 per cent of your assets be dissolved or distributed on a yearly basis. Do the government foundations, the 30-some of them, comply with that existing legislation?
Mr. Devries: I am not familiar with that element of the legislation. I think that relates solely to certain types of foundations that are involved in the charitable side. These foundations would not be subject to that.
Senator Ringuette: The government foundations are not subject to that?
Mr. Devries: If they were involved in those provisions that are specific to Bill C-33, then I think they will, but I am not an expert on that, senator. I am sorry.
The foundations that we are talking about in this context are specific not-for-profit foundations that deliver on a certain element of the government's overall policy. The Canada Foundation for Innovation was set up for the specific purpose of enhancing the physical infrastructure for medical research in hospitals and universities.
Senator Ringuette: There are private sector foundations that have given themselves the same mandate as the policy of the private sector group that put it together, be it buying equipment for children's hospitals and whatever.
You are telling me that each foundation has a specific mandate from the government, but that is not different from private sector foundations, so why would the government foundation not have to comply?
Mr. Devries: We see these foundations as private sector foundations and not as government foundations. In that respect, any legislation applicable to a private sector foundation would also be applicable to those foundations.
Senator Ringuette: Coming back to my first question, are there any provisions in these government foundations that would mirror the ones in the private sector, with regard to a percentage of their assets having to be invested in their goal on a yearly basis? Some foundations have a lot of public funds invested in financial institutions, which are not being used. Your department is currently suggesting, in Bill C-33, a requirement that a portion of those assets be invested on a yearly basis.
How can you say this is good for government foundations but not for private sector foundations?
Mr. Devries: I will have to get back to you on that, senator, because I am not an expert in that area. I do know that the foundations under review are private sector foundations, so they would follow the rules the government has set out for them in the private sector. They would be asked to comply with any provisions the government has specified in Bill C-33, or any other bill if it is applicable to them.
Crown corporations are a different issue and I will get back to you on that.
The Chairman: I have a question about what I call corporate governance or the board of directors. You indicated in your remarks to us today that foundations should harness the insight and decision-making ability of independent members of boards of directors with direct experience in, and knowledge about, what is at stake.
What criteria and standards does the finance department look for in choosing directors to sit on these foundations? Do you look at gender, geography, age, religion, politics, and education and training? What do you look at in finding the directors who perform a very important job in these foundations?
Mr. Devries: The Department of Finance is not involved in selecting members of the individual boards of directors. That is left up to the sponsoring department. In the case of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, that is Industry Canada. For the various health foundations, it is Health Canada, et cetera. As a department, we are not a sponsor of any of the foundations. Our minister or deputy minister would not be involved in the selection of any of the government members that sit on the board.
The Chairman: Do you know anything about the process?
Mr. Devries: The goal is to find people with expertise in the various areas. Depending on the nature of the foundation, we look for the best qualified people to carry out that mandate.
The Chairman: Do you look for gender and geographical balance?
Mr. Devries: I cannot comment on that. I do not know. Merit would be the overriding principle. From there, it would be up to the individual minister appointing the government members, and then the board of directors to determine who is best suited for that job. I assume they would take these other factors into consideration, but I cannot say for certain.
The Chairman: Does the Department of Finance oversee that?
Mr. Devries: No, we do not.
Senator Murray: We have heard of cases in this committee, during this study, in which the government does not have the last word at all. The government has the first word, after which those in control replicate themselves. They have the power to add as time goes on. It is out of the hands of the government entirely. The whole process is put at another remove from Parliament and government. I think that is the case in several examples that we heard about here.
Mr. Devries: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. That is the case for all of them. Initially, the government appoints a number of members to the board. Those members then appoint the rest of the board, along with the chairman, and after that it is a rotation. The board of directors then appoints members to the board based on the breakdown between government and non-government members.
Senator Murray: They are accountable to themselves.
Senator Downe: Are you aware of any foundation that is opposed to Bill C-33? Have you heard any expressions of concern?
Mr. Devries: Not, we have not. In fact, when the issue first came up after the 2003 budget, a number of foundations indicated that they were more than willing to have the Auditor General conduct compliance and performance audits.
Senator Downe: You made the case for foundations and why they are important for planning, et cetera. As you are probably aware, this committee has concerns about the transfer of funds, accountability and responsibility in areas where government priorities may change as governments change.
Is the Department of Finance concerned about the large amount of funds that these foundations have received and have not spent? According to the latest figures I have, over $7 billion of the $9 billion that has been received has not been disbursed or committed. Is that right?
Mr. Devries: That is correct.
Senator Downe: As part of the control, is the Department of Finance aware what the foundations are doing with this money? I assume they do not have it in the local bank collecting interest. They must have it invested. How do they select investment firms? Does the government supervise that in any way?
Mr. Devries: The funding agreements specify the investment policies that the individual foundations can undertake. Whenever we sign an agreement with a foundation, the government specifies under what conditions they can invest the money and in what instruments. The money is intended to be spent over a relatively short time period, with the exception of the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation, for example. The specific purpose of this foundation was to allocate funds up front to be invested in order that they would generate enough money to provide scholarships and bursaries over a 10-year period. The funding agreement for that organization set out the terms and conditions under which the foundation could invest its funds.
From a compliance point of view, the department responsible would ensure that that is actually happening.
Senator Downe: Just so I am clear, they have firm rules of how they can invest the money.
Mr. Devries: That is correct.
Senator Downe: They have firm rules about the template of how they do that. Finance would instruct them in the manner of doing that?
Mr. Devries: In each funding agreement, those would be settled, including the terms and conditions under which the foundation can invest its funds, and the instruments it can use to invest those.
Senator Murray: I do not know that I have a specific question, but I will say a few words, and then perhaps Mr. Devries would like to comment. We have been struggling with this for some time. I would not like to see the government precluded from using this kind of instrumentality to achieve public policy objectives. I would not like to see them unduly constrained in that. For me and for most of us here, it is entirely a question of transparency and accountability to Parliament.
You may be old enough to remember the Crown corporation model. The CNR, Air Canada and the CBC were Crown corporations set up to pursue particular policy objectives of the government and of the country. They were set up by legislation. I think they were largely free of undue political interference. Most of the time, those organizations had strong management who resisted any attempts to micromanage from a political point of view. The boards of directors were highly political. That had its advantages and disadvantages. However, there was accountability. Parliament got its word in through the estimates process. Generally, we had to make up a deficit at the end of the year or at the beginning of the year. The management of those Crown corporations were called before parliamentary committees, sometimes for several days at a time, and were subjected to quite a grilling on their management, on the policies they were following and on all the questions that parliamentarians considered to be legitimate. It did not work too badly. Generally speaking, it was a success in its day.
With these foundations, typically what has happened is that government, looking at a large surplus, dumped money into them toward the end of the fiscal year. The Auditor General properly commented that the exercise should have some higher purpose than achieving a particular accounting result in the budget at the end of the year. That point is well taken. Some of these foundations were set up by legislation. More of them, I think, were set up under the Canada Corporations Act, which puts them at a greater remove from Parliament. I do not think it is up to the Auditor General to argue that the money, thus invested, should have been used to pay down the debt, lower taxes or spent on some other purpose. That is for Parliament to judge. However, where and when do we get the opportunity to make that point: almost not at all.
Then, depending upon the particular agency or foundation that is set up, perhaps they table their report in Parliament, and perhaps they do not. Perhaps it is at the discretion of the minister. When do we get an opportunity? This is not a bean-counting exercise. It is not only the propriety of their financial management that concerns me, and I think this committee. These organizations are set up to operate in important areas of public policy. When do we get an opportunity to hold them to account as to whether they are going about it in the right way and whether their priorities are straight? These are legitimate concerns for parliamentarians.
The situation is so varied from one foundation to another that we have to come to grips with a model, at least a minimum, that we require of the government and of these foundations in terms of their operation. An annual report must be tabled, and there has to be something more direct with regard to the boards that run these foundations. There has to be compliance with the Official Languages Act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and other statutes that apply. These outfits cannot have complete autonomy. We cannot have that in our system of government. Those who want it should forget it. We should insist on a minimum of transparency and accountability to Parliament. It is up to us to define it.
The Chairman: Senator Murray has asked a number of key and essential questions. Before you answer, I will put some facts on the table to support what he is saying.
Three out of 15 foundations are required to table information to Parliament. Mr. Wileman, who appeared before our committee on February 22, 2005, stressed that, should a minister chose not to table a document, there is no means whereby the document would then be tabled. For its part, the federal government responded that, to the extent that there are significant foundations whose reports are not tabled in Parliament, the Treasury Board Secretariat will encourage departments to do so. That is as per the Department of Finance backgrounder.
In your view, how exactly and effectively can the Treasury Board Secretariat encourage these foundations and their sponsoring ministers to provide the type of accountability that Senator Murray is asking about? I think that goes to the root of his question.
Mr. Devries: I will try to answer that, Mr. Chairman. In the 2003 budget, we recognized that there were gaps or defects in the accountability mechanism for these foundations, and this came about after a number of discussions with the Auditor General who set up a model as to what she would like to see from an accountability point of view. The government responded in the 2003 budget and met most of the conditions that she had set out. One condition was that she should be the external auditor. Given the independence of these situations, we said that was not appropriate, and since that time she herself has said she no longer wants to be the external auditor. Having said that, we asked that reports from these foundations be tabled in Parliament. The three you mentioned are the ones created through federal legislation. We encourage the ministers to table the other reports for other foundations as well.
The Chairman: There is that word, ``encourage.''
Mr. Devries: We are encouraged, because it is happening. In the last few months, a number of ministers — I do not know the exact number, Mr. Chairman — did table reports of foundations under their area of responsibility in Parliament. Of course, each foundation is required to prepare a report and have it made public, even though it may not be tabled in Parliament. The information is there for people to look at.
In addition, a number of foundations have appeared before parliamentary committees. In the other place, I think all the larger ones have appeared before the operations committee and the finance committee at various points in time. If this committee wanted to ask any of the foundations to appear before it, I do not think there would be any resistance. I cannot speak to that with 100-per-cent certainty, but my experience up to this point would be that they would comply with that request.
I would add as well that in the last budget and in Bill C-43, we have expanded the powers of the Auditor General. The Auditor General can now go into a foundation and do a performance audit. That is what she has been asking to do. She would do that in the context of a broader policy review in a particular area. If you wanted a performance audit of the government's initiatives in the area of education or innovation, then, given the fact that there are a number of departments that are involved in delivering those policy objectives — non-profit organizations outside of foundations as well as foundations — she can bring them all into her review if she thinks that is appropriate.
I am sure she will come forward at various times with her conclusions on how the government is doing in certain areas, and the role these foundations play.
Senator Downe: I note that the federal government estimates and the information tabled in Parliament by sponsoring ministers represents 80 per cent of all transfers to foundations. What is the dollar value of the 20 per cent that is not tabled?
Mr. Devries: The three largest ones that are done through legislation are the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which to date has received funding of $3.7 billion; the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which has received funding of $2.5 billion; and the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development, I believe, which has received $350 million. That is a total of about $7.5 billion of $9.1 billion. The other foundations would be roughly $1.5 billion.
Senator Downe: The information on $1.5 billion is not tabled in Parliament?
Mr. Devries: The reports should be tabled in Parliament. The ministers are encouraged to table them in Parliament.
Senator Downe: This is the point we are making.
Mr. Devries: It is up to the ministers to table the reports in Parliament for about $1.5 billion.
Senator Downe: You are saying today that the information on $1.5 billion, representing 20 per cent, is not tabled in Parliament, but that you are urging foundations and ministers to do that?
Mr. Devries: We are, senator, and, in fact, a number of them do that.
Senator Downe: However, there is no requirement that these reports be tabled?
Mr. Devries: There is no explicit requirement that they be tabled, but, as I indicated, ministers are encouraged to get those reports and to table them. They are also encouraged to put those results in their Reports on Plans and Priorities, and in the departmental performance reports to link them all together.
I think you will see more and more of that as time goes on. We are hopeful that we will get 100-per-cent compliance.
Senator Downe: We are hopeful as well.
The Chairman: You used the words ``performance audit.'' If one of the foundations has extra cash of, for example, $90 million, and they invest it at a rate of return of about 1.7 per cent, and inflation is running at 2 per cent, could such extremely poor performance be included in the performance report; in other words, a performance on the investment?
Mr. Devries: It could be, if that is what she is looking at.
The Chairman: Is it one of the criteria included under the rubric of performance audit?
Mr. Devries: It could be included, yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murray: One problem with this from the beginning has been that we are playing catch-up. As I said, typically it has happened toward the end of a fiscal year that the money was spilled into it and, in many cases, the foundations were set up under the Canada Corporations Act. We are faced with a fait accompli. We ought to consider recommending that, if they create these foundations, they ought to create them by legislation so at least we get a head start on the process to express our views as to whether this is an appropriate way to go about achieving this public policy.
The Chairman: Many would say the Canada Corporations Act is legislation.
Senator Murray: It is not. You do not come before Parliament when you want to set up a foundation under the CCA, but you do come to Parliament for separate legislation in a particular case. I think we should require them to do that so we get a chance to express our view on whether this is the appropriate way to pursue this area of public policy, and also on whether the way the organization is being set up respects the principle of transparency. Above all, it would make them accountable to Parliament.
Mr. Devries: The government has indicated that those foundations of significant policy objectives and funding would be set up through legislation. That was part of the 2003 budget. In addition, most of the incremental funding to foundations is actually done through the budget bill.
In Bill C-43, we provided incremental funding to the municipal enabling funds and to Genome Canada. That is subject to parliamentary approval before they receive any of the money. Any other funds that are not sought through the budget bill, would, of course, have to go through supplementary estimates. Parliament does have to approve funding for these foundations.
The Chairman: Additional funding, yes.
Senator Ringuette: In a previous meeting we were given a schedule of foundations by people from Treasury Board, I believe. There is a lot of information about 10 of them, and another 12 are just listed. That is 22 out of, supposedly, 30 foundations. Can the Department of Finance provide us with more information about all 30 foundations?
Mr. Devries: We could try to get that information for you, senator. We would not have that information explicitly. The individual departments that are responsible for those foundations would have that information. We would have to seek it through them, but we would not have that information ourselves.
Senator Ringuette: Will you seek that information and provide it to this committee?
Mr. Devries: I will provide the various details of that information to the committee.
I think this is the table you are referring to, which the Office of the Comptroller General presented at the last meeting.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, there are details on only 10 foundations to enable us to assess the standards and how they were set up, be it by legislation or by the Canada Corporations Act. For the other 12, they just list the foundations or endowments. They are of less value, but they are still valuable foundations.
We were told that there are approximately 30 or more foundations, and a lot of information on them is missing in order for us to have a clear picture as per the schedule that was given to us, which is very helpful.
Mr. Devries: Mr. Chairman, I will get someone to complete this table for the committee, and I will pass it on to you.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: As a supplementary to senator Ringuette's question, I would like to know how the government decided to set up a foundation. What was the purpose?
Even if the government is aware of it, the public does not know what the banks do with the interest on the money that has not been used by the end of the year. What is the government doing with it? In our society, there are a lot of social issues, a lot of problems with education, health, the seniors. So how do we decide if a foundation is needed?
Second, when a foundation has money it is not using, can the government use that money to finance programs outside the purpose of the foundation if necessary?
[English]
Mr. Devries: I have tried to list in my opening remarks the principles under which the government would establish or set up a foundation. The foundations are set up largely to put them in some ways outside government and to harness the expertise in the private sector.
The first foundation that the government created was the Canada Foundation for Innovation. The government announced that the foundation would provide incremental funding to help improve the infrastructure of medical research in the various facilities, hospitals and universities. This announcement was made in the fall of 1996, and then funding for this entity was provided in the budget of 1997. This is something the government had been thinking about doing, recognizing that there was a need in that area. Through its consultations with the private sector and with various interest groups on the infrastructure for teaching hospitals and universities, they determined there was a need for new facilities and an upgrade in facilities. It was decided that the best vehicle to do this was one that would be able to bring in experts to make the decisions as to what the government should spend, where this money should go and how it should be spent. At the same time, there was a desire to provide a vehicle to bring in other partners to increase the overall pool of funds. Not only would federal government monies go into this project, but also provincial government, university and hospital money, whatever the mechanism would be.
The same thing happened with the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Honourable senators may recall that it was actually announced in the fall of 1997 and then implemented in the 1998 budget. That foundation was part of a larger education package that the government embarked on at that time, and was tied up with an initiative called Creating Opportunities, whereby various changes were made to the Income Tax Act with respect to student interest and loans. New provisions were made for people to be able to save money for their children's education. It was recognized that many of these initiatives would take a long period of time before they were fully in place. People would not build up savings for their children's education in one year; it would happen over time. To fill in the gap in the interim, they created the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation to provide bursaries for students in need and for students of merit. In some ways, the process was viewed as a down payment for things that would come into effect 10 years down the road. The same process applied to other foundations of that nature.
A significant amount of criticism has been levelled at the government because there is a perception — and Senator Murray mentioned it — that much of this money happens at the end of the year. These foundations are sometimes seen as a vehicle to deposit money at the end of the year in order to effect a certain surplus outcome. Given the optics, I understand why people think that way.
The Chairman: Perception becomes reality.
Mr. Devries: However, as I tried to explain before other committees, and I can say without much success, it is part of the government's overall planning process. The government will not spend money it does not have. Only when the government is certain it has the resources to undertake new initiatives will it undertake those initiatives. Since it first went into surplus, the government has followed a prudent approach to budget planning: Only spend what you know you have for certain, keep reserves aside for unexpected developments, and when you do not need that money, allocate it to new initiatives. In some ways, that is how the year-end spending comes about.
At the beginning of the year, the finance minister makes a projection of what the funds will be, given the economic environment and the fiscal situation. The finance minister then allocates a large portion of those funds to new initiatives that are ongoing, but keeps some aside in the event that things do not turn out the way the minister thought they would turn out.
During the course of the year, as things unfold and the finance minister is more certain of incremental funds, or does not need to hold back some of the prudence that is built into the budget plan, the minister will release those funds to new initiatives. Only when the government knows it has the funds to do things will it then release them.
Because of that approach to budget planning, funding to these foundations occurs largely at year-end because only at that time do you really know you have the funds available to undertake these initiatives. They are one-time initiatives; they are not ongoing. It is not as if it will cause problems down the road by putting $1 billion into a foundation because you know you have the money at year-end.
Senator Murray: I am not offended by that practice at all. I hope I made that clear. To me it is entirely an issue of transparency and accountability and that we, and especially our counterparts in the House of Commons, have an opportunity to pronounce on what is being done. The process has moved so fast that we have not had sufficient opportunity to pronounce on that, nor to do our job of holding government and its agencies accountable for public policy.
Senator Downe: On that subject, the witness has done a good job of outlining the Department of Finance position. I am not sure it is a position that would be shared by witnesses from other departments. The view across government tends to be that finance has intentionally underestimated the surplus for years. This has distorted the public policy options. I note that Minister Goodale has now retained Dr. Tim O'Neill for an exercise to review how surpluses are projected for the future. It would make the whole public-process policy debate much more interesting and informative if everyone knew exactly what the figure is. Then a debate and discussion could be held around that.
In the recent past, finance has told us at the beginning of the year that there is little or no money. At the end of the year, surpluses are massive compared to the projection, and additional funds must be transferred to these foundations. The Auditor General and others have noted this as well. The sooner this is reformed and the more we know what the actual figures are, the more all of us can have a debate on what options the country wants to pursue; tax reductions, spending and whatever. Under the situation in the last number of years, we have been working in a vacuum.
The Chairman: That is an extremely good point. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance answered a question on that very point in Question Period. He said that he is anticipating Dr. O'Neill's report soon, and he undertook to make the report public. If I heard correctly, it might be good to have the report laid before this committee as well. Maybe the steering committee can ask Dr. O'Neill to come before us to help us with our accounting.
Mr. Devries: I would attempt to answer the second part of the senator's question with regard to whether the foundations can divert the funds for other purposes. No, the foundations cannot do that. A funding agreement is set up and the funds are to be used with respect to that funding agreement. This is one of the concerns the Auditor General has raised. From a government management oversight point of view, she feels that the government should have the authority to come in and redirect the foundation to use any funds for different purposes. We have indicated that, given the independence of these foundations, the government should not be allowed to do that. Instead, if the government wants the foundation to undertake a different policy track, then that should be done through a new funding arrangement, with new money. If the government could negotiate with the foundation to change its direction, then that is an option. The government cannot direct the foundation to use the monies for purposes that would be contrary to the funding agreement set up with that foundation.
We have tried to set up these foundations and to give them money for a specific purpose and set time in order that it not go on forever and a day. The first time we gave money to the Canada Foundation for Innovation, it was $600 million. To date, we have given them over $3 billion.
We have expanded the terms and conditions under which we wanted that foundation to use the money each time. The government has seen different opportunities in which it can use these foundations and then assign a funding agreement with the foundation in order to move to these other areas.
Senator Mitchell: It seems to me the finance department is not too concerned about these foundations being independent. That has been the gist of the discussions here.
Having had experience with the finance department, I am surprised they would not be concerned about the independence of groups such as these. Is there an explanation for why you would resist greater controls of foundations? It seems obvious they should report to Parliament.
Mr. Devries: The reason for setting up these foundations was to take advantage of another vehicle by which the government could deliver on its policy objectives. We have departmental spending which is the bulk of government spending. We have Crown corporations, and we give a lot of money to non-profit organizations to advance government objectives. Non-profit organizations are other vehicles the government uses to advance its objectives in a certain policy area. It is an attempt to make use of different mechanisms the government feels are best placed to do the job it wants to do. If you want foundations to be independent, then there are different rules and regulations that follow.
In this case, we want these foundations to be independent yet accountable for what they do. That is why we set out a funding agreement, have provisions for compliance audits, and require them to prepare annual reports. That is why we have expanded the powers of the Auditor General to undertake performance audits in the current budget.
We have evolved from having foundations at arm's length to seeing what we can do to improve parliamentary or ministerial oversight. We view them as a vehicle to deliver on government policy, and we want to ensure they have independence in doing that.
Senator Mitchell: I do not see how being required to report to Parliament would limit their independence. It is a question of judgment.
Second, I do not understand how storing surplus funds at the end of the year in these foundations would work because there are funding agreements that the federal government cannot change. For that reason, if they had extra money, it is not as though they can do anything with it other than what the foundation could do. Is that right?
Mr. Devries: That is right. We provide money to the foundations at the end of the year in the budget. In the 2005 budget, $600 million went to foundations. To be able to do that, we have to sign funding agreements with each foundation setting out what the foundation will do with that money, and it must be done before March 31.
The budget legislation has not received parliamentary approval yet, but we do have a funding agreement in place with Genome Canada setting out how the foundation will use the incremental and municipal funds we provide to it. Funding agreements have been signed with organizations conditional on Parliament approving and appropriating funds for that purpose.
We have to go through that process to have funding agreements signed, sealed, and delivered before March 31. The foundations follow Treasury Board guidelines to do that.
Senator Downe: The Auditor General has stated that the surplus has been underestimated because the government has transferred over $9 billion to these foundations, but $7 billion of that money has not been spent. That is the difference. The surplus is much higher than estimated because this money was transferred but will not be spent for many years down the road, in some cases.
Mr. Devries: The Auditor General makes a number of points in this area. In her last report, she could not say the government had not been following generally accepted accounting principles in advancing funds to foundations and recording them as a liability in the year that they were granted. She has been clear on that.
A number of studies currently are being done by the Public Sector Accounting Board. One of them relates to what should be in the reporting entity. The government and the Auditor General are looking at these standards to see how they impact on foundations. We will have discussions with the Auditor General to see if the new standards will result in a change of accounting for these foundations. We believe they should not. However, we have not finished our review yet or had discussions with the Auditor General.
There is another study being done on transfer payments and when they should be recognized. That study has been undertaken by the Public Sector Accounting Board. The board has run into problems, and it is taking longer than it thought to release new standards.
It is not being stated at this point that the government is following improper accounting practices. When we get into arrangements with third parties where there is a funding agreement, under current accounting procedures that money should be recognized as a liability in the same year. That is what we have been doing, and the Auditor General has not been able to say it is wrong. What she has objected to is the government giving money to foundations in advance of needing it. We think we are on solid ground from an accounting point of view, but that does not mean we cannot make changes to address the concerns raised in her report.
When Mr. St-Jean was here a few weeks ago, he said the government was looking at the possibility of recording the liability to these foundations in the year it made the commitment but advancing money only when needed.
The Chairman: It is not an accounting problem, it is a question of public policy. If there is $7 billion advanced to foundations that has not been spent, are there not better uses to which $7 billion could be put?
The Auditor General would argue that it is accounting as well. I do not want to speak for her but, given the conversations we have had until now, she does not agree with the accounting policies the government is using with respect to these foundations. Having said that, she cannot say they are wrong. She has a difference of opinion and is waiting for the evaluation of these new standards to come into effect in the current fiscal year, to assess whether changes will be required to the government's treatment of, or accounting for, these foundations.
With regard to the amount of money that is out there — and the Auditor General used the numbers in the public accounts for last year — the balance of funds is $7.7 billion. Against that, $2.1 billion of commitments had already been made as of last year and more commitments have been made against that $7.7 billion in the current fiscal year. In fact, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which had an outstanding balance of about $1.5 billion, has committed virtually all its funding. It had $3.1 billion at the end of 2004, and commitments against that of $1.5 billion. It has exhausted its funding over the course of the year.
Senator Murray: Did we know that?
Mr. Devries: It was listed in the public accounts. There is a table in the Auditor General's observations to the financial statements that gives the balance of the funding as of March 31, 2004 and the commitments against that. At that point in time, you see a snapshot. For more up-to-date information, we have to go back to the individual foundations.
Senator Murray: If we wanted more up-to-date information, we should have them here.
Mr. Devries: That information is available from the sponsoring departments. Industry Canada should be able to tell you that.
Senator Murray: We should have the foundations here to tell us.
Mr. Devries: I think the foundations would be more than willing to appear before this committee and give you that information.
The Chairman: Some have appeared already. In the public accounts summary of financial information on the foundation it shows: Funds received, $9.87 billion; and balance on March 31, 2004, $7.6 billion.
Mr. Devries: That is right. Against that there were commitments of $2.1 billion, and over the course of 2004-05, more commitments were made against those funds. Some are endowments, which work off interest, so the monies will be there anyway.
As I mentioned before, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation has a ten-year mandate. It was given initial funding of $2.5 billion. They invented the balance and are using that money to provide scholarships over the 10 years.
Senator Ringuette: The schedule I was referring to earlier indicates the amounts that were funded in 2004-05 and the total to date. However, it does not indicate the amount that has been invested in targeted projects. When you redo this schedule, could you add another column indicating how much was spent according to objectives to date?
Mr. Devries: I will see what I can do in that regard. I will have to go to the individual departments to get that information.
Senator Ringuette: That will be easier for you than for us.
Senator Harb: I do not think there is a right or wrong way, although there are advantages and disadvantages. That is why this type of debate is so important for us as policy-makers as well as for you, as someone in charge of the public purse, to an extent.
What leeway do the foundations have in investing the money they have now? What investment vehicles do they use, and do we have a report on that element alone? We would appreciate any information on that. We would like to know whether they have made money, lost money or broken even.
Mr. Devries: The investment policies as to what investment instruments the foundations can use is set out in the funding agreement. Given the nature of these foundations, they are to be very safe investments. They do not get into the equity market as such. They are largely into government bonds of a very high value. I can provide you with one of those funding agreements, with the investment policies they are to follow.
Given that type of investment policy, I think it is safe to say, although I cannot guarantee this, that none of them have lost any money. I will go through some of the annual reports where there is a statement as to what they invested the money in and what rates of return they received. As indicated on the sheet that has been referred to, given the balances in some of these accounts, and the amounts they earned through their investment, it seems they have done pretty well for themselves.
Senator Day: I have mainly questions of clarification. The first is with respect to Senator Ringuette's last question. How did you interpret what you will research for her? Will you look at how much of the funds of each foundation went to their purpose and how much went to administration, or will you look for something else?
Mr. Devries: I planned to take the table in the public accounts on page 2.28, which was prepared by the Auditor General, and merge it with the table that the Office of the Comptroller General left with this committee a couple of weeks ago. As per the request, that would expand the table presented by the OCG so that all 30 foundations or entities are on this table rather than only the larger ones.
Second, in the table that was presented by the Auditor General there are a few other columns. They are headed ``Interest earned,'' ``Administration,'' ``Balance'' at a certain point in time, and ``Funding commitments signed.''
I will do my best to get that information and put it on this table as well. I will add a number of columns to this table, which I will present to the committee, to show the current status of monies they have received to date, what those monies were spent on, what balances are outstanding and what commitments are against those balances.
Senator Day: That will be very helpful. Thank you.
It is important for us to keep in mind, as you pointed out, that under the global heading of ``foundations,'' some are endowments, where all the money that was transferred from the government was endowed. It was put away in perpetuity, and only the interest is available for public policy issues.
The danger in talking about global figures is that you do not have these various other concepts in mind. Do we know how much presently the endowment will be? Is the most recent one that was announced, the $50 million for Atlantic salmon, an endowment, or will the principal be disbursed over a period of years?
Mr. Devries: The Auditor General listed the endowments in the public accounts last year.
As of March 31, 2004, the total funds given to endowment-type organizations was $389 million. I will provide updated figures. You will see how much they have spent to date, how much they received through their investments and what kind of commitment they have.
With regard to your last question, in the footnote to this table indicates that the Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund Society, which is where that money is going, is an endowment.
Senator Day: I believe a new one will be added to that list, the Atlantic salmon, and I think it will be an endowment as well. Endowments do not include those foundations that have a payout of capital investment over an extended period of time. That is different from an endowment as well.
Mr. Devries: That is right.
Senator Day: Not all of these could be paid out over two or three years if they are a ten-year payout program. Is it a straight line payout in most instances, or does it leave some leverage to the boards of directors to determine if they have particular demands in a year, to use more of it?
Mr. Devries: It depends on the funding agreements with respect to these foundations. The Canada Millennium Scholarship Fund is required to put out X number of grants or bursaries during the course of each year. That is fixed.
Regarding the others, it depends on the agreements they sign with third parties and their ability to lever funding for those initiatives.
Senator Day: In cases where the funding agreement does not require the foundation to file with Parliament, do the sponsoring minister and ministry in those funding agreements receive a report from the foundation?
Mr. Devries: There is a requirement to put a report out, which a department can pick up and give to the minister. In many cases, it is not a specific requirement that the foundation give the report directly to the minister, but the foundations are required to table annual reports. The Treasury Board encourages ministers to include those funds given to that foundation as part of that annual report to see how it links in with the rest of their mandate, and to have those annual reports tabled in Parliament.
Senator Day: In each of these cases, we are talking about encouraging the foundation to report to Parliament. In any event, we know the minister will have access to a report, and it is easier for the government to encourage a minister to do something with respect to Parliament than to try to encourage the foundation to file directly with Parliament when they already have their funding agreement in place. The time to encourage them to do something different is when you change the funding agreement to give foundations new incremental funding.
Mr. Devries: That is true. There is a push by the Treasury Board Secretariat to ensure all the reports are tabled in Parliament. This is one thing that came out of the Auditor General's 2005 report, where it was noted that not all the reports are tabled.
Senator Day: I understand. That is the right way to go, but there are other ways to get there in the interim.
With respect to plans, priorities and performance reports, if funding is in the general estimates in a particular year, then we have a mandate to delve into and review that. We also have a mandate on an ongoing basis to bring any minister in and question them on the activities of the ministry.
If a foundation has been given funding in a previous year and is not getting incremental funding, what is our authority to be able to review that foundation directly? Most of them will volunteer to talk to us. If they have not gotten funding in a particular fiscal year, our only ability is to bring in the minister and, in that indirect way, talk to that foundation. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Devries: That is my understanding. When you review the reports and plans, as well as the parliamentary performance report, you have the ability to review everything under the jurisdiction or responsibility of that minister. If that minister is responsible for a particular foundation, that becomes part of that review.
Senator Day: I think what Senator Murray is trying to get at is direct accountability for the foundations. When they do not receive new funds in a particular year but are sitting on $5 billion or $6 billion, we would like to know what is going on. We would rather not have to do an end run through a ministry to talk with them.
Mr. Devries: The experience we have had to date is that the foundations have been more than willing to come before parliamentary committees. I have yet to hear of a case where the foundation said no, and where other tactics had to be used to get the foundation to appear. They realize the role they play and the oversight that Parliament wants to have on them.
At the same time, you still have the minister who is responsible for those foundations, and as such, accountable to Parliament for them.
Senator Day: I would like to accept your argument that they are independent, and therefore we would like to deal with them independent of the minister. In the funding agreement amendments that you are trying to encourage, is there any provision at this stage to create a direct relationship between Parliament and these various foundations?
Mr. Devries: There is no agreement at this time. It is an issue we could discuss with the Office of the Comptroller General and Treasury Board, because it would come under their policies and guidelines.
Of course, we are trying to keep these organizations at arm's length to be independent of Parliament, as you noted, and of course, that has certain implications.
Senator Day: The oversight that might satisfy this requirement for accountability is in Bill C-43, budget implementation 2005, soon to come before us, where the Auditor General will be given an expanded responsibility with respect to performance audits. Is that correct?
Mr. Devries: It includes both performance and compliance. All the funding agreements have a condition whereby if the minister responsible feels that the foundation is not living up to the terms and conditions of the agreement then that minister can ask the Auditor General to perform an independent compliance audit. However, that was at the discretion of the minister. Bill C-43 gives the Auditor General the authority to perform a compliance audit on her own. No longer does she have to wait for a minister to ask her to do that.
Senator Day: Presumably the Auditor General has the authority as an officer of Parliament in providing general oversight and reporting back to us in the Senate and the House of Commons committee.
Mr. Devries: That is right. In that regard, Bill C-43 gives her the authority to do a performance audit and a compliance audit. If, during the course of those audits, she comes up with something else, she can also bring that to the attention of Parliament. She is not restricted to compliance and performance audits. If she feels something else deserves parliamentary attention, then she has the authority to do that.
Senator Day: It is interesting that the Auditor General wanted at one time to do the internal financial audit. I think 90 per cent of the public thinks of the Auditor General as a financial auditor, but we have learned that financial auditing is a very small part of her role now. She is much more into, I would say, getting close to policy review issues and performance, how well they are functioning. Now you are talking about compliance. Some day we will have to look into that whole concept of whether it is correct and proper for us to combine financial audit oversight with this other type of oversight. Are we doing the right thing in relying on a group of people who have had extensive training with respect to financial and fiscal matters to do public policy and public administration types of reviews? I ask you to think about that, but not to comment on it now. It is clearly an evolving role that we are giving to a department that was set up initially to do fiscal audits. They are now doing a whole lot of other types of functions for us.
You indicated the Auditor General is not really interested in endowments, and I did not understand that point. Can you explain that to me?
Mr. Devries: Maybe I was a bit strong in the characterization of that, but given the amounts of money involved, endowments have not been a major concern of hers. She is more concerned, and I do not want to speak for her, on where the majority of the funds have gone. It is largely an issue of cut-off. She was quite happy when the government proposed that she be given the authority to go into these foundations that have received at least $100 million over five consecutive years. These endowments have not met that criterion. I think it is a matter of workload. If, however, she became aware of irregularities in endowments, I am sure she would ask the government if she could look at it.
Senator Day: The final area that I would like to clarify is the comment in your initial remarks that one of the requirements of the foundations and one of the objectives is that they should have the opportunity, and hence the ability, to lever additional funds from other levels of government and the private sector. You talked about the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and you gave a good example of that. The federal government money from that foundation could also lever funds from the province, and then from the hospital or the university. You were referring to the private-sector type of funding, and the other level of government. You were not implying that the foundation would, in fact, bring that money in, but rather it would say, ``We will put money on the table if you, university, can get money from other sources?''
Mr. Devries: That is correct. In the funding agreement with respect to the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the government contribution to that project, if you want to look at it that way, can be only 40 per cent, so 60 per cent of the funds have to come from another source. Given that the 40 per cent is guaranteed from the perspective that the government gave the funds upfront and has signed an agreement with the foundation that they could use it for the purposes specified in the agreement, then given that the foundation has this piece of paper, it can say, ``I have 40 per cent of the funds you need for that; if you can come up with the 60 per cent, we have a deal.'' That is how it has been able to leverage incremental funds to expand the $9.1 billion or $10 billion that we have given to these foundations to an amount well in excess of that.
Of course, for some, it does not work. For the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, that principle does not apply. They have received funds through donations to add to the overall pool, but there is no requirement that X per cent of the funding come from some other source. The majority of the funding comes from the amounts of money that the government puts in. For others — Genome Canada, CFI, and the Canada Health Infoway — there are criteria in those funding agreements that other partners have to come to the table with their monies as well.
Senator Day: In the funding agreement, a particular foundation cannot go into a project with contribution greater than a certain percentage of the overall project?
Mr. Devries: That would be in the agreement, yes.
Senator Day: Are any of the foundations we have been talking about here today, which were initially set up with government funds, not raising funds and giving tax receipts as charitable foundations or charitable organizations?
Mr. Devries: No, they are not.
Senator Harb: Senator Day may have inadvertently stated that the Auditor General is involved in what amounts to policy matters. In fact, the Auditor General really is not involved in those types of things. Her mandate specifically deals with value for money. I do not want the public or even the record to have the impression that she has responsibility for policy matters. On a number of occasions, she has restated the fact that she does not get involved in policy. She looks at what the program is set out to do, determines the expenditures, and looks at whether the money spent reflects what the program intended and whether there was value for money.
Senator Ringuette: My point is not a question so much as an observation. Perhaps you have heard it before, and perhaps not, but I want to ensure that you hear it today. The requirement for funding from the private sector, provincial governments or other sources as a prerequisite to access funds from these foundations is a well-thought design. However, in areas where the private sector has some difficulties and provincial governments have some difficulties in the financial sector, as in Atlantic Canada or Northern Canada, it is creating inequities. The inequities are in regards to possible access and to opportunities for those regions to have access to that 40 per cent investment from those foundations. I am not sure how we can address that, but certainly we need to look into ways of ensuring that there is equity and opportunities for these funds for all regions of the country. That is a comment, not a question, but if you want to offer an answer, I would certainly welcome it.
Mr. Devries: It is a comment that we have heard before. There are other vehicles that are available as well. As I mentioned earlier, foundations are one vehicle the government uses to advance its policy objectives. Other vehicles are also used. In some cases, one of the regional agencies may be able to help out in that area.
Senator Ringuette: I want to stop you there, because in the last 10 years I have heard too much dumping of responsibilities on these regional economic agencies in regards to responsibilities.
Mr. Devries: I meant that, as another vehicle, they are there. Departmental spending and other initiatives are also there. However, that is a comment that we have heard, yes.
Senator Day: Are you aware of any foundations that have incorporated special provisions for certain regional areas of the country to try to meet some of these additional challenges, or are they all national programs?
Mr. Devries: I have not done so, but it is a matter of returning to the individual funding agreements to see if there are certain provisions in that area. In regard to the scholarship fund, there were provisions for a regional distribution of those bursaries. Whether provisions such as that are found in funding agreements, I am not sure. There could be provisions that state, in those cases where a province or a university may have difficulty in raising its share of the funds, the board of directors has the authority to go above the 40 per cent limit. Again, we would have to check the individual funding agreements.
Senator Day: If you become aware of any, could you let us know? I think Senator Ringuette raises an important point that we should think about, whether there should be regional provisions in these general funding agreements. In effect, we are learning to live with these funding agreements for these foundations. These foundations have been in existence for only eight years. They are being amended as we go along. If there are other policy points that we should try to encourage in future funding agreements, that is what we will try to develop here.
The Chairman: Mr. Devries, I think you can tell by the variety and number of questions that have been thrown your way that this is a subject the committee is very interested in, and is anxious to learn more about. We thank you for being here today to share your views and comments. Your presentation has been very useful.
Honourable senators, that brings this meeting to an end. Before closing, I would like to remind you that our research staff has been working on a number of draft reports to follow up on our work on the foundations issue and on our meetings with the officers of Parliament. We will consider the draft report on the officers of Parliament at our next meeting, Wednesday, May 11, at 6 p.m. The draft was circulated to members' offices last Friday afternoon, May 6. We will meet next Tuesday, May 17, to review the draft report on foundations. This draft will be circulated later this week.
On May 18, we will follow up on our promise to hear from the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada.
The committee adjourned.