House of Commons Hansard #161 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was species.

Topics

Regulatory Reform
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Wascana
Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am a strong believer in regulatory reform and I very much appreciate the hon. member's interest.

Over the past eight years we have made some progress. As a result Canada is now seen by the OECD as among the most advanced in the world for regulatory management. There is more work to be done. I intend to pursue it. Among other things, it is part of the innovation agenda of the Government of Canada. I welcome the input of members of parliament in achieving greater regulatory efficiency and effectiveness.

Employment Insurance
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, today L'Acadie nouvelle reported that the Liberals in New Brunswick obtained a document showing that Human Resources Development Canada and the Government of New Brunswick signed an agreement to make retired public servants eligible for employment insurance.

One thousand three hundred public servants from New Brunswick took early retirement and obtained employment insurance benefits at the same time.

Is it a new policy of the government of the Minister of Human Resources Development to give EI benefits in cases of early retirement? Will the minister include miners from Leaf Rapids, Manitoba?

Employment Insurance
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Brant
Ontario

Liberal

Jane Stewart Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, the voluntary early retirement window is a provision that is part of the Employment Insurance program.

This program is available to both public and private employers. It is my understanding that the agreement we have with the province of New Brunswick is being honoured there.

Airport Security
Oral Question Period

March 21st, 2002 / 2:45 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

The 1993 Liberal red book promised Canadians fairness and simplicity in tax policies, including the promise to find a fair alternative to the GST. We still have the goods and services tax and now the government is imposing another GST on Canadian air travellers, including children as young as two years of age.

Beginning April 1 the Liberal government will start taking in $1 billion more than what air security will cost. Instead of another tax on tiny tots and their parents, will the Prime Minister withdraw the government security tax? Canadians do not want another GST.

Airport Security
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

Airport Security
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Markham
Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)

Mr. Speaker, that is my official title but junior finance minister will do.

Airport Security
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Airport Security
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, the idea that we will take in $1 billion--

Airport Security
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Airport Security
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have answered this same question many times. I do not think I will try to do it again.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Pankiw Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal sponsorship program slush fund is so riddled with political interference that the auditor general is investigating the phantom report.

Incredibly, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is refusing to conduct a parliamentary inquiry even though when he was in opposition, he tabled a motion demanding that a parliamentary committee “examine all aspects of government contracts including those relating to advertising”.

Surely such a radical flip-flop deserves an explanation from the minister of pork and patronage. Why is he ignoring his own advice?

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell
Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, that question was as clear as mud. If the hon. member is asking me if the auditor general is conducting an inquiry, and I assume he is throughout all of this, the answer of course is yes. The rest of the House knew about it already.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Pankiw Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to sneakily avoid the question. He has flip-flopped on his own motion which reads “to examine all aspects of government contracts including those relating to advertising”. He tabled this motion in the House specifically demanding a parliamentary investigation into government contracts relating to advertising. Those are his words in his motion.

Will the minister guarantee that all sponsorship program slush fund contracts are examined by a parliamentary committee and that the government will adopt the auditor general's recommendations on this scandal?

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell
Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, that question was only half as clear as the previous question.

If the member was asking, and we are only guessing at this point, if the advertising contracts are given in a competitive process, I have already answered that to another member. There were 14 submissions some time ago. Nine of them were selected as being the successful bidders and the advertising is being given pursuant to those successful bids. The member is not even listening to the answer.

Employment Insurance
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Carol Skelton Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development continues to deny that section 19(3) of the EI Act was unfair even though her own department said so publicly in the Canada Gazette . I quote:

However, ongoing monitoring has found that, despite the regulation change in 1999, there is still a significant number of cases where the undeclared earnings rules result in unfairness.

Why is the minister contradicting her own department?