House of Commons Hansard #201 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was trade.

Topics

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

No, that is not true. It should not be wiped away. It should be accountable.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Dromisky Liberal Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON

-to forgiving.

Let me begin my discussion of this amendment by outlining briefly what it contains.

The Reform Party proposes that the minister should report to the House how much overpayment benefit money is forgiven each year. That is a simple request. The minister should make recommendations regarding how much he should be permitted to forgive in the upcoming year. The Reform Party believes that the minister has a crystal ball and knows exactly how many cases are going to appear before him and his ministry. Therefore, he should be able to make such a judgment for the future 12 months.

Reform proposes that a parliamentary committee should set limits on how much may be forgiven in a year. Again we have to use the crystal ball. The proposal also suggests that no amount may be forgiven until the committee sets the yearly total and no amount may be forgiven once that total has been reached.

When I first heard the motion, I could hardly believe my ears. The Reform Party is supposed to be the party which believes that less government is better government. Yet that very same party introduced the motion which would add extra processes, extra time, extra layers of bureaucracy and extra costs to the administration of the old age security program. It really is amazing.

Motion No. 7 betrays the Reform Party's fixation on the minute details of the OAS program. Members opposite seek to micromanage the program and the minister at great cost and for no benefit whatsoever. It would like to have complete control over every minute detail, every tiny aspect of the entire program.

As usual, it is instructive to look at the facts surrounding the motion. It is also worth while to note that these facts are at the disposal of the Reform Party, as they are at the disposal of all members of the House.

The Minister of Human Resources Development currently forgives something less than $1 million in old age security overpayments each year. As we have noted in debating other motions, the minister is responsible for that amount but does not have carte blanche to forgive overpayments. Certain conditions must exist before the overpayment can be forgiven.

As the old age security program pays benefits in the order of $18.5 billion each year, the rate at which overpayments are forgiven is something in the order of five one-thousandths of one per cent of the benefits paid. In addition, the amounts are already reported to Parliament in the context of the annual main estimates and public accounts. I will repeat that for the benefit of Reform members. These amounts are already reported to Parliament in the context of the annual main estimates and public accounts. Hon. members already have the opportunity to examine all of the figures in depth.

The motion by the Reform Party would create a duplication of these processes, and to what gain? So that Reform members can micromanage the minister's use of his discretion to forgive overpayments which amount to something in the order of five one-thousandths of one per cent of the program's expenditures.

If the motion were adopted, it could lead to disaster. Imagine a committee setting a small limit on the amount which could be forgiven. If that amount of money were used up in eight months time, let us say, what would happen to the cases which occurred

in the final four months of the year? The government would have to tell those individuals that they must repay their debts even though their circumstances were similar or worse than someone who was overpaid a few months earlier. I do not consider this a fair practice and no one else in the House does.

With regard to the motions to amend Bill C-54 moved by the Bloc and the Reform Party, the government finds itself right in the middle. In one of the motions the Bloc Quebecois demands the minister be required to forgive overpayments without regard to the ability of the client to repay the amount. In Motion No. 7 the Reform Party seeks to prevent the minister from using his authority to forgive benefit overpayments compassionately by placing limits which would have to be respected no matter what the ability of the pensioner to repay the overpaid amount.

On one hand we have a party that says never collect any overpayment and on the other hand we have a party that says never forgive any overpayment. The government recognizes the need to recover moneys where warranted and to forgive repayment where appropriate. I also believe ministers must retain responsibility for the administration of their programs and that this responsibility should not be removed, as would be in the case of either Motion No. 6 or Motion No. 7 if adopted.

I firmly oppose Motion No. 7. I urge all hon. members in the House to do likewise and to move to the speedy passage of this legislation.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition are used to seeing their amendments or their comments misunderstood or not understood at all. This is once again the case. It must be understood that we are significantly amending an act, and that seniors or people who are eligible either for the Canada Pension Plan or for family allowances may discover, at some point, that they received more money than they were entitled to.

The current act, which we are in the process of amending, includes a provision which is fair in that it provides the following, and I quote: "Where a person has received or obtained a benefit payment to which the person is not entitled, or a benefit payment in excess of the amount of the benefit payment to which the person is entitled, the amount of that benefit payment or the excess amount, as the case may be, constitutes a debt due to Her Majesty and may be recovered in proceedings commenced (a) at any time, where that person made a wilful misrepresentation or committed fraud for the purpose of receiving or obtaining that amount or excess amount". In other words, if someone cheats, the government can, at any time, recover the money.

However, there is also a (b) in the existing section, and we hope that the government will listen and keep that provision. Part (b) provides this: "in any case where paragraph (a) does not apply, at any time before the end of the fiscal year immediately following the fiscal year in which that amount or excess amount was received or obtained". We will see what these other cases are.

We feel that the (b) part should be kept. But what is the government doing? It is eliminating that provision. The government says that any such payment constitutes a debt to Her Majesty, as though the recipients were cheaters. I agree that the government is significantly amending the legislation to make things easier for the public. For example, I can think of the income supplement for needy elderly people. As you know, these people currently have to sign a form every year. The bill before us provides that they will no longer have to sign that form. However, it could be that, without any ill intent on the part of the elderly, their situation may change, because they inherited some money or for whatever reason, so that they are no longer eligible for a supplement, but will not know that and may continue to receive such supplement for years, until someone finds out.

Without being in any way guilty or even responsible, they would find themselves in the situation of having to pay back a large sum, even though responsibility for the overpayment might rest entirely with the system. I asked the committee to ensure that people knew what they were entitled to annually. I was told that that would be done through the regulations. I have no guarantee. I was shown nothing.

It seems to me that we cannot, on the one hand, increase the opportunities for administrative errors and, on the other, remove this limit, which forces the government to recognize that people are not required to pay for the errors it makes, because in fact, in this bill, the government is doing two things. It is taking away the five-year period within which a person could make a claim for benefits to which he was entitled. There was agreement with that, but at the same time, the government is giving itself unlimited powers to go after these amounts, which again may not have been fraudulently obtained, but might simply be the result of an administrative error. It is giving itself the power to subject members of the public to serious hardship, even in the case of an administrative error. We know that the people in question are generally seniors or families on income support.

Therefore, it seems to me that this is a measure worthy of the government's attention. We are concerned about the likelihood of administrative errors, and we will be supporting the Reform Party's amendment, and adding an amendment to the amendment deleting subsections 7 and 8.

The Reform Party wants members to be told exactly how the legislation has been administered so that they are aware of the large number of errors that have been made. We are in agreement with that, but do not agree that the government should not correct the errors, and we can be sure that the government will wish to correct them only in those cases where there has been prejudice done. We do not agree that errors should be allowed to stand until the House moves in this regard, particularly as any motion it brings forward can only be a recommendation.

Here is the amendment. I move, seconded by the member for Argenteuil-Papineau:

That Motion No. 7 be amended by deleting the new subsections (7) and (8).

But, it boils down to the same thing. Yes, we should improve the administration of the law but, in doing so, we should be very careful not to increase administrative errors and inconvenience people who are most in need and who are often unable to defend themselves. Individuals should not have to pay.

The current two subsections of the act stipulate that the government can recover its due at any time, regardless of the time which has passed since payment, if fraud is involved. If administrative or other errors were in play-mostly administrative errors-the stipulated time period is one year, and I stress this point all the more because this provision is contained in legislation, which increases the likelihood of administrative errors. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that we know, from what has gone on in our ridings, that when the new computer program was introduced, there were many administrative errors.

These administrative errors hit citizens hard, citizens who did not receive any pension cheques at all. Those are obvious errors. When people stop receiving pension cheques, often, they call their MP, and I am glad that that is what happens. But, other administrative errors occurred, causing people to receive supplements to which they were not entitled.

I do not know whether you have ever helped people of a certain age who do not quite know how to go about it or what their entitlements are to fill in those forms. They can easily, with the best intentions, end up receiving benefits to which they are not entitled and have no idea what to do to fix the situation. In those circumstances, the same errors which deprived people of their entitlements could have the effect of giving people benefits to which they were not entitled, which they did not seek to obtain and which they could be obliged to pay back at one point. In my opinion, that is very unjust.

The government should take this matter seriously. Is that not the rule of thumb to ensure that administrative errors do not occur? Nothing is easier when cutting the payroll than letting administrative errors go by.

I am not saying that this is the government's aim but that there is nothing meaner and more stupid than wholesale jobs cuts which end up negatively affecting seniors in particular.

I hope that they will listen to our message, which is not an extremist message, contrary to what my honourable colleague said, but one of reason and compassion for people. Far from being extreme, our position consists of maintaining in part the current legislation. It appears to me that it is more my honourable colleagues opposite who are breaking with the Liberal tradition, which used to take into consideration the rights of people and was compassionate with them, a tradition which is broken with here. I invite them to correct this serious error in approach.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the amendment to the amendment by the hon. member for Mercier in order. We shall therefore continue debate on the same group, including the amendment moved by the member for Mercier.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, the days have long since past when individual Canadians had to rely only on themselves, their families and their community for support during times of either unemployment or old age. Instead, the federal government has created the complicated system of tax funded programs of support, often called our social safety net. Like any other net it is full of holes, some of which are intentional but some of which merely represent aspects of serving the public which were not anticipated when the original legislation was drawn.

Bill C-54 represents the most recent efforts of the Government of Canada to mend some of those unintentional holes in our national safety net. It pertains to several major pieces of legislation, including the Old Age Security Act, the Canadian pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.

The fact that it covers such a large amount of earlier legislation makes one suspect Bill C-54 will be complicated. In that regard the suspicion is correct. Several members of Parliament have spent many hours studying and digesting what the government has proposed here.

According to the legislative summary provided by the economics division of the Library of Parliament research, the government intended Bill C-54 to achieve the following goals: to improve service to clients of these major income support measures; to better co-ordinate programs, administration and the actual delivery of service; to eliminate some inconsistencies between old age security and the Canada pension plan programs;

to reduce administrative costs, and to save some trees and some time by reducing duplication and paper burden, both for the departments and their clients; and finally, to help members of Parliament to better serve our constituents.

These changes will have wide ranging impact since they are expected to benefit some 1.4 million seniors and save the taxpayer about $10 million annually. Of course, nearly all Canadians, including those in the Reform Party of Canada, would approve of these goals. We all want more efficient government, fewer program duplications and reduced federal expenses. As one might expect, however, it is how the government proposes to undertake these much desired improvements that has led some of us to propose amendments to Bill C-54.

The first section of Bill C-54 deals in clauses 1 through 24 with the Old Age Security Act. I must report to this House that my constituency office frequently receives complaints from seniors who are caught up in the red tape of the Old Age Security Act sections.

People receiving the spouses allowance, SPA, and the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, are required to reapply every single year preventing any payments from being made when the new fiscal year begins each April 1 until those applications have been received and approved. Single handedly that requirement imposes real hardship on the very Canadians this legislation was aimed at helping, namely low income seniors whose cheques are often delayed, for example if some bureaucrat decides that information on the application must be verified.

The simple fact is that the income of these least well off seniors does not change much from year to year. Therefore it seems to me to make far more sense to require only that seniors must report changes to their yearly income. No report received means there is no change.

On behalf of those seniors I personally congratulate the government for eliminating the very irritating and generally unnecessary piece of red tape. However, the question is not that simple.

A House committee has been at work on Bill C-54. The result of the committee's work is a series of proposed amendments which this place has been treating in groups for the purpose of organizing the debate.

Clause 23 of that first section of Bill C-54 is the subject of amendments, or Motions Nos. 5 and 6 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois as well as Motion No. 7 put forward by the Reform Party of Canada.

Clause 23 deals with overpayments that people may have received. Our position regarding Motion No. 5 is that when Canadians receive payment to which they are not entitled, they should pay the amount back except in those circumstances such as hardship or death, which already appear on page 10 of the bill.

Regarding Bloc Motion No. 6, we oppose it because we believe that department officials should stand behind their advice and be accountable regarding our tax dollars. This unaccountability by the bureaucrats and in some regards the politicians has gone on far too long.

Regarding Motion No. 7, the Reform Party's concern primarily relates to keeping the minister accountable to Parliament. This has been overlooked for years. It is time that the minister started to accept some of that accountability.

Motion No. 7 asks the minister to report annually to this House regarding overpayments in either Canada pension plan or old age security, providing details of their cost to taxpayers. A parliamentary committee would then study this report and make its recommendations regarding what the minister could or could not remit the following year.

Motion No. 7 has the great advantage of keeping the department and its minister accountable to the Canadian people through members of Parliament who are the people's elected representatives. What I am saying here is opposite to that which the member on the other side said a few minutes ago. We in the Reform Party say maybe it is time that MPs started to buckle down and do some work on their own to help the minister out and not just to pass it off.

Very often even in my own riding of Okanagan-Shuswap I hear complaints from voters that civil servants and bureaucrats can do whatever they want with no accountability to the people who pay their salaries. It is an ongoing complaint and not only in my constituency. I am sure hon. members on the other side have had the same thing happen. They must hear it at the parties they go to or from the friends they associate with. It is an ongoing concern in Canada that has to be addressed.

We must take every responsible opportunity to correct this situation, where both bureaucrats and the courts run this country instead of having a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Too often we have government of the Ottawa mandarins for their own purpose, or governments of the lawyers and the judges, all too often to protect the rights of the criminals rather than to defend the interests of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens.

Until we can bring accountability back into this House we will always have this complaint from our constituents. It is unnecessary. It is something we must address and I believe Motion No. 7 is the first step in a long process.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to address this particular matter today. When I came here in the fall of 1993 one of the biggest promises I made to the constituents of Elk Island who elected me was to exert pressure on the government to be accountable for the way the taxpayers' hard earned dollars were being spent.

I remember very distinctly one of the things which shocked me when I arrived here. There was an orientation for new members. The individual making the presentation told us what our office budgets were and explained the formula. Then he said that it did not matter, that we could spend more, that we could spend any amount we wanted to. I was getting upset and as a brand new member I did not know what to do. Should I get up and say that is wrong and we should not do that? I was getting quite angry about this carte blanche that an MP had to spend any amount he wanted.

Then the presenter said that to remember, any amount we overextended or overspent on our budget or any category in it would simply be deducted from our salary. I immediately relaxed and was happy. He was obviously building it up. He said that as a member of Parliament I had a personal responsibility to be within my budget. If I am not trustworthy or not on the bit in terms of managing my budget, then it would come out of my own pocket.

When I left that meeting I remembered how my emotions went up with anger and down with great delight that there was one level of accountability. I then asked some of my colleagues if it would not be wonderful if we could require that same level of accountability from all members of the government, all of the bureaucrats. A deputy minister would be required to give up a portion of his salary for overspending the budget.

I have been watching the budget and we have been working in committee on the estimates for the year and I am appalled. Over and over we hear about cuts, cuts, cuts. Yet in every set of estimates I have looked at so far the spending is up. The people of Canada need to know that total government spending under this new, much touted cutting budget is actually $2 billion more than last year. The people of Canada and members of this House ought to know that we are spending more and more.

When the hon. member from the governing Liberal Party was speaking earlier, he made some comments about the Reformers. He said that here is this group of Reformers who want accountability and all they are doing is proposing something that will cost more money. The member then said that the amount of overspending is not really that much. Why, it is only five one-thousandths of one per cent.

Five one thousandths of one per cent is certainly not excessive if it is put that way. But if we look at the tens of millions of dollars which are overspent because of administrative errors, because of lack of accountability and lack of resolve, I think that maybe 100 taxpayers would be required to pay their total tax bills just to pay for the overpayment. If we got those 100 taxpayers, or 1,000 taxpayers or however many are needed to come up with the tax dollars to fund this administrative error, I think we would have howls of protest. Perhaps then we would have a greater cry for accountability.

The member said that it is an administrative hassle. It will cost money to ask the minister to be accountable for the overpayments. Yes, indeed, accounting for money is a cost item. As any person who has ever been in business will tell us, the money which is spent on reliable accountants and on acceptable accounting procedures is usually money well spent. Money which is spent in providing accountability usually provides a saving of an amount much greater than the amount which is required to deliver on that accountability.

I would speak against the Bloc amendment to the Reform motion. What we are doing is we are promoting accountability.

The cry from the other side was that these people do not care, that we want to cut people off. Another statement was that we want to prevent the minister from being able to do his job. Wrong on both counts.

We in the Reform Party believe it is time we managed our fiscal affairs in such a way that we do not go down the tubes, so that we do maintain the ability to help people who are truly in need. As long as we keep on wasting money because we are too lazy to account for it, we are diving headlong into a disaster. That will prevent us from doing anything for anyone because we will have either runaway inflation or increased taxes and probably both in order to try to bail us out of a fiscal problem which was generated by governments over the past 30 years. There is probably nothing more urgent than bringing accountability to the whole process.

There is a recommendation in our motion that the minister must include his recommendations in his report. In other words, we are not saying that the minister cannot do his job; we are telling the minister to do his job and to do it well. Where it can be improved, he should bring his recommendations to the House. We will then provide assistance, via the House or a committee, so that we can be more efficient and better stewards of the money which Canadian taxpayers entrust to us.

We are saying to the minister that if he is overspending because of administrative errors, if he is giving money to people to whom it is not due, that money should be recoverable. If there are mitigating circumstances which would recommend that on compassionate grounds or for whatever reason it will not be paid back, we want to know why that is so. We want to know what the minister is going to do about it. Many years a go a very wise

teacher of mine said: "If you set no goals, you will be sure to reach them. If you aim for nothing, you will be sure to hit it".

We are asking the minister to account for administrative errors in his department that cost the taxpayers money. We are asking the minister to come up with a plan that will save the taxpayers money. I do not think anyone would argue that when there is increasing competition for increasingly rare dollars from government, the money should go to people to whom it is intended. If someone receives money, whether it is OAS or CPP or UIC, to which they are not entitled it is actually a violation of the rights of the people who need it and it should be paid back unless there are very severe mitigating circumstances.

We want the minister to aim ever higher. We want the minister to say: "Last year this amount of unauthorized payments were made and we could not collect it back". We want the minister to stand in the House or table a report that will say what the amount was. He must be up front with the taxpayers who are footing the bill. Then he must also show his plan for reducing those costs. He must show what he is prepared to do in order to make the administration more efficient to reduce the number of people receiving payments to which they are not entitled. If the minister aims at nothing or says if we will have a certain amount of overpayment, so be it, we cannot improve, that is exactly what will happen. There will be no improvement.

However, as our amendment suggests, if the minister is required to give a report, stage his plans for doing better then we hopefully will find there will be improvement and fewer people will receive money to which they are not entitled. There will hopefully be fewer people required to pay back money they should not have received because the administrative procedures will be so honed to a fine art that people who are not entitled to receive money will not receive it. That is the ultimate goal for which we should strive and the goal which we should keep in mind and work toward until it is actually met.

We recognize it is not possible for a minister to micromanage his department. We say without equivocation that if the committees are to have any function in the House, as we were told by the so-called Liberal red book, we were to have more meaningful activities for MPs, let them work in the committees and deal with these recommendations.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable amount of trepidation and at the same time a certain sense of responsibility that I rise in the debate on the bill.

What is operating here is a plea for accountability, compassion and responsibility, efficiency and businesslike operation of the affairs of the House.

In particular I draw the attention of the House to Motion No. 7, the Reform Party motion calling for the minister to make a report to the House on where overpayments of CPP and OAS were made and at what cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

I am sure members of the House recognize only too well the largest group of people in Canada that deserves compassion today are the taxpayers. All taxpayers are burdened, be they young or old. They are paying taxes to a point at which they believe it has become excessive. They find themselves unable to do many of the things they want to do. They want to get into some of the larger purchases. They want to buy houses, cars, appliances and they find their discretionary income is getting lower and lower even though their gross salary is increasing.

We need to exercise some compassion. One of the greatest examples of compassion the House could demonstrate is that the money given to us by taxpayers be treated as money given to us in trust, money not to be spent willy-nilly at whatever whim or fancy might strike us at a particular time.

What is being called upon here is for the minister to say to all of his servants, the servants to the House and to the people of Canada: "Do your administration honestly, do it fairly and do it consistent with the legislation".

To the credit of most of our civil servants I must admit to the House that my association with our civil servants has been exemplary. They have done what they could and they do make mistakes, just as all of us make mistakes from time to time. When they make a mistake who is responsible? If the servant to the minister makes a mistake that servant is responsible to the minister but it is the minister who is responsible for the action of the people he has employed who report to him. The minister is responsible to the House for the actions taken by him and under his direction the staff he has appointed.

Therefore we ask that if there is an overpayment a committee do study these issues and they be reported to the House so that the responsibility can come back to the House. This is the Parliament of Canada. Here the legislation is enacted; here the responsibility ought to be demonstrated to all of the people of Canada.

It is with pride that we sit here. It is with the responsibility of knowing we are managing the people's money that we should approach the various aspects of the administration. It is with this intent that I come before the House to say the time has come to be accountable, to be responsible and to recognize it is not just the response we make to a stimulus but that we exercise the ability and the skill we have developed in the background we have so the right decision is made to emphasize that it helps the people who need the help the most.

Another group of people needs compassion. Those are the people who need to be helped by our social safety nets. There are many of them. There are those in our society, sad to say, who abuse the system, who use fraudulent means to apply for these benefits, who are dishonest in the information they include. They are responsible for the actions they have taken and they should be called to account. That is why this recommendation in this particular bill, to amend the bill, so that those overpayments do indeed become a debt to the crown. These are necessary and they ought to be enforced.

Then there is that other group that may well have received through administrative error or something else additional funds. Those people may through no fault of their own have spent more money than they probably should have are now unable to repay even though they may have received the amounts in error. Then a judgment call needs to be made. At that point the minister should exercise his responsibility. If he can defend that decision in the House, I am sure there are enough compassionate people in the House who would say there are those who ought to be forgiven.

We as a nation and as individuals would be the most despairing people and the most despicable people if we could not learn to forgive. Where there are honest mistakes made we ought to forgive; where people demand compassion, we must be able to give them that forgiveness. It can be done; it should be done.

Let us be accountable. Let us be compassionate to our taxpayers so we do not spend more money than we have to and recognize they are already overburdened in the taxes they are paying. Then let us call those to account who are responsible for the administration. They report to the House, they report to one another and they do these things honestly, credibly and efficiently. Let us all forgive where that needs to be done, where there are good reasons to forgive.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 7, the amendment put forward by the Reform Party.

Why is commons sense usually the first victim when we give consideration to change? I have stood in the House on more occasions than I wish to count and have seen that basic common sense becomes a trade-off between positive ideas for change and partisan politics.

Canada has reached a crossroads. Our fiscal situation has prompted a country wide debate on the state of our social security programs. Our safety net is financially unsustainable and many of the programs reflect waste and disturbing inefficiencies which will ultimately hurt the very people these programs were meant to help.

Motion No. 7 is one we believe can make the system more accountable. Accountability is one of the basic planks on which I was elected. I made a promise to constituents that all of my analysis, all of the efforts and work undertaken on their behalf would reflect that commitment to accountability.

There are many occasions in the House when all of us receive letters from constituents who write to us from their heart about expenditures and the danger to the basic structure of our social programs. When I get these letters I know why I am here challenging the government, demanding accountability on behalf of the Canadians we represent and using common sense in the deliberations we debate.

I received a letter from a lady named Irene in February of this year. Irene wants some answers to some very basic questions. She writes from her heart. She asks about accountability: "Dear member of Parliament, I am a senior citizen who is proud to call myself Canadian. However, I have become more and more concerned with the handling of our budget by our government. I have decided to participate in the process by writing this open letter to all members of Parliament regardless of party affiliation to communicate my concern over what I and many of my friends and family see as utter waste regarding unrealistic expectations and greed and total absence of conscience for the spending of public money".

She is doing what I would call her political work, participating in the process. She goes on to say: "I have been elected spokesperson by my group of friends, hence the lengthy list of suggested budgetary cuts. By cutting the following expenses we can perhaps cut less from programs that we have supported with our many years of hard work and money. Although these are but basic and straightforward budget cuts, surely the more unpalatable cuts will be seen less as another blow to the ordinary Canadian if it is perceived that all expenses are open to scrutiny".

What she is asking for is accountability. She goes on to list two pages full of cuts she believes would be appropriate and useful for government to take under consideration. Something in her last point I found quite interesting: "Why not increase the resources of the auditor general to find waste and duplication which they manage to find every year?" I thought that was appropriate to bring into the debate today since we are looking at our estimates: "However, rather than just report it, why not increase the personnel so that follow-up action may be taken? Every year we hear about all the waste and duplication in different government departments. However, once the report is made public, is that all there is? Is there any follow-up and/or guidance for the guilty parties?"

Irene once again is simply seeking accountability.

In Motion No. 7, which is basic common sense, we are trying to bring accountability to that system so that we can say to Irene: "Yes indeed, there is follow up to government waste. There is follow up to issues and problems as they arise within the bureaucracy".

Having said that, I want to go through the point that Motion No. 7 refers to because it is important to have for the record a very common sense motion that reflects the values of the Reform Party.

The motion calls for the minister to make a report to the House on where overpayments in CPP and OAS were made and at what cost to the Canadian taxpayer. That comment is very much reflected in Irene's letter to me. It is basic information about the government's bottom line. The report will then be studied by a parliamentary committee made up of representatives of the people who have entrusted us to make decisions based on the Canadian taxpayers' best interests with compassion and to do that with transparency.

The committee and not the bureaucrats will decide what the minister can or cannot remit next year. It will make recommendations on where and how to reduce the cost to the Canadian people in overpayment. That is just and fair.

If this motion is adopted, it will return accountability to where it belongs, in Parliament and not in the hands of the minister or senior bureaucrats of the department where everything is done behind closed doors. Let not the momentum of mediocrity continue to plague the actions of the House as we move toward change and become openly and completely accountable to the Canadian people.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

My colleagues, it is my duty to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mackenzie- Canadian National.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have been quite surprised by the Bloc amendment to the motion that we proposed.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I believe the hon. member has already spoken to this motion, has she not?

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

Mr. Speaker, no, I spoke to the motion but not to the Bloc's amendment.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Since it is the same vote, the member is precluded from speaking twice to the matter.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am a little puzzled. My motion has been amended and yet I have no way of expressing in debate my response to that.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

My understanding is that the matters were all grouped for debate. The member is correct that she did not have knowledge of the amendment before she spoke earlier today. Accordingly, unless anyone else wishes to intervene on the matter, I can see no reason why she cannot speak.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

Mr. Speaker, I find the amendment proposed by the Bloc to be extremely inconsistent with the stand that its members are taking on the bill.

Bloc members are erasing the accountability of the minister. They are saying that the minister should have discretion whether he exceeds any limits on overpayment. Yet in a number of their amendments, they say that the minister's discretion should be erased. Here they want to give the minister discretion by amending my amendment but in any other case, they do not want the minister to have discretion. I would ask the Bloc to consider the consistency of this amendment.

If they do not like the minister having absolute discretion in clause 38, why are they saying he should have absolute discretion in clause 23? I do not understand it at all.

Erasing subclauses (7) and (8) of our motion will make the committee's recommendation totally toothless. The Bloc members are the ones who are always hollering and screaming about the need for more fiscal accountability in the way government spends money and to quit adding to the debt.

We have tried to bring forward a very simple motion that would put some limits and some parameters around what a department can spend. The Bloc members do not want that. They want this department to have absolutely unlimited discretion to overspend, to make payments that are not legitimate, necessary or warranted, but there is nothing that Parliament can do to stop this. They do not want Parliament to be able to stop this but they are always complaining that departments are overspending.

I am really sorry but I fail to see the reasoning. The Bloc has not even put anyone up to explain why it is doing this. I see absolutely no reason why the Bloc is doing this. It seems entirely capricious and illogical.

I would ask my colleagues in the Bloc to reconsider the position they have taken which is not consistent, not logical, seems to serve no good purpose and flies in the face of the concerns they have expressed about this bill in their own motions.

It is all very well to say the committee would look at the overspending, but if Parliament has absolutely no ability to place limits on ministerial and departmental discretion what is the good of Parliament? Why are we sitting here? Is not the whole purpose of us being here to manage the affairs of the country in a realistic way?

If this amendment passes we are saying that if departments overpay, make all the mistakes they want, waste all the money they want, send the money here, there and everywhere, wherever they want, we cannot do anything about it nor do we want to do anything about it. God forbid that we should say: "This far and no more can your inefficiencies go".

I appeal to the members of the House to reconsider their position on this. If the minister wants to overspend and feels there are good reasons to do this and has a logical explanation, then he will have to convince a committee of the House, parliamentarians, people who were elected to manage our affairs and our money, that he has a good reason for needing to do this. Is that not the whole purpose of us being here or am I missing something?

I ask my friends in the Bloc for an explanation of why they proposed this amendment. Failing that, I can only urge on the House that it is totally frivolous. It is illogical. It is unnecessary. It flies in the face of what we are here for. I urge that it be voted down and the motion as proposed be accepted.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour will please say yea.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Old Age Security ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.