House of Commons Hansard #154 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member asked why do I not have the report which I do not have. What a question from someone who used to be the prime minister of Canada. It is a small wonder he did not stay there very long.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, we have here on the record that the Government of Canada has been paying for the report. We have here on the record that some anonymous public servant has seen the report. Yet the minister who answers to the House of Commons claims he has seen nothing at all. He said it might come, and if it comes he will give it to us.
Where is the report? Why does the minister not have the report? What is he hiding?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, let us start by the last allegation made. Obviously I am not hiding anything. I have no interest and no desire to hide anything from any hon. member of the House.
There were two reports. One of them, when I become acquainted with it, will be tabled in the House tomorrow. I even offered to have it tabled as early as yesterday with unanimous consent and I am still willing to do that today.
In terms of the second report, the one I do not have, it may shock the right hon. member but I will not table the report that I do not have.
Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, section 19(3) of the EI act has paved the way for the government to take millions of dollars from hard working part time, seasonal or laid off workers.
We have completed an intensive study of how the government ripped off workers and covered it up hoping the issue would go away.
Could the minister explain to Canadians the financial implications of section 19(3) of the EI act from July 1996 to August 2001?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. In this case we are talking about individuals who are working while in receipt of employment insurance benefits and choose not to declare those earnings in accordance with the law.
The hon. member will know that last summer we made administrative improvements to the provision for undeclared earnings. There is a 30 day period for consultation. At that time we did not hear a word either from that member or from his party.
Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, the minister is not going to get off that easily with this issue. Those statements will be questioned in the House.
The changes to section 19(3) of the act required that overpayment be calculated over an entire benefit period, not on a week by week basis as before, resulting in penalties that were too high, unfair and punitive.
Could the minister give me one good reason why Cher Kinamore who was overpaid $600 had to pay back $3,227 because of the legislation?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, this line of questioning gets more and more interesting. In fact, it is quite disingenuous.
Last year when we were discussing in the House the question of undeclared earnings, the then chief critic for that party said about this very issue:
We will not be supporting that amendment. We find it very difficult to justify supporting somebody who deliberately scams the system...We are not prepared to support this.
What has changed?
Public Works and Government Services CanadaOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. We must hear the hon. member. With all this noise, it is impossible to do so. I implore the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. The hon. member for Chambly.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, a very large proportion of the contracts awarded by Public Works Canada are given without any call for tenders. Things have hardly changed with the arrival of the new minister. Since January 15, 2002, one contract out of two is awarded and one dollar out of four is spent without going through to the normal bidding process.
Will the minister recognize that extending contracts to avoid the bidding process can lead, and has indeed lead to the worst possible abuse?
Public Works and Government Services CanadaOral Question Period
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Liberal
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, this morning in committee, the hon. member made an allegation that was similar, if not worse. He gave two examples. In both cases, he claimed that the contracts had been awarded without a call for tenders, and in both cases he was wrong.
With 92% of the value of its contracts awarded through a competitive process, the Government of Canada ranks number one among G-8 members. I mentioned it in committee this morning. The answer is the same in the House this afternoon.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister is contradicting a list that comes from his own department.
Will the minister admit that it is easy to change the nature of the bidding process by asking his supplier and bidder friends to propose a low price and telling them not to worry because, later on, their contracts will be extended?
Public Works and Government Services CanadaOral Question Period
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Liberal
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
No, Mr. Speaker. Again, the hon. member's claim is absolutely false and he knows it.
What I want above all is transparency in the public bidding process for all contracts awarded by the Government of Canada.
This is what we are doing as a government, and this is what we intend to do, for reasons of transparency and in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayers who, after all, are footing the bill.
Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, not only is the government ripping off workers and employers by making them overpay $43 billion in EI payments, now we have learned that this uncaring government then forced the unemployed to pay back overpayments that were calculated using assessment guidelines it knew were wrong.
Why does the minister not care that her government owes millions of dollars to those who need it most?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, as fantastic as this sounds, this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate the hon. member on becoming critic of my portfolio. Her lack of questions suggested to me that perhaps she agreed with her predecessor, the member for Richmond who, with the ultimate support from my department and the government, decided that if one cannot beat them, one might as well join them.
Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her congratulations. We just received the information yesterday from access to information and I think that answers her question.
The principle of overpayment is a good one. If Canadians receive government benefits to which they are not entitled, they should pay them back. No one argues with that. Now the shoe is on the other foot. If the Liberals through their unjust law get more than they are entitled to get, will they do the right thing and pay back the money?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, there are two things I would like to make clear.
First of all, and this is important, it is only in cases of fraud when EI claimants are required to pay back more than what they have taken. This is an administrative penalty.
The other important aspect is if the hon. member has individual cases that she would like the department to review, we would be glad to do that. I would also remind her that every EI claimant has the opportunity to participate in the full appeal process that is part and parcel of the overall employment insurance system.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, all of the political parties in Quebec, and all provincial first ministers and finance ministers acknowledge the existence of a tax imbalance in Canada. Only the federal Minister of Finance is denying the evidence everyone else acknowledges.
Is the Minister of Finance going to acknowledge that there will be a major surplus in two weeks, not twenty months but two weeks? Can he just tell us what he assesses the figure for the surplus to be?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Canadian finance minister who does not recognize this imbalance. Neither do the Conseil du patronat and the Chamber of Commerce.
Moreover, when we are looking at the next five years, there is also the Conference Board of Canada, according to the Séguin commission.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I will tell him, Mr. Speaker, what the figure for the surplus is going to be in a little less than two weeks: approximately $9 billion.
He has never been able to give us figures. For five years now, we have been making forecasts, and we have never been wrong.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Let them laugh if they find that funny.
I am calling upon him to make a solemn commitment, from his seat, to hand over within two weeks half of this surplus to the provinces in transfer payments in order to allow them to finance essential services to the population, that is health and education. Let him put the public interest ahead of his own popularity.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, if there is a surplus, it is thanks to good management of the Canadian economy. If there is a surplus, it is because jobs have been created; there has been economic growth. And it is thanks to that surplus that we have been able to transfer $23 billion to the provinces, a year ago, a record figure.
Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, Dan Brisson, Dennis Strongquill, Mike Templeton and Benoit L'Ecuyer were all police officers. All were shot, two fatally, and all were victims of the government's lax prison and parole system. There are 812 dangerous offenders unlawfully at large.
How many other police officers have to fall and how many other court challenges and lawsuits have to be launched before the solicitor general puts an end to the early release of these dangerous offenders?