Bill C-4 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act
An Act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 2, 2001
- Debated in principleFeb. 20, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 23, 2001
- Passed the second chamberJune 13, 2001
- Became lawJune 13, 2001
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
54% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (6,001 words introduced, 5,887 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
Over half the bill text was altered between introduction and royal assent, mainly by completing truncated sections and adding the assent date. The core purpose and structure of establishing the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology remained intact.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act mixes tight numerical limits and explicit prohibitions with several subjective phrases that turn on opinions or reasonableness. This leaves room for argument over eligibility and conduct while still making many funding and governance boundaries clear from the text alone.
Open to argument
“in the opinion of the board, is capable of carrying on eligible projects”
Eligibility hinges on the board's subjective view rather than an objective test.“a reasonably prudent person would apply”
Investment duties rest on an open-ended reasonableness standard.“removed for cause”
Removal power uses an undefined phrase that invites disputes over what counts as cause.“during good behaviour”
Term of office is tied to an undefined behavioural standard.
Clear-cut
“a majority of not less than two thirds of the votes cast”
Special resolution threshold is fixed by exact fraction.“terms not exceeding five years”
Maximum term length is stated as a clear number.
Discretion. The Governor in Council appoints the Chairperson and six directors, sets the head office location, and designates the Minister; the board decides funding, investment policies, and officer appointments with only the listed statutory constraints.
Challenging the law itself. The Act creates a funding foundation and imposes internal governance rules rather than directly limiting Charter-protected expression, liberty or equality interests.
Disputing a charge under it. A recipient or director could dispute whether an 'opinion of the board' or 'good behaviour' standard was properly applied, but the many absolute prohibitions leave little room for argument once facts are found.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
not effective
The 2024 Auditor General audit found major governance failures, ineligible project funding totaling tens of millions, widespread conflicts of interest, and direct non-compliance with the Act's member council requirements, leading to the foundation's abolition. Earlier departmental evaluations noted relevance but were overshadowed by these compliance and oversight breakdowns, with no evidence of successful achievement of statutory goals.
- Report 6—Sustainable Development Technology Canada (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2024)auditSignificant lapses in governance and stewardship, including $59 million to 10 ineligible projects, 90 conflict-of-interest policy violations linked to $76 million in funding, and failure to maintain the required 15-member council under the Act.
- Evaluation of the Sustainable Development Technology Fund (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, 2025)evaluationPaused due to mismanagement allegations; subsequent reviews identified compliance and governance concerns with the contribution agreement and overall operations, despite noting a continued need for such funding.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.