Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join in this very important debate. I would like to report to this House and to our listeners on what we, as a government and as members, have accomplished during the past months.
On October 25, in the last election, Canadians voted massively for change. The hon. member said a change for the better, and that is true, we have had a Liberal government since October 25. In this massive vote for change, Canadians sent more than 200 new members to the House of Commons in Ottawa. For me as the Government Whip, it was a challenge to organize the allocation of offices on Parliament Hill as well as the proceedings of this House. At times it was a difficult task, but it was a challenge and a very important one.
I must say that with the co-operation of my colleague, the Deputy Government Whip and member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, we managed first of all to ensure that each member had an office on the Hill. We negotiated with the whips of the other two political parties recognized in this House, we negotiated various budgets including research budgets and budgets for party leaders and House officials, so that by January 17, when the Prime Minister, the government called back the House, we would be ready to go and members would be ready to function and fulfil the mandate they received on October 25 as legislators.
From my very first day as Government Whip, my objective was to reduce operating costs for all parliamentary activities and their administration. We started with the budget for the various caucuses, and after several meetings we managed to save a couple of million dollars, which is quite substantial.
When allocating members' offices, we were determined to keep moving and installation costs to a minimum. In fact, I released the figures several months ago. We managed to save quite a bit of money. We saved about $1.1 million on moving costs alone here on the Hill. This was a reduction of 87 per cent over what was spent after the 1988 election.
The purpose of this initial operation was to meet the commitments we made during the election campaign. In the red book we said that we wanted to set an example by starting right here. If we tell people they have to tighten their belts, we have to start by tightening our own here in this House. And we did that with our first operation, the allocation of members' offices. We told members and ministers: These are the offices you have been allocated and you take them as is, and if any repairs or improvements are necessary, we will make a report and ensure only the absolute minimum is done. There will be no abuse of the system. And the results are there.
We did not want to stop there. Once all the members were accommodated on the Hill, we started looking at all the expenses, all the privileges, all the things provided to the members. That was the beginning of what people commonly call the Gagliano plan. I am pleased to note today-a few weeks before the summer recess-that the exercise was not just for the media, it was not simply a shopping list that we made as long as possible to take credit for it. We did not say we were going to cut five or six million from the operating budget of the House of Commons just to be able to brag about it afterwards. No, we did it because we believed in it. We did it because it was necessary. There were things which had to be changed, things which were no longer suitable, no longer necessary.
We had two criteria. To save money, naturally, but also to give members services they really needed to do their jobs effectively. We did not cut for the sake of cutting, we analyzed each cut. I must, at this stage, thank the management of this House which provided me with the figures I needed, and put their knowledge and experience at our disposal. Of course, I also had the support of my caucus colleagues. As politicians, we must make choices. With the staff of the House I was able to define options, and then it was simply a matter of deciding which option to implement.
We have only a few weeks left before we adjourn for the summer. Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to adjourn on June 23. I am proud to say that the Gagliano plan, that is the expenditures reduction plan which I announced to all Canadians on January 16 in a press conference, has now been completed. There are still a few points left. This very afternoon, there was a meeting of the sub-committee on internal economy regarding parliamentary associations; a meeting is planned to adopt a plan to make the cafeteria and the restaurant more efficient and to save money. By June 23, my cost control plan will be in place. Some steps were already implemented in February and March.
But, my plan is not part of the estimates we are going to vote on tonight. The savings do not appear in the grand total since, at the time we had to table the estimates for the House of Commons, our plan was not ready, of course, but we still had a deadline to meet, a deadline to cut government expenditures and table the results in the House, which had been set by the President of the Treasury Board.
I am sure that members have had a look at that booklet. The plan is mentioned in there and it will appear in the next estimates, but I want to ensure the House that the savings which were announced are real and that they are possible. Some savings have already been made, and will be carried over year after year. As we said in the red book, we want to be fiscally responsible, and will continue to be so. Mr. Speaker, I will continue. As I said on January 16, in the short time we had between the October 25 election and the opening of the current Parliament on January 17 and despite all the work involved in organizing the situation on the Hill and the offices of all members, we came up with a reduction plan in which we addressed what seemed at the time the most feasible and visible goals we could reach.
We are currently considering other changes. There are more savings to be made. What is important is that we are willing to take our responsibilities and ready to announce and defend our positions. And when you take logical and fair decisions, you can only be confident like I am. I believe this expenditures reduction plan will work, because I have received several letters from
voters throughout the country who think that this is a step in the right direction and who encourage me to go on.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues in the government caucus. Without their support, I would not have been able to make these savings.
My colleague, the deputy whip, and I are not the only ones responsible for these achievements. We were fortunate to have the support of all government members. I also want to thank the other whips and the members from the opposition who sit on the Board of Internal Economy and who approved our plan and made it all possible.
We still have a long way to go. As I said, this is only the beginning. However, I would like to outline our achievements, so that everyone watching us tonight can realize what we have done so far. Some of these things might not seem important, but all together, they show how courageous and determined the government is.
For instance, one of the things we did is look at the whole issue of members' special travel allowances. As everyone knows, each member is entitled to 64 trips from Parliament Hill to his or her riding and, according to the rules, these 64 trips could also be used to go anywhere else in Canada. We reduced this number to 20. This means that members are still entitled to 64 paid trips a year but only 20 of them can be used to travel across the country. I think this will generate very significant savings. We also looked at the whole issue of printing services and mass mailings. The board has just adopted these new regulations that will allow us to save over half a million dollars a year.
We did not cut services to members. They are still allowed four mass mailings a year, as they have been for a long time, to inform and communicate with their constituents. Although we kept these services allowing members to communicate with the public, we managed to save over half a million dollars by introducing new procedures.
We are now looking at the whole issue of food services on the Hill. Many journalists wrote that taxpayers have been subsidizing sumptuous meals for members of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, you and I, as well as my colleagues and all those who had lunch or dinner at the parliamentary restaurant know very well that nothing is subsidized and that the prices we now pay are the same as in any establishment and are sometimes lower elsewhere because of competition.
When we talk about the deficit related to food services here on Parliament Hill, let us not forget that we employ over 3,000 people and, as you know full well, any employer of this size has a partly subsidized cafeteria or restaurant for its staff.
We acknowledge that we have to make some cuts, that we have to save money. However, we also realize in this plan that as far as slashing expenditures is concerned, we have an obligation as an employer to ensure that a proper food services system is in place for our employees. We are in the process of finalizing our report. We have looked a little at what the private sector has done so that our system can be comparable and meet the target of savings in the order of $1.5 million to $2 million per year. We want to ensure that our employees have access to an adequate cafeteria at or near their place of work, as it the case everywhere else.
The newspapers made quite a big fuss over the fact that our members had access to an exercise room and to the services of a masseur, all at taxpayers' expense. We also reviewed this expenditure. Since April 1, our members have had to pay a fee to use the gym. This was also something that was in the plan.
We reviewed the matter of the barber shop and hair salon, two services which had also been the focus of some criticism and we rationalized these operations. Today, if a member or senator wants a haircut, he or she will pay the same price as shops located off the Hill charge their customers.
The operation of messenger services was also rationalized. This was very important. Our aim was not to reduce service to members or to rationalize a service that had not proven useful in the past. In fact, we wanted to keep pace with new technology. There is fax, electronic mail and many facilities we now have as members that we did not have before. So in view of this, we rationalized our messenger service.
We looked at the whole allocation for which we were criticized. Of course, the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs studied all these issues and approved the plans. We saved nearly $2 million on printing the House agenda and other documents in order to streamline and save money, but still to ensure that hon. members have what they need to do their job and give our citizens the services to which they are entitled.
So as I said at the beginning, this is an initial plan. I intend to continue and I am sure that in the weeks and months to come, with the co-operation of my caucus, my colleagues and the opposition parties on Internal Economy, we can make other savings and improve the operation of this House at the same time.
When we said during the election campaign that we wanted to set an example starting with ourselves, that we wanted to regain credibility with Canadians, I think that we took a step in the right direction. We will continue as I said.
You are signaling me that my time is up. I would again like to thank my caucus, my colleagues and the Prime Minister for letting me help reduce public spending and also improve the
services of this House and make it more functional and more credible.