Debates of June 1st, 2000

Bernard Patry Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie, as well as the related financial report.

The report has to do with the meeting of the Commission on Parliamentary Affairs, held in Pnom Penh, Cambodia, from March 2 to March 4, 2000.

Clifford Lincoln Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to its order of reference dated Thursday, May 11, 2000, the committee has adopted Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks of Canada and has agreed to report it with amendments.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the hon. members and witnesses who sat for many long hours to make this report possible.

Peter Adams Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This report is entitled “Seeking a Balance: Final Report on Human Resources Development Canada Grants and Contributions”.

The report is the result of four months of very public hearings. The committee heard from witnesses from all over the country, from within government and outside of government. These witnesses were selected by members of all five parties represented on our committee.

I want to thank the members of the committee, the witnesses and the staff of the committee who assisted us in producing what I hope will be a very valuable piece of work.

Diane Ablonczy Calgary—Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this report, the official opposition members of the committee are strongly of the opinion that the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities failed to fully report and constructively criticize the department's mismanagement and abuse of grants and contributions programs.

We believe that the committee is in dereliction of its responsibility therefore to hold the government accountable on behalf of Canadian workers, employers and taxpayers.

The Liberal majority report does not impute any responsibility to anyone in the mismanagement of the department and blames other factors. Because the Liberal majority report denies the nature and scope of the problems at HRDC, the recommendations it makes fails to address the root cause of these problems and our dissenting report and 14 recommendations from the official opposition are appended.

Paul Crête Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would seek the permission of the House to explain the dissenting opinion of the Bloc Quebecois on this report.

Paul Crête Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important report. It contains, among other things, a recommendation by the Bloc Quebecois, which I myself proposed, that the department be dismantled because of the crisis we have witnessed.

We submitted a dissenting report because, if the government simply dismantled the department without getting to the bottom of things in this situation through an independent public inquiry, we would not have honoured the wishes of the citizens of Quebec and Canada in this matter.

I think government action must go a lot further, otherwise this will be seen as nothing more than camouflaging.

Howard Hilstrom Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented Tuesday, February 22, be concurred in.

We are here today to finish up a bit of unfinished business and ongoing business dealing with the farm income issue across Canada, in particular in western Canada.

I would ask if I could have the agreement of the House to share my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster so that we would each have 10 minutes.

Howard Hilstrom Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I do not have concurrence to share my time. We should have a positive attitude in parliament and we should work together to address agricultural issues. I am very disappointed that my colleagues in the House feel that this spirit of co-operation is not necessary in addressing agricultural problems in Canada.

The majority report which was put forward by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on March 13, in which I concurred, was inadequate and did not adequately address the issues, nor did it adequately examine the problems. I will address that as we go along. Primarily the problem was that the hearings were confined to three provinces, when I know very clearly from geography books and the history of the country that we have 10 provinces as well as the territories which have agricultural issues.

Since October 21, 1999, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has examined issues surrounding the farm income crisis facing farmers. I would like to point out that it was the Canadian Alliance and my motion which in fact got the hearings going on the farm income issue. As far as I know, had we not done that, the government would have continued on with the statements of the minister, saying “Relax, NISA and crop insurance are sufficient to address this crisis”, when it soon became very apparent that the basic farm safety net programs would not do the job.

John Duncan Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that if the member for Selkirk—Interlake had simply stated that he was splitting his time, that indeed would be allowable in the House.

May I request that he simply make that statement at this time, that he would indeed be splitting his time with another alliance member?