Claude Duplain

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat it once again, the airlines will be able to sit on the boards. What is important is the transparency that we want to establish in this management system with ten years of experience when it comes to transparency and good management.

Sometimes the opposition complains that someone is missing, that someone else should be sitting on the board. However, the people who are appointed from the public to head these boards of directors are intelligent people. They represent society, they have been working for years and they know the sector.

Does the member really think that these boards want to boycott or prevent the airlines from using the airports? That is completely ridiculous. They are there to look after Canada's transportation needs. A board of directors would never do anything that would interfere in or prevent the airlines from providing transportation to Canada's regions. That is completely impossible. Come on.

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member will have to prove to me that airline representatives will not be able to sit on the boards, because I have been told that they will be able to.

It is easy, when dealing with new bills, to only point out what is missing. The opposition is against this bill, and all we have heard is what is wrong with it.

Let the members opposite take the time to read the bill, to see the accountability that we want to establish in airports, proper management by those responsible, while noting the challenges to be met and keeping sight of the goal, which is public transparency. That is what this bill stands for, and it is fantastic.

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my answer will be brief. Based on the information I have been given, representatives of the airlines may sit on these boards of directors and take part in decisions.

I do not know where these allegations made by the members opposite come from, but based on the information I have, the airlines can be on the board.

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to begin discussions on implementation of the Canada Airports Act, that is Bill C-27.

We now have more than ten years experience under our belts with the operation of port authorities in Canada. The airport divestiture initiative has been an extremely successful one, and now has unanimous support. No one wants to see a return to a centralized airport administration structure.

Airport authorities have proven that they are capable of linking their management and development strategies with the needs of the communities served by the airports.

There are a number of stakeholders with a direct interest in the safe and efficient operation of these airports. These include the travelling public, the carriers, the communities the airports serve, and the federal government, in its capacity as owner of the airport land and facilities.

These stakeholders are entitled to know whether these valuable assets are being administered efficiently and safely, and are respectful of the environment. This bill attains that objective by stressing the need for an ongoing dialogue between airport administrators and stakeholders.

The bill calls for public access to the strategic planning documents established by each airport authority. These serve as an action plan for the future orientation of the airport. The bill also stresses the necessity to periodically seek public input and pass it on to airport administrators.

Current leases between airport authorities and the federal government already contain provisions encouraging accountability and transparency. With their ten years of experience, however, the stakeholders have indicated that there may be ways of improving one or the other of these.

With the Canada Airports Act, this government is responding positively to those opinions. In some cases, what is different is the nature of the details required in airport authority reports. For example, the proposed legislation now sets out the requirements for the content of a land use plan, a master plan and an environmental management plan for an airport authority. These plans are a lease requirement.

To enhance uniformity and rigour, improvements have been made to the content requirements for the strategic planning documents. There is also a statutory requirement for these plans to be updated. This will guarantee that the documents in question, and the business plans for an airport will be up to date at all times.

Airports must be developed and managed carefully, with consideration for prevailing economic conditions, the health of the airline industry, and the regional community.

Other national strategic issues that are better included in this legislation are incorporated through leases or existing legislation, such as federal identity provisions, the fact that airport authorities must be familiar with Canada's international obligations, the Minister of Transport's right to information on the performance of national airports and the delivery of services in both official languages.

In other sectors, the legislation seeks much greater accountability. This is particularly true with regard to the transparency of fares and pricing methods.

It has been said that some of these measures will result in increased costs for airport operators. Currently the entire airline industry is facing enormous financial challenges.

The leading airport authorities have already realized the advantages of being responsible and transparent non-profit organizations. These authorities are already holding ongoing and open dialogue with their main stakeholders. Consequently, many airport authorities are already meeting the legislative requirements or are taking steps to do so.

For other airport authorities, this legislation will encourage a positive response to the business sector's growing interest in accountability and increased transparency. The statutory requirements merely codify the good business and ethical practices adopted by the business sector.

The Canada Airports Act aims to provide some measure of certainty for Canadians, airport clientele and travellers. This goal can be reached through the provision of important information on airports to all stakeholders. In short, the airport authorities must manage these key public facilities responsibly and transparently.

[Agriculture, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it has not been an abysmal failure. As the member just pointed out, we have spent two years developing a new policy framework. Everyone was consulted, including the federation. The federation recently came up with new examples to show that the APF is not good. Our response is that their numbers are wrong. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, once again, has agreed to examine them with a private consultant to prove to the federation that the APF is indeed a good program.

[Agriculture, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, just recently the Canadian Federation of Agriculture came up with examples. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, showing that he has an open mind, wanted to demonstrate again the benefits of the new agricultural policy framework and agreed to prove, with this private firm, that the APF is a very good program.

[Education, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, plans for an international francophone college in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu are on track.

I would like to congratulate the promoter of the project, the Cégep de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, especially its director, Serge Brasset, for his energy and determination.

The college would be affiliated with the United World Colleges network, which currently numbers some 10 different colleges. The Collège international de Saint-Jean would be the network's only French language institution and would be located on the Fort Saint-Jean campus.

This is an excellent plan that would allow students to follow the international baccalaureate program in French.

It is important that we give them our support, like my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, who has been supporting this project for several months now.

[Community Activity Support Fund, April 10th, 2003]

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.

[Community Activity Support Fund, April 10th, 2003]

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.

[Community Activity Support Fund, April 10th, 2003]

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.