* (2150)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): We are now discussing the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Just one line of introduction, Mr. Chairman. The Sustainable Development Innovations Fund, while it was used as a vehicle on a couple of occasions for which dollars could flow through to the Tire Fund and to the multimaterial recycling program. Primarily any monies that are granted out of here, however, are funded by the exemption of the PST, or the removal of the exemption on the PST on disposable diapers. A notional amount approximately equivalent to that is returned to this fund for the betterment of the environment.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Just for the records to show, we are discussing 26.2. 2. Sustainable Development Innovations Fund. It is on page 128.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Just as some opening remarks having to do with the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund, and then questions later. The first concern that I would like to put on the record is something that my colleague from Selkirk has brought up in the House.

We have been able to read in the media the fact that 90 percent of these Sustainable Development Innovations Fund grants seem to somehow end up in the ridings of the government members. Our concern with that is that politics becomes part of the criteria for handing out Sustainable Development Innovations Fund money. Now anybody who is concerned at all about sustainability and the environment will tell you that you have to be putting funds into worthy projects. Anybody will tell you as well that those projects have to be based on certain criteria. They have to be based on the premise that the project decisions on where the monies are going to go in the projects are not going to be based on which riding the project happens to be in. It is not going to be based on political considerations but is going to be based on scientific data, the principle of sustainability, or any of the other criteria that the government may use to justify putting money into certain projects.

It is my contention that the people of Manitoba do not want their tax dollars going into projects based even in part, or even the impression, that they are going to Tory ridings. Yet the facts of the matter are that 90 percent of the funds that are going into sustainable development projects from this fund are going to ridings represented by Conservative MLAs. We do not think that is right. We think the government ought to change the way it hands out its Sustainable Development Innovations Fund money.

We were pleased to hear that the Provincial Auditor is taking a look at this whole situation and that, hopefully, in that way we can get this government to stick to the scientific criteria that should be used in handing out money, the taxpayers' money, for sustainable development projects. I am hopeful that the Auditor can introduce some kind of impartiality, some kind of objectivity, into the process by which this government hands out funds from this fund. The minister may care to put some words on the record as far as the comments that I have put down up to this point.

Mr. Cummings: Yes, I can understand the anguish on the part of the members of the opposition when they realize that when the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund and its predecessor, the Environmental Innovations Fund, were put in place, there was a debate going on at that time when the members, certainly of the NDP opposition, could barely bring themselves to say the words "sustainable development." They were pretty much unalterably opposed to sustainable development and felt that it was a poorly disguised way of doing an end run on environmental matters and they said so on numerous occasions.

Much to their chagrin, of course, what has happened is because they would not want to be seen to be part of the sustainable development thrust that was beginning to gain momentum in '89 and '90, '92, '93 and start getting more and more momentum in the last few years, they did not take advantage of the opportunity to encourage, within their own constituencies, people who had innovative and sustainable development projects that could have been brought forward for approval, and this fund is largely driven by the applications that appear before it. So there are, no doubt, some distortions that have arisen from the fact that some members of the opposition did not seize on the opportunity to encourage people from within their own areas.

The fund was advertised widely, actually. There is a brochure and there are entrances into this fund from almost every department that is represented in rural Manitoba--except I suppose the social services department--but the very fact that this was raised by the member for Selkirk I think I would like to put on the record that there was a $25,000 grant for a prototype hay compactor that went into his area. A scentless camomile elimination program for $3,500 went to the Selkirk Weed Control District. Partners in Sustainable Development, the St. Andrews School for $19,130; a reusing recycling paper, Lord Selkirk High School, a small grant for $1,000; first annual Manitoba Environmental Industry Trade Show and Business Conference in Selkirk sponsored by Triple-S received $10,000 and, I believe, are going to be receiving another grant shortly for repeat of that project this year. The recycling facility in St. Andrews in the town of Selkirk received $12,500.

There were only two applications within his area that did not receive approval, so 80 percent of the applications in that member's district received approval, but there were not a large number of applications. As well, John Perry, a teacher at Lord Selkirk, was a recipient last year of a Sustainable Development Award of Excellence under the Education category.

So I am pretty confident that what the Auditor is going to find is that the fund is fairly distributed, that there are a large number of projects that appear there. Some of them, however, are not of a high level. There are a large number of rejections. The committee invariably rejects more than it accepts in terms of applications. That has got nothing to do with the location of the applications in many respects.

This being the only fund that is still available with a somewhat discretionary nature to it, schools, Department of Agriculture, agricultural entrepreneurs, natural resource enthusiasts, environmental enthusiasts--all manner of endeavours approach this fund for support. Even in the early days of this fund I remember that two out of the first three Earth Days were receiving significant funding out of this area to support them in some small administrative fashion, $225,000 in the first year or two and reducing to smaller amounts to encourage them.

Remember that this fund in the long run is intended in the main not to be repeated. There are some projects that we fund for two or three years, but the vast majority are one time only, and the exception would be to repeat them more often.

Without wanting to be too provocative about it, I believe that the fund is fairly distributed. In fact, we certainly would encourage the Auditor's review.

* (2200)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): The hour being 10 p.m. what is the will of the committee?

Mr. Cummings: Continue for 10 minutes.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): We can if it is agreement if you want to get this done tonight.

Mr. Struthers: We are not going to pass it, though--

Mr. Cummings: We can finish the debate.

Mr. Struthers: --finish the debate.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Yes, we are not at liberty to pass it because we have to have leave of the House to do that, but we can continue the discussion--

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Pardon me. [interjection] No, we need leave of the House to do this. Excuse me, if the member for Dauphin wants to continue and finish the debate tonight, then we can pass it at another time.

Mr. Struthers: I am ready to move on and pass it whenever the House gives us leave to do that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Okay, then the committee will rise. Is that the agreement? Okay. Call in the Speaker.