ARCHIVED - Evaluation of Foundations

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
•  

This page has been archived.

Footnotes

---

^[1] For convenience, this report refers to these two classes of foundations as "foundations with fixed term funding agreements" and "foundations with perpetual endowments", or "perpetual foundations". Readers should note that it is the funding agreements with these "fixed term foundations" that have fixed terms. The organizations themselves have distinct legal status and any decisions regarding winding up or continuation beyond the term of their funding agreements would be made by their boards, not by the Government of Canada.

^[2] Department of Finance, Budget Plan 2003, Ottawa, 2003, p.179. (The guidelines are also contained in a backgrounder on the Finance Canada website, Accountability of Foundations, at: http://www.fin.gc.ca/ toce/2005/AccFound-e.html.)

^[3] Existing funding agreements can only be re-negotiated if both parties, that is, the foundation and responsible Minister, agree.

^[4] Department of Finance, Budget Plan, 2005, p.330.

^[5] Shared Governance Corporations are defined by Treasury Board Secretariat as corporate entities without share capital for which Canada, either directly or through a Crown Corporation, has a right pursuant to statute, articles of incorporation, letters patent, by-law or any contractual agreement (including funding or contribution agreements) to appoint or nominate one or more voting members to the governing body. (Treasury Board Secretariat, Crown Corporations and Other Corporate Interests of Canada: 2005, p.32.)

^[6] Note however, that some pre-existing not-for-profit organisations have received conditional grants, such as the Asia-Pacific Foundation and Frontier College Foundation.

^[7] The formal name of this foundation is: Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology but it is commonly referred to as Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC). We have used this latter description throughout the report.

^[8] Strategic Infrastructure Foundation and the Africa Fund, with funding of at least $2 billion and $500 million, respectively. The government subsequently decided to undertake both of these initiatives through departmental funding programs.

^[9] Department of Finance, Budget Plan 2003, Ottawa, 2003, p.179. (The guidelines are also contained in a backgrounder on the Finance Canada website, Accountability of Foundations, at: http://www.fin.gc.ca/ toce/2005/AccFound-e.html.)

^[10] Pollitt C., Talbot C., Caulfield J., and Smullen A., Agencies: How Governments Do Things Through Semi-Autonomous Agencies, Palgrave MacMillan, NY, 2004, p.19-20.

^[11] Schick A., "Agencies in Search of Principles", OECD Journal of Budgeting, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2002, p.14-15.

^[12] OECD, Distributed Public Governance: Agencies, Authorities and Other Autonomous Bodies, OECD, Paris, 2002, CCNM/GF/GOV/PUBG(2002)2, p.16.
Pollitt C., et al, Agencies: How Governments Do Things Through Semi-Autonomous Organizations, Palgrave Macmillan, NY, 2004, p.23.

^[13] Department of Finance, Budget Plan 2005, Ottawa, 2004, p.330.

^[14] Finance Canada website, Accountability of Foundations, at: http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2005/AccFound-e.html 

^[15] Evidence by the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, Maurice Bevilacqua, to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, June 12, 2002.

^[16] The annual report of this international knowledge brokering foundation notes that it is funded from two primary sources: the federal government and a provincial government.

^[17] We were not able to verify these assertions due to context in which these proposals were received; namely the budget planning process and related Cabinet deliberations.

^[18] Hansard, 37^th Parliament, 1^st Session, Number 140, 1430, February 6, 2002.

^[19] Aucoin P., Accountability and Coordination with Independent Foundations: A Canadian Case of Autonomization of the State, Paper presented to a workshop on "Autonomization of the State", International Political Science Association, Stanford University, CA, April 2005, p.23.

^[20] Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Final Report of the International Review Panel to the Board of Trustees, Ottawa, November 29, 2001, p.10.

^[21] Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Chapter 4: Accountability of Foundations, Ottawa, February 2005, p.19.

^[22] For example, the board of Genome Canada includes the Presidents of the CIHR, NSERC and the National Research Council; one position on the board of CFI is filled on a rotating basis by the Presidents of the three granting councils, Health Canada has an official on the board of Health Infoway, and the Regional Director General of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is on the board of the Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund.

^[23] Examples of foundations where departmental representatives attend board meetings as observers include the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, and Canadian Foundation for Innovation. The Green Municipal Fund has government officials on its Council (5 of 15 members); however, the board of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has the decision making authority regarding GMF loans and grants, drawing on the recommendations made by the GMF Council.

^[24] See, for example:
Netherlands Ministry of Finance, Government Governance: Corporate Governance in the Public Sector, Why and How?, Government Audit Policy Directorate, 2000.
Schick A., op cit.
OECD, op cit.

^[25] Existing funding agreements can only be re-negotiated if both parties, that is, the foundation and responsible Minister, agree.

 

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
•