Debates of April 10th, 2003

Canadian Environmental Protection Act

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, this legislation is already 10 years old. The whole issue of environmental assessment deserves to be reviewed much more fully than it is in Bill C-9.

What happened is that an internal government study produced a bill dealing only with some aspects of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. A much more comprehensive assessment would have been required. It should have addressed fundamental questions like cumulative impact, which were raised repeatedly. To this day, 10 years after the act came into force, 99% of assessments take the form of screenings.

We need to determine how many steps ahead we are with Bill C-9. It must be recognized that the committee has done pretty consistent work, and worthwhile work. It has put forward proposals and amaendments that have certainly improved on the original bill.

Still, in what little time I have at my disposal, I would like to focus on considerations I think are critical to any environmental assessment bill.

I am talking about public participation, especially in screening, considering that most environmental assessments under the federal system take place as screenings; 99% do, amazingly enough. If we look at what has been happening, I think we will see that we have not reached the kinds of goals we wanted, first of all on screenings, if they have to be the majority of assessments. I hope that gradually we are going to move toward comprehensive assessments, which is what we have been asking for, to give more powers to the minister. The regulations could be published to give the minister all the powers he needs to declare comprehensive assessments instead of screenings that go from department to department, from the official of one department to the official of another department under the guise of environmental assessment.

I would like to quote what the Canadian Environmental Law Association proposed to the committee when it set out eight core elements that it felt should be the core elements in any system of law relating to environmental assessment. This is what the Environmental Law Association said in regard to core item No. 5:

The legislation must provide for a significant public role early and often in the planning process, and thus must contain provisions relating to public notice and comment, access to information, participant funding, and related procedural matters.

The committee had suggested that, first of all, screenings be part of any public participation and notice. It had also suggested that a period of 30 days be put in place before any screenings are made into decisions. The government has amended this at report stage. It has provided a two tier system, effectively, in regard to screenings. The idea was that we do not want to delay small projects such as little bridges and so forth. Really, it is a two tier system, part of which reduces the 30 days to 15 days.

But I would like to point out, because the parliamentary secretary spoke at length in this regard, that the whole of this provision is subject to subsection 18(3) of the law, whereby discretion is given to the government to decide whether or not public participation, notice and publication will be required. It is at the discretion of the responsible authority as to whether this happens or does not happen. It seems to me that this very case of discretion negates anything that we would want to do in favour of greater public participation. It seems to me that public participation is the key to everything.

I would like to comment on a case that happened in Federal Court on March 4, 2003. It is a very recent judgment by Mr. Justice Blais of the Federal Court. In the case of the Sierra Club of Canada v. the Attorney General of Canada, Mr. Justice Blais found that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, provided an inadequate opportunity for the public to comment on the screening report relating to a proposal by Bounty Bay Shellfish Incorporated and 5M Aqua Farms Limited to establish mussel aquaculture in St. Ann's Harbour, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. As a result, Justice Blais quashed DFO's approval of the project, ordering a reasonable period for review and comment on the screening report.

Justice Blais wrote:

After a reading of subsection 18(3) of the [Canadian Environmental Assessment Act], it seems clear to me that, once the responsible authority exercised its discretion--

I point out that he said “discretion”, which is still in the law.

--and determined that public participation was appropriate, it had an obligation to give the public an opportunity to examine and comment [on] not only the EIS, but also the screening report.

Such was not the case.

In fact, there was a ball game between Mr. Hominick and Ms. Donovan of DFO, which lasted a matter of days, between March 26 and April 3, 2002. Ms. Donovan, a very brief time after receiving a screening report from Mr. Hominick, decided to give approval of the project to the proponents.

Herein lies the whole question. First, should it be at the discretion of the authorities and the powers that be or should it be part of a compulsory obligation upon the ministry or agency to make sure that public participation, public awareness, public comment and public notice are part of the act? This is the question. One can say whether it is 15 or 30 days and whether small projects are different from big projects and arrange it accordingly, but if the discretion is left so that screenings, first of all, which are the great majority anyway, are not always subject to public transparency or a chance for the public to comment or to be given notice, then the whole case has to be reviewed. It is not satisfactory. Only full mandatory public participation will ensure that these screenings are done seriously.

What happens in every case that I have seen is that departments make these evaluations, one to the other. It has been commented on by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who has said the process right now does not work.

In the minute that is left I would suggest that not only is a thorough evaluation of the present act, including this amendment to Bill C-9, required to bring environmental assessment a little step forward, bit by bit, clause by clause, but an overall evaluation is required to take in the whole principle of environmental assessment. Let us make it open to public participation, make it transparent and make it real.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-9. I want to say from the outset that, like the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, I totally disagree with this bill.

I am also taking this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie for his excellent work on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He has made it his prime concern to protect the interests of Quebec and what Quebec has been doing well, and even very well, regarding the environment.

This is why, in my opinion, Bill C-9, which amends the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, should not exist. This basic legislation came into effect on January 1995 and is the process through which the federal government decides whether or not to approve projects that could have an environmental impact.

The federal government wants to get involved in projects in Quebec that have already been approved by the Quebec government. Let us not forget that Quebec has an environmental process. When objections are raised, the BAPE gets involved and settles the issue.

I notice that, with this bill, the federal government is once again intruding on provincial jurisdictions, despite what the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who is a former minister in the Quebec government, just said. The hon. member just told us that he supports having two levels of environmental protection. Even though I truly admire the former Quebec minister of the environment, and even though I have always held him in high esteem, I completely disagree with him on this issue.

It is the opposite. The hon. member should realize that we alaready have a tool, which is not perfect but which we improve whenever we have an opportunity to do so.

I would like to give an example of what is currently going on in the Canada-Quebec infrastructure issue. There are major problems. This is an area where the federal, provincial and municipal governments each bear one third of the costs.

Let me give an example which clearly shows that the federal government does not have any business in the assessment process. I will give the example of a small community located in the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, close to Joliette. I am referring to the municipality of Saint-Jean-de-Matha.

This municipality had submitted a project for the construction of a dam. The Quebec government requested several studies from the municipality in order to ensure that the project was environmentally sound.

As hon. members are aware, I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for Canada-Quebec infrastructure and also for regional matters.

Once the documents were received and analyzed, the Government of Quebec registered it as one of its priorities and indicated this to the federal government, in order to obtain the federal one-third share of the funds requested.

However, this did not happen, as it should have, in view of what Quebec had required of the municipality in the way of studies and documents. Under the Canada Environmental Assessment Act, Environment Canada asked the municipality to carry out other studies, including ones on fish and migratory birds.

Imagine the cost of these additional studies. They would add up to $20,000 or $25,000 for a small municipality with a population of barely a few thousand. Ottawa does not plan to help it with these studies. It prefers bleeding the taxpayers of this little municipality dry to helping them. It has demanded additional assessments despite the municipality's having provided the Quebec government with documents that fully met its requirements.

What is more, when the municipality of Saint-Jean-de-Mantha indicated to the federal government that it could forward all the studies Quebec had required, the response was, “No, we do not want them. We want you to do the studies that we require”. Quebec had already required some, but now more are required.

So the response was no. Ottawa demanded more environmental assessments. It is Bill C-9 that prevents—

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Portneuf, QC]

One case; that is only one case.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the right to refer to a case, and this is a case that everyone knows about.

That is why I do not support Bill C-9. It constitutes complete interference with areas of provincial jurisdiction, especially in Quebec. Even Ontario, when it comes to the issue of infrastructure, has not agreed to comply with the federal government rules. Ontario has decided to make its own assessments and has said, “that is how we are going to do things”.

This is a useless bill that will cost a fortune, that will hamper projects in small municipalities and larger municipalities alike. It might also be a way for the government to hold back money, to keep from putting up its share.

This is a concrete example of the federal government's interference. The reason there have been so few infrastructure projects announced is obvious. It is because Ottawa blocks them thanks to legislation that duplicates what the provinces are doing.

Ottawa is probably the government that restricts itself the least to its own jurisdictions under the Canadian constitution. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, our dear Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, has the nerve to tell us that Canada is a decentralized federation. That is a joke. This just shows how out of touch he is, just like this bill is out of touch with the needs of all of the provinces.

That is why the bill before us today is unacceptable. Once again, Ottawa is like a bull in a china shop. With this bill, Ottawa has become the ingredient that has soured a good recipe. It is blocking the whole process, the sand in the gears. In other words, this bill is useless, because Quebec already has legislation that works very well.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Community Activity Support Fund

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make available to Members a support fund for community activities in each of their ridings.

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friend from Jonquière and all the hon. members who support me in this motion.

I am pleased to speak today on behalf of a sector of society that, unfortunately, is somewhat neglected and not often talked about. It is a sector without which society would have great difficulty functioning. Naturally, I want to talk about community groups. I think the time has come for Ottawa to invest in this fundamental social activity.

There are many community groups and without them we would have trouble coping, as I said before. In fact, all the so-called “institutions” of Quebec and Canada would not be a match for this task. We cannot simply say that we will look to the hospitals, the CLSCs, or all of Quebec's and Canada's institutions to help people in trouble.

There are community groups which are noteworthy for the type of intervention they offer and which are extremely useful to society. I have just noted a few of them, but there are hundreds in any riding.

For instance, there are all those people who take care of literacy activities and those who provide support to families. In my riding there is a group called “Famille en coeur”; instead of going to the CLSC, children and parents go there to talk about families and to share ideas about the way they can support each other, trading services or other things. There is no institution providing this service.

We also have suicide prevention groups. Suicide among young people is enormously costly for society in psychological, social and economic terms. These people are available to try to listen to young people and take preventive action.

There are also youth centres. Some villages in my riding have youth centres, and if it where not for these centres, there would be no young people left in the village. They would move away because there is absolutely nothing to do at night in their village. They would take off every night for the nearest big town without telling their parents. So, youth centres make a significant contribution. Those who work there are dedicated to youth. They are often experts, and they listen to and help provide guidance to young people.

The Mouvement écologique du Haut-Richelieu is another example. I am sure that there are many environmental movements in the various ridings across Quebec and Canada, some looking after a river or a lake or fighting to save wooded areas. We were just talking about the environment. These are the kind of people who develop the collective consciousness of a community. They, therefore, have important roles to play.

There is also what I call the disability constituency, with groups looking after disability support and housing for persons with disabilities, even if there is public funding for that. Ottawa is sometimes criticized for not making enough money available for social housing. Individuals who promote and advocate social housing for persons with disabilities get together and establish boards, many of whose members are often persons with disabilities. This is totally voluntary work they are doing. Transporting disabled people is no easy task. Specialized transportation is required.

Some of these people who get together, these groups of volunteers and boards who set up this kind of community group make an extremely worthwhile contribution to society.

As I said earlier, we must also think about what would happen if these groups were not there. I can also think of volunteer groups, volunteer centres, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Optimist Clubs and their credo “Friend of Youth”, the Lyons Clubs and their motto “We Serve”.

MPs are not the only ones serving society. And these people are doing it on a voluntary basis.

Let us also not forget that these people spend half of their time looking for funding. Recurrent funding is very rare. When these people get some appreciation, some recognition, when their member of Parliament tells them that they are doing a great job, they are always very pleased.

It is all fine and dandy to tell people, “We recognize your contribution, you are extraordinary, you are doing a fantastic job and we wish you luck”. This has happened to me on a number of occasions. Unlike the federal government, the Quebec provincial government does recognize the work of community groups through a discretionary fund.

An MNA from Quebec or an MLA from another province that has the same type of fund can say, “I am pleased to support you and to give you a cheque for $1,000”, whereas a federal member of Parliament can only say, “I am proud to give you my support, I wish you luck and good night, everyone”.

This puts us in a slightly uncomfortable position. The federal government is not doing its share to help these community groups. It is important to support them.

At the present time, the only recourse we have is to take the money from our advertising budget. Imagine how I feel when someone representing a youth drop-in centre comes to my office and says, “Mr. Bachand, I got some money from the Member of the National Assembly. Can you do your part?” I have to say that we do not have that kind of funds at our disposal, but that we do have an advertising fund. So I have to ask, “Are you able to organize some kind of activity where we could put up a sign from the MP or put his card on the tables? If you can, I can give you $300 or $400”. Often they have no activity planned, so we have to either go through all the red tape or take indirect means of recognizing them and helping them out

I think the importance of this budget is obvious, but people will probably have objections. “You know, it makes for more red tape”. As for me, if I got another $10,000 or $60,000 in my budget, my staff would find the extra time to manage it, because I would have told them to. When it comes down to it, it will mean considerable recognition. It will be a plus for the riding, something community groups can count on.

Others may say, “It is too complicated, and I will have to choose between them”. Obviously, as MPs, we do have to decide where to focus our time and attention among the causes submitted to us. When we do indirect publicity in order to help out, we are more or less saying, “I am doing this for you, but I cannot do it directly for this or that reason”. This is part of what an MP has to do every day.

If hon. members read my motion carefully, they will see that I did not want to get into the nuts and bolts of it. When one does, one has to get into the mechanisms for acceptance, how the funds will be allocated, and if a minister of the Crown needs to be involved.

I do not want to get into that, but I just want to say that I imagine the Board of Internal Economy will have something to say about it. I hesitated, I wanted to put an amount, but finally decided not to, because what I want to do primarily is convince my colleagues of the principle.

I want to convince my hon. colleagues that it is important to have such a fund and that it be available to them. Of course, there are programs in the federal system and people can be referred to them. But to do that, someone has to make calls and try to find the person in charge. Then that person calls us back two weeks later and no one is certain just what the criteria are for this kind of activity. When things get completely bogged down, we go over and see our hon. friends on the other side, the ministers, to try to convince them that the group's application is for a worthy cause and that it deserves funding.

That is very complicated and takes a lot of time; success is not guaranteed. Finally, the application gets sent on to someone else, in programs for which the individuals in question do not qualify. At times, it is the beginning of a term or the end of a fiscal year and there is no money left. Apologies are made, and we are told to try again in the next budget; we have to go back to another budget and the process slows down accordingly.

People get discouraged. Community groups begin to understand that they cannot count on the federal member for their riding, but only on their member of the National Assembly. In Quebec, that is often what happens.

Therefore, I have not set an amount, nor have I indicated how the fund is to be created. I invite my hon. colleagues to remember that the idea is for them to have some discretionary funding available.

If they decide they have a particular affinity for one group and they find that they do excellent work in the riding, they cold give it the amount they wanted. If they find that another group is not as good, or if that group's results are less impressive, they can give less money, or they can say, “We will not give any money”.

I think that it is important for members to recognize this kind of work. It is important that members say, “yes, you contribute to society in Quebec and Canada. Yes, we recognize that the work you are doing helps. We know that your situation is difficult, because you are constantly looking for recurrent funding”.

However, when someone from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul came to see us, saying, “My fridge broke down, what can you do to help?”, I was forced to improvise. I had a steel panel made, which I attached to the fridge because the man could not afford a new fridge, and the MNA had already given him money and did not want to give more.

So we are forced to come up with these types of solutions to try to abide by the law, because we do not want to do anything illegal, either. We abide by the law. We have been told, “This is now done through advertising”. Obviously, since the sponsorship scandal, there have not been any more sponsorships in our ridings. If we send a bill to Ottawa with sponsorship written on it, it is rejected.

So we are forced to advertise. We put signs on tables. We stick posters on the walls. We attach panels on fridges. We are forced to do all sorts of things. We leave MP business cards on tables at the Cage aux sports, or other steakhouses, because there is an organization there that night doing fundraising that wants our support. We have to do that kind of thing.

It would be much simpler if we could say to these organizations, “Drop by my office. Bring your mission statement. Come with your board of directors. Bring your results. Then we will see what kind of money we have and how much we can spare”. Then we could decide how much money we have and what we want to give this group. It seems to me that this would be the right way to do things.

I also want to point out that advertising will remain an item. However, instead of allocating $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 of a member's budget, which may total $230,000 next year, to advertising, this will help members, who will no longer have to resort to the kind of ploys I just described to have money to recognize the work of community organizations.

It is therefore important that this be available. I want to remind my hon. colleagues that this will be an additional budgetary tool. As I said earlier, I do not know whether it will be included in their budget or be separate. I leave it up to the Board of Internal Economy to decide. What matters to me is the principle, and it is on this principle that I urge my hon. colleagues to vote.

If you recognize the work of organizations in your ridings, you will have a tool especially designed for that, and they will be very grateful to you. It will be one more tool.

I think the time has come to recognize these community groups. I listed a number of them earlier, and there are many more. I am sure that the hon. members who are listening can think of many such groups and are as inclined and anxious as me to help them. The costs involved will not be astronomical. When the government is running budgetary surpluses totalling $13 billion, it seems to me that a few millions should be made available to recognize these community groups.

I notice that my time is almost up. I will conclude by saying that the time to recognize these groups has come. They need to be encouraged. They need to be supported. I urge my colleagues to think hard and long about this. This kind of budget and funding should make everyone happy. Let us set the issue of arbitration and mechanisms aside. Let us make this budget available and promote the work of community groups without which the community and society at large could not function.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for having raised this issue, which has piqued the interest of some of the hon. members. I would like to ask him some questions.

First, with such a system, how could we be sure that public funds were not being used in a partisan way? That is one problem I can foresee.

Second, what are the circumstances in which such a fund could be used?

Third, how could we ensure proper management of this fund? I do not doubt that the hon. member's intentions are good. Nevertheless, we do know that where government programs are concerned, our parliamentary system requires that the ministers appear in the House and answer questions; thus they are answerable for these programs and must take responsibility.

With such a system, how could this responsibility be ensured?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, I do not want to get too technical, but I think that someone should be in charge, perhaps a minister of the Crown.

As for the issue of partisanship, I think the hon. member must also have a say in career placements every summer. He has some discretion. In my riding, the process is as follows: the employment centre comes up with a series of projects and public officials say, “These are the ones that we approve. We know that you have the last word; so put them in the proper order”. Some negotiating goes on with public officials. So, there is a degree of discretion involved.

I also remind the hon. member that when we decide to provide advertising for figure skating or for a spaghetti dinner organized by the Optimist Club, the amount that we give is also at our discretion.

I must say that I personally do not ask all kinds of details of the person who walks into my office. I look at the cause that the person is promoting. If it is a worthy cause and if some success has been achieved over the past few years, I am inclined to give and to give a little more. But I agree with the hon. member that we can never completely eliminate partisanship.

Personally, I do not want to talk about partisanship. When a person comes to my office with an interesting project, when there is a good community group involved, I make an effort. This instrument would help us make additional efforts to help community groups.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for having brought to the attention of this House the importance of supporting volunteer action in the various communities of Canada and Quebec.

I know that some months ago the federal government felt the need to do its part toward helping the communities. A framework agreement was negotiated between the government and the communities of Canada and Quebec to make financial support possible.

I think that this government always has the same reflex, which is not negative in itself, to always involve the bureaucracy. There are merits to that. I do, however, think that there is no department which has as much of a finger on the pulse of all the communities as this House of Commons does. We have a representative of this House in each and every one of the 301 ridings in Canada and Quebec.

Why does the government not wish to provide community assistance via these representatives? We are in the best position to identify local needs.

I will just point out in closing that we in Quebec have asked ourselves whether there was not a relative advantage on the partisan level which would work in favour of the incumbent when there was an election, if a discretionary budget of this nature were allocated. The Quebec chief electoral office looked into this and the finding was that, no, there would not be an advantage to an incumbent.

So there is also no need to worry about a partisan advantage, because this would all be jointly administered by the MPs and the department identified as the administrator of the program, as is the case with the summer career placements and HRDC.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

There is almost no time left for a reply. The hon. member for Saint-Jean may respond briefly.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I only want to say that I support my colleague with respect to his comments regarding the importance of elected officials. There are programs that are managed by officials. We can intervene, but it takes longer.

Elected officials need to be trusted. Again, this fund would be for all members, without exception, regardless of political stripe. It would be fair and avoid partisanship.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in today's debate on Motion No. 393 put forward by my highly esteemed colleague from Saint-Jean, who I might add is also a member of the defence committee. He has served with great dedication and commitment over the past few years on the defence committee.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make available to members a support fund for community activities in each of their ridings.

The motion, as has been indicated, calls on the government to give money to MPs who would administer these funds to support community activities in their ridings. I cannot support the motion unfortunately, since I believe it is unnecessary and as well, it could be very negatively perceived by Canadian taxpayers.

I do not believe the motion is necessary because the government already delivers programs to support community activities in a variety of ways. In the course of the next few minutes I will attempt to outline some of the ways in which the government does act to support various community activities.

For example, the Department of Canadian Heritage provides funding to support local initiatives related to arts and culture. Arts Presentation Canada provides funding to volunteer and non-profit organizations for arts events and festivals. The funding provided can be up to 25% of the event's cost. That is very significant funding. Cultural Spaces Canada provides funding to non-profit organizations, cities and aboriginal councils for cultural infrastructure, such as the construction and renovation of arts facilities.

Of course members are free to lobby the government to support initiatives in their own communities. However, giving additional money for MPs to use at their discretion would, in many respects, only serve to duplicate the various programs that the government already has.

The government also has programs where MPs are formally involved in the decision making process, such as in the employment programs administered by HRDC. For example, the summer career placements program provides employment experience for summer students as part of the government's youth employment strategy.

The program consists of wage subsidies to employers to hire summer students. The program spends $91 million a year, which is allocated first by provinces and territories and then by constituency. Regional HRDC officials assess proposals based on said criteria and then provide a list of proposals to the local MP for their concurrence.

Another program is the job creation partnerships program provided under the EI act. This program is delivered in the provinces where no labour market agreements exist, such as Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and P.E.I. The program provides $2 billion so that workers can obtain job experience. HRDC formally consults local MPs on specific projects.

One can see that the government already provides programs to support local activities. Today's motion would only serve to duplicate some of these programs.

I have a more fundamental concern with the program proposed in the motion and that is how Canadian taxpayers might perceive it. If we are to give money to MPs to spend at their discretion, there could easily be a perception that the money could be used for partisan purposes. That has already been alluded to by the hon. member for Halifax West. I am sure that this is not the intention of the hon. member who proposed the motion. I have absolutely no doubt as to the integrity of the hon. member for Saint-Jean in this respect.

I am confident that most parliamentarians, certainly the vast majority, would use the funding for worthwhile, non-partisan purposes. However, there is that risk that Canadian taxpayers and voters would not share this view.

I am also concerned that Canadians could have a perception that this money would not be an effective use of funds, especially since it would duplicate, in many cases, existing government programs. This concern is highlighted by the fact that the motion before us is silent on how the accountability issues would be addressed or for what purpose the money would be used.

I would draw the attention of the House to Ontario's brief experience with a similar program, which provides a good example of why we should be careful with the type of program that is proposed in this motion. Ontario had a program that allowed members to charge costs associated with attending events, such as fundraising events. However this program was abandoned after one year because it was negatively perceived. In this regard we have to learn from the Ontario experience.

The member for Saint-Jean has put forward an approach for the spending of public funds that does or should at least raise serious concerns for all members of the House. The motion could raise serious concerns among Canadians about the proper use of public money, accountability for public spending and the role of members of Parliament in general.

I served on municipal council in Nepean for close to nine years and for a couple of terms, I was part of a grants committee which was part of the city's processes. Although we did dispense some money to various groups for various purposes based on certain criteria, what we ended up finding was there were so many good and valid groups that we simply could not support because there was not enough money or perhaps because they missed some aspect of the criteria that we had established.

As well, from a general standpoint, we are members of Parliament, we are legislators and we are constituency workers as well. We try to solve problems that people bring to us involving various departments. In terms of our function, we are not a grants agency and we have to keep that in mind as well. We simply cannot be all things to all people, and we should know this as members of Parliament. The moment we start to go down that road, it will be a very difficult moment for MPs.

Speaking about the general accountability issues here, the Auditor General would have a field day with a program of this nature. The Auditor General of course is charged by Parliament to ensure that the Canadian taxpayer is getting value for money spent. I cannot help but think that the Auditor General would come to the conclusion that this program would be something of a boondoggle, to use a phrase that has been thrown around in the House over the course of the last few years. From that standpoint, I am rather surprised that we have an opposition member proposing this.

Let us talk very briefly about the amount of money that might be involved. If we were to provide, for instance, $10,000 to each member of Parliament, that would cost $3 million. If we were to double that, to $20,000, it would be $6 million. In terms of what the Canadian taxpayer views, these are not inconsequential sums. We have to keep that in mind as well when we are looking at any expenditure.

I want to come back to the point about the intentions of the hon. member which are very good and very valid. However we have to remember that old phrase that the road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions.

I will not be supporting this and I would urge, for the various reasons that I have given, all members of Parliament, certainly members on this side of the House, not to support this motion because in the final analysis I do not think it is good value for money.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise and debate an issue in the House that is of importance to some members.

I would like to first congratulate the member because quite clearly he has thought about something that is important to him and he put together a private member's motion. He submitted it and it was drawn. Therefore I congratulate him for having his motion drawn. That is something for which I am still waiting.

The House knows that we now have the list where everyone's bills or motions are drawn, so I can no longer say that mine has not been drawn, unfortunately. Of course I am at about spot 194 and I have a suspicion there will be an election before my number comes up, be that as it may.

With respect to the elements of the motion, I want to begin my speech by stating unequivocally that I cannot support it. I would like to explain my rationale because I did think about this quite a bit. I was assigned to look at this one for our party, and I was pleased to do that. I have very good reasons to be opposed to this and I will go through them one at a time.

First, as was mentioned across the way, I believe this really opens itself up to interference. I think of this example. There are many voluntary and very fine charitable groups in my riding, as I believe there are in every riding in the country. I choose which ones I want to support. I get many requests and for some of them I write a cheque. The House knows that we now do not have such a fund, so therefore when I write the cheque, it comes out of my own personal money. Actually it comes out of my wife's account. No, I am kidding, she actually draws on my account from time to time. It really is our money that pays for it.

I want to give an example of a group that I have never supported at all. The members invited me to their fundraiser. They said, “Mr. Epp, as a member of Parliament, you're very presence here will help us to have a successful event”. I smiled, thanked them and I could hardly believe it was true. I guess when we have MP after our names some people hold us in higher esteem. That is good and we need to work on ensuring that it continues to be true.

I went to the function. It was a fundraiser, so it had a silent auction. I walked around and I have no idea why but I put a bid on a DVD player. I do not have a television or a stereo that accepts an output from one of those things. My equipment is 40 years old. I am never home to use it anyway. Therefore I put a bid on it, never realizing that my bid, the first bid, would also be the last bid, so I got in a really nice box a DVD player for which I had absolutely no use but it was a good donation to that group.

I brought it home, and one day I mentioned this to my family. My son said that he would be quite willing to assist me in my dilemma . Now my son has a nice DVD player and the group, which was a private school, has an additional $150 that it would not have had otherwise, but I was quite happy to do that.

Should we be using taxpayer money for this kind of thing is one of the questions here. I think not. The taxpayers entrust money to us to support government programs. I think there ought to be criteria for programs that are eligible for funding. If those criteria are met, then those people should receive that funding. If those criteria are not met, they should not. It should not depend upon who one's friend is.

Each one of us have personal preferences when it comes to charities that we choose to support. I do not think it is right at all for taxpayers, who come from all groups, to have to put money into a pot and then have to depend upon one person to use that money and to reallocate it.

I am rather surprised that the member from the Bloc has suggested this, for a couple of reasons. First, I am surprised that the Bloc would want to have a federal intrusion into a provincial matter. Most social programs, such housing, hospitals and all these things, are under provincial jurisdiction. If the Bloc wants to keep the federal government out of this, why not just handle it inside the province?

I heard a member say “my money”. That is the next argument from the Bloc that surprises me. Public accounts notwithstanding, which show this not to be true, the Bloc members contend that they are sending more money to Ottawa than they receive back. I also, by the way, would counter that the public accounts do not actually reflect that as a fact, but that is what they contend. Therefore they would be better off if the federal government did not do this. They then could keep their money in the province. They could do way more with it than if they send it to Ottawa and only receive part of it back.

I have couple of other things to mention in this regard. As members of Parliament, we should concentrate on serving our constituents in two main areas, the first being in the legislative area. We ought to come to Ottawa, debate and vote freely on bills and motions that produce the best laws for this country. That should be our first priority.

Our second priority should be to assist our constituents when they run into trouble with various government departments. Those are the criteria on which we should be judged come election time: Did we do a good job on that?

If we were to introduce something like this, people would be making voting decisions based upon whether or not we were approving money for them out of this fund. I do not want that. I do not want to be judged on the fact that I was given a finite amount of money to give away, to the best of my ability, to whoever asked and then more people asked and I had to say “Sorry, there is no money left”, and they would say “Well I am not going to vote for him again, he does not care about us”. I do not want to introduce that. It is a false criterion to evaluate at election time.

The last thing I want to talk about is the fact that Alberta, provincially, has such a program. In fact, it has two programs: one is the community initiatives program and the other is the community facility enhancement program. Both of those programs are ways that the Alberta government uses to redistribute to the communities money that it gains by the lottery corporation, by its gaming taxes and the royalties it gets. That is partially how it redistributes that money. I have actually been in meetings where people have been almost fighting with their MLAs about who will get the money and who will not. I think it is really bad.

Again I will come back to my previous point. There ought to be set criteria. If people meet them, they get the money. If they do not, they do not get the money. It should not be based upon who can be the best friend or the best lobbyist.

I am also concerned about the fact that the motion says “the government should make available to Members a support fund for community activities”. In other words, it would go to the members and then the members would have it to disburse.

In Alberta, notwithstanding what I just said and notwithstanding the fact that the MLAs' recommendation, as everybody knows, is the primary criteria for whether or not the money is expended, if we look at their criteria, they are very specific on which non-profit groups can get it, all the details on how to apply for it, and there are rules on maximum payouts and even maximum amounts for which they can apply. They must have matching money that they earn and all of these things are taken into account.

With all due respect to the member for Saint-Jean, I appreciate that his private member's bill was drawn and that he stimulated the debate tonight, but I will not be able to support this motion. I will continue to help charitable organizations with my own money when I make that choice and that gives me much greater freedom.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate. I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Jean and tell him that we had a brief discussion about his motion this morning in our meeting, and it produced an instant reaction from members of our NDP caucus. Some were strongly in favour of his motion and thought it was a fabulous and very creative idea. They wanted to seize the opportunity to act on it. Other members, though, I have to say, had a different reaction and saw it as one big headache.

He has suggested that in this debate we should talk about the principle and I think that is a good idea. We could look at how such a program would be implemented and think of all kinds of criticisms or benefits, but to look at the principle is important.

Right now a lot of groups in my community in East Vancouver are facing some of the most difficult situations that they have ever faced. They are facing massive cutbacks by the provincial government, particularly as they relate to social advocacy programs, community services for people with disabilities and people who live below the poverty line, and single parents.

My community has faced massive cutbacks, and those cutbacks hit the people who are on low incomes and depend on the services of community organizations and advocacy groups. I am sure this is also true in places like Alberta and Ontario where there have also been massive cutbacks. These people have really been feeling the crunch.

Every month or so in my community we put out a bulletin of funding sources for organizations, because people are desperate to know about government funding sources at any level or in private foundations or other kinds of trusts. This has been a very popular resource that we have produced, because groups want to know where they can find a few dollars, or $5,000 or $10,000, or just a couple of thousand to keep them going. I know there is a very great need for this because of government cutbacks. We have certainly experienced it at the federal level. This has produced a massive social deficit in this country.

The member has put forward the idea of establishing a fund whereby a member of Parliament would include in his or her duties the idea of looking at organizations and their various priorities and needs, and the idea has a lot of merit. On a personal level, I think in principle this motion is something that should be considered.

I know that some of my colleagues had concerns about whether or not it would set up a situation whereby it would take a lot of time to deal with what might be quite a small amount of money. They are also concerned about whether or not it would create a situation where we would be inundated with requests.

I was reminded of that with the Queen's Jubilee Medal. I do not know what other members experienced, but in my community a process was set up that was at arm's length. Community representatives decided who would get the medals. We made decisions that were representative and diverse. The people who were chosen were very well deserving, but I was amazed at the feedback I received from people who were really ticked off and very upset because they did not get a medal. I am sure other members had that same experience. I think it was that kind of example some of my colleagues had in mind.

One of the government members raised the issue of partisanship and accountability. I want to focus on that. If that is one of the reasons why this motion would be shot down, I have to say that if we want to look at anything that is partisan we need look no further than federal programs. We have seen the most gross examples of partisanship in some of the federal programs. I think that at a local level we would probably see more transparency and more accountability because we are more visible in the local community.

In terms of accountability if there were such a fund, I think that where those funds go would be very much scrutinized in that riding or in a local community. It would be very difficult for a member to be either highly partisan or dispensing funds in a way that was somehow unbalanced or really without a sense of accountability. I think the community itself would begin to speak out. I do think that in many ways the benefits that would be derived in a local community would outweigh some of the problems that a member might encounter.

It would be a matter of setting up an open and transparent process with criteria. I would not want to see a fund that could just be handed out to one's friends with no criteria and no goals or objectives. I think if that were done, there would then be much more accountability than we have ever seen from any of the massive funds we have seen doled out to various Liberal cronies and funds.

If such a fund did exist, I think in many respects it would really help organizations in terms of seed money. Sometimes a group, while it is trying to secure other levels of government funding, needs funding that is more for transition purposes. Sometimes a very small amount of money can produce a lot of benefit for that organization and the service it provides.

In fact, one of the examples I wish to provide is that of the former member of Parliament for Vancouver East, Margaret Mitchell. I know that many members of the House know and respect her. She was a member from 1979 to 1993. She actually used one of her member's increases, put it in a trust fund and created the Margaret Mitchell Fund for Women in East Vancouver. Then she actually contributed other funds. It is now managed by VanCity Savings community foundation. It has been an incredibly important fund in my community. It actually came from the member of Parliament as her own donation. It has grown to the extent where it is now used as very important seed money, for emergency money for local organizations that actually are working with women in East Vancouver in terms of equality issues, anti-poverty issues, justice issues and so on.

That is one example of what a fund like that has been able to do. It is actually already in existence because of a former member of Parliament who set a great example of what she was willing to do to help her community even after she retired as the member of Parliament.

The motion will go to a vote. It is private members' business and it has been a very good debate. I think the member will see that members of our caucus have varying points of view. Maybe there is a good opportunity to convince people here. I know there are concerns about the motion. Some people think it will just be a can of worms, something they do not want to get into. I think there are others of us who think that the principle of what would be established is something that is very worthy of consideration.

I thank the member for bringing forward motion forward. I think it is actually a really good debate to have. It is interesting to hear the different points of view.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion. I must say that this is an extraordinary motion that would give members the opportunity to accomplish things that would help them serve their ridings.

This type of fund has been around for some time now in Quebec, I believe it is called the Fonds de soutien aux organismes communautaires, or support fund for community organizations. It is a discretionary fund; members may, at their own discretion, provide money for community groups in their ridings.

I will say that the motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois is nothing new for us, because, for a long time now, we in the government benches have been working on such a project. We have not moved a motion, but we have been working internally to see how such a fund could be set up. The member for Beauce has been working on this for years.

The Quebec caucus supports the idea. I cannot speak against the Bloc Quebecois' proposal, even if it is an opposition party, given that this motion reflects something that we have always been working toward.

Dozens of community groups in all of our ridings work with no money, with no funding, scraping by on $10 and $100 donations they get from all over in order to help people in certain situations. These are organizations that help the disadvantaged and people with disabilities, and there are all kinds of these groups.

I was listening to my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois relating what we have all experienced in our ridings. Every week, we take calls from people who received discretionary funding from members of Quebec's National Assembly. They come to see us right away to see what the federal government can do. We try to steer them toward programs with standards, but often these programs are not aware of the latest developments. Things change so quickly that programs cannot always keep up with what is really happening in our ridings.

I did not expect to have to speak to this today. When I got here I discovered that the Bloc Quebecois member was bringing this motion forward. There may be certain differences of opinion even within our party, but these are usually on how this program could be structured. That is what we are looking at, how it could be structured in order to be acceptable, and particularly in order to avoid procedural pitfalls and to ensure that each amount given to organizations ended up being used properly.

We wanted it mainly used for the community sector. We have to ensure that these funds are made available to people without revenues or means to get things done outside of public donations.

Often, as we know, these organizations run some unbelievable activities. In my riding, some people donate time to help children with problems at school to improve their skills and do their homework. I have seen some organizations that make reimbursable loans, maybe only of $200, to totally disadvantaged people. They help people with absolutely nothing, not a cent in the bank, to pay their phone bill or feed their family breakfast. They lend them $200 or $300, which has to be paid back when they get their benefits or find a job. Often they do not earn enough to make ends meet.

At the same time, what is surprising is how we are able to encourage all these volunteers who work so many hours every week to help others. The only compensation they get right now is congratulations. We could give them a bit more by helping them.

Often, we are not talking about large amounts. Often they come to us for $1,000, $1,500, or $2,000. That is a lot for them. They leave our offices with incredible energy to volunteer even more of their time. We see this in our ridings. In rural areas, such as where I live, the opportunities to help these groups are incredible.

There are probably just as many opportunities in cities. I am less familiar with urban areas, but I know for a fact that there are groups that look after the homeless. This is more often seen in cities. In any case, there are the same opportunities to help in urban areas as there are in rural areas.

I am at a loss for words, but I think that we really should be encouraging these groups. I have no idea what will come of the Bloc's motion, but it is absolutely essential—there are no ifs or buts about this in my mind—that this program be well structured, to ensure that funding is provided on a non-partisan basis and properly targeted. Assistance has to be provided to the volunteer movement and those not-for-profit organizations that help society in many regards.

My friend opposite made a point, which is true, that often, we try to encourage these people with $100 taken from our advertising budget. We all do that. Often, we are unable to let them go without giving them a little something, because they are in such dire straits.

I have met at my office with five or six representatives from the same organization at a time. These are individuals who volunteer dozens of hours a week, and they are coming to us to ask for as little as $100. Five or six of them come to meet with us for an hour to get any amount they can, because they really need it.

What should be spelled out properly, however, is the need for transparency in such a program. I invite the hon. members of the Canadian Alliance—earlier, someone from the Canadian Alliance said he was opposed—to see the transparency of this initiative. We are talking about giving a little more flexibility to MPs. They are best able to choose, to determine where the needs are in each riding and what the various organizations can do in their respective ridings. This is very important.

That is why I will support the motion put forward by the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois. Then, we will surely have to finalize the guidelines and see how this program can be run with a very high degree of transparency.

In closing, I want to let the hon. member know that I will be supporting his motion.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague that I find the intention behind his motion truly admirable. I would also like to commend my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party for his sensitivity to this way of doing things, which is very important for the people in our ridings.

I worked for 10 years for an MNA. I was the one who administered this discretionary fund provided by the Government of Quebec. We never had a problem of any kind in the administration of this program. It was intended for people who really needed it. It gave them a little extra that helped them make ends meet.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time has run out. The hon. member will have nine minutes to finish her speech when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, it has been said by a former minister of agriculture in this place that if three farmers were to agree, two of them would have to be dead first. When it comes to the agricultural policy framework, the government has managed the near impossible, because farm leaders are virtually unanimous in their opposition to the risk management program being foisted upon them by the federal Department of Agriculture.

At a time when farm incomes are under severe stress, at a time when farmers really need a safety net, the government is proposing new safety programs that offer considerably less than what has existed heretofore. Does this happen at a time when agriculture is booming? Hardly.

The first thing to say is that farmers and rural communities are hurting as never before. Realized net farm income across Canada for 2002 will be well below that of the previous year and certainly below the five year average. In the province of Saskatchewan where I come from, realized net farm income is predicted to reach record low levels when the numbers are announced late next month.

We would expect under such circumstances that a government with a handsome surplus would be coming to the assistance of farmers in their time of need but that is not what is happening. Federal spending on agriculture today is approximately half of what it was just a dozen years ago. In terms of total government spending, the amount spent on agriculture has fallen from 2.8% of overall spending 12 years ago to 1.4% in the current budget.

About 10 months ago the Prime Minister announced the agricultural policy framework with great fanfare. He said Ottawa was providing more than $5.2 billion toward a long time fix for agriculture. The fix was that much of the new money so-called, was earmarked for items in the agricultural policy framework, things such as improving water supplies, environmental plans and export markets but very little actually went into the pockets of farmers to help solve the drought and the cost price squeeze that they face.

To make matters worse, we have the high subsidies from international areas, the United States and Europe in particular. The United States is now subsidizing pulse crops. There is no other country in the world that subsidizes pulse crops except the dear old U.S.A.

Canadian farmers are suffering a trade injury that amounts to an estimated $1.3 billion a year as a result of these subsidies. Farmers and their organizations, as well as provincial governments, have been pleading with the government to provide compensation to cover off that amount. However, the Minister of Agriculture went out of his way last June to say that the APF did not relate to trade injury, a point that was reinforced in the recent federal budget.

Farmers and farm organizations and provincial governments were all uneasy about last June's announcement. They heard the sizzle; they have not yet seen the steak and they are definitely not eating much of it.

The new agricultural policy will revamp NISA and will put a greater emphasis on crop insurance. Farmers have done their homework and they find that in the future they will be paying more and receiving even less in disaster protection than they currently receive.

The government, we would submit, is engaged in a public relations smokescreen to create an illusion that there is genuine consultation while all the while the department intends to go its own way on a policy that is really aimed at allowing the government to spend less in perpetuity on the farm community. Some 22 groups took the highly unusual step of bypassing the agriculture minister completely and writing directly to the Prime Minister. They told him in effect that they were being ignored.

They asked and the provinces have asked that the current safety net programs be allowed to remain in place for an additional period of time, one more year, while real consultations and negotiations occur. The minister kept promising that he would have new--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply to the concerns expressed by the hon. member on March 18, 2003, regarding the agriculture policy framework and the timeliness of implementing the new business risk management programs.

First, I would like to say that the agriculture policy framework is essential to strengthening the agricultural sector across Canada.

The agriculture policy framework has five elements: food safety and food quality, environment, science and innovation, renewal, and business risk management. With respect to business risk management, we propose to establish a common foundation of risk management programs across the country, based on demand. This foundation would in turn be based on an expanded NISA and on crop insurance. This common approach is necessary for two reasons.

First, in order to protect farmers from trade problems. The only way to protect our producers against countervailing duties is to guarantee uniform federal treatment for all regions and all products.

Secondly, we believe it is important that, when the Government of Canada intervenes financially, all farmers are treated equally, whatever their province of residence.

Our new series of risk management programs include features that are major improvements for producers. We have integrated new parameters to ensure greater protection against market decline, and we have included measures to help new farmers.

Producers can select the required level of coverage each year and get coverage with only one third of their contribution to the account. I can assure the House that these programs are affordable.

We recognize that the transition to the new proposed programs will take time. As the hon. member knows, the agricultural policy framework provides for a three year transition period. Therefore, there will be no sudden change overnight. We advised all the provinces that we are prepared to continue to share the costs of their programs for a period of three years. After that, we want all federal funds to be allocated to the two national programs, namely NISA and the production insurance program.

Farmers will not submit claims under NISA for 2003 before the end of that same year at the earliest. As for the measures taken regarding the crop insurance program, they will remain essentially the same next year, except that new products will be added up until 2005. Cash advance programs will also remain in effect.

This series of risk management programs directly reflects the comments made by industry officials and producers themselves. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the provinces have undertaken the broadest consultation process ever on the new risk management programs.

We have great confidence in these new programs. In fact, we have agreed to have an independent review conducted, as requested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

This independent review will assess the anticipated performance of the new risk management programs, compared to current programs, including NISA, CFIP and companion programs. The review will focus on the degree to which the proposed programs meet the objectives set by the ministers of agriculture.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are some solutions to this. Ottawa must consult openly with farm organizations and provincial governments to provide new safety net programs that would be acceptable to the industry. The government must protect the incomes of Canadian farmers and producers, and that means doing more than simply acknowledging the impact of American and European subsidies.

We need a food production system that would allow Canadian farmers to earn a decent living. We need a policy that would create some economic stability and job creation in rural Canada. We are on the verge of doing permanent damage to agriculture and the future of agriculture. It is our responsibility to ensure that we protect the industry and enhance the lives of those who live in rural Canada.

I would urge the government and the minister to consult in a meaningful way with farmers, farm organizations, and provincial and territorial governments to put agriculture on a firm footing for both today and tomorrow.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, the process of developing new programs took most of a year. With regard to the most important changes being studied—stabilization payments and disaster aid under NISA—we still have close to another year to fine-tune the administrative details before program delivery begins.

It is important to make a distinction between the program year and the time when producers receive benefits. The programs that will apply in 2003 have already been defined and, in general, 2003 will not be different from any other year. At the end of 2003 and 2004, producers will begin to notice the effects of the changes being made in accordance with the agriculture policy framework's new 2003 programs.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

The House therefore stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:41 p.m.)