Debates of June 8th, 1994

Supply

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but this is ridiculous. I am saying to Canadians that we have done exactly what the Reform Party is telling us we should do and those members are sitting there saying "ah, gosh, gee". Members cannot have it both ways.

Do they want these cuts made or do they not want these cuts made? When these cuts are made, they should be giving credit. We started at the very top with our Prime Minister, then with reducing the number of cabinet ministers, with reducing the budgets that those cabinet ministers have to operate on, and with reducing our own expenditures here in this House of Commons because we know that Canadians are counting on us to set the example. We are doing that.

To suggest that we are tabling estimates that do not include several billion dollars in cuts is simply not accurate or quite honest.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Questions or comments? Resuming debate. I am waiting to recognize someone who wants to speak on this motion. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.

Let me see if I can be of some help to my colleagues in the House. When we began the debate on the motion, we began with the government whip. We recognized people from other parties and then came back. In this instance as we continue this debate, the last spokesperson being the parliamentary secretary, I did look to see if there was a member from the Official Opposition who wanted to speak. Not having taken notice, I then looked to this side of the House, the government side. I recognized the member for Kenora-Rainy River.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my colleagues across the way that I was not trying to jump in front of them as far as the speaking order of the House.

As my colleague from Beaver River would know, having sat beside her for a number of months in the last Parliament, this member would not at all be interested in doing that sort of thing.

Tonight I would like to talk about issues that are very close to my heart as they relate to the estimates. Those who have had the opportunity to spend some time with the member for Kenora-Rainy River know that my interests are the interests of a very large rural riding. In that large rural riding there are some issues that I think need to be discussed in this place.

Those issues of course are the issues of what northwestern Ontario is all about. That basically is forestry, mining, tourism and a small amount of manufacturing along with the retail sector.

Like the rest of Canada, my riding is dependent on a very small business sector to create and maintain valuable jobs. The small businesses in Kenora-Rainy River can be found servicing, complementing and drawing on the strengths of major resource sectors. The viability of small and medium sized businesses in my riding is typical of the diversity needed to build secondary industries in Canada.

There is no doubt that main estimates' spending in 1994-95 in the federal budget is geared to reinforcing a solid small business sector to create jobs and spark the economy. It is because of the dependence on small business that I am pleased to see the initiatives in the 1994-95 budget addressing stability and growth for small business.

As I have said before, as a member of the opposition in this House in the previous Parliament, one of the major concerns that I focused on was the lack of initiative for small business, the lack of help that we as parliamentarians gave to the small business sector.

In Canada we must ensure sustainable and viable resource based industries are supported. But in order to build an economic foundation for the long term we must diversify our economy to take advantage of our raw materials and our technological development. Perhaps nowhere in Canada is that more evident than in northwestern Ontario where diversification and secondary industry development are the keys to opening tomorrow's doors.

The small business working groups recently established by this government are examining the initiatives needed to foster an environment for growth and give business the tools to expand.

I am happy to see that the government is making access to capital and appropriate training a priority for the small business sector. I have risen in this House on previous occasions and lamented on the sad state of the relationship between small businesses and the financial institutions.

I sincerely hope a new code of conduct between small businesses and banks provides a more fruitful relationship than we have seen in the past. Entrepreneurs need capital investment in order to expand and start up new ventures which provide the jobs this country is looking for. Expansion of the Small Businesses Loans Act will also enhance the flow of capital to legitimate business operations in Canada.

Small business also needs the expertise to explore export markets and utilize new technology. The budget speaks well to these concerns. The Canada investment fund for example will help companies access leading edge technology. As well, the business centres will help make information on government programs and services more readily available as well as providing insight into strategies for exploiting export markets.

The remote locations of many businesses in Canada have historically made it difficult to access pertinent information. Federal government spending on information services will give these businesses the knowledge they need to explore new technology and make inroads into international markets.

I am anxious to work with the business community in developing this government's objectives. Believe me, we have many ambitious and capable entrepreneurs in Kenora-Rainy River if only given half a chance simply by doing very key and very elementary things.

Let me give a couple of examples of those. One of those of course is replacing the GST. Reducing red tape and the burden that is on small business as it relates to red tape and harmonizing federal and provincial regulations are just some of the things that I find to be extremely important to creating the right environment for our business sector to flourish.

Such federal initiatives are a breath of fresh air to our small business community and something that I wait anxiously for in order that we can start creating the jobs. The small business sector is the key and what we as parliamentarians should not lose sight of if we are to see this economy start to grow.

Other measures such as changes to the social security system and new job training strategies for young people are essential to changing the fundamental structures in this country that will help lead the way to practical training for people entering our workforce. An expanding small and medium sized business sector needs a talented and appropriately trained workforce.

I am confident federal spending on innovative training programs will help accommodate this objective.

Realistic job oriented training, better financial, technological and information resources for small business are essential to building a strong economy in my region and across the country. However, to take advantage of these enhanced resources for small business my region in particular needs the very basic of infrastructure networks.

I feel we are on the right track with spending on the infrastructure projects. Not only are we creating jobs to jump-start the economy, small that it is, we are also providing the basic foundation for a competitive national economy. Basic infrastructure involves roads, buildings, transportation and water and sewer services.

I invite the members of this House to come and visit northwestern Ontario. Members will truly be impressed with the beauty of our natural surroundings, our forests, lakes and our famous sunsets. I am sure they will enjoy their visit. I am also sure that discerning individuals with attention to economic development will witness certain inadequacies in infrastructure.

They will see that our highways still need improvements. Some members will be dissatisfied that they cannot travel to certain areas simply because there are no roads at all. Some members will see and be surprised that growing municipalities do not have adequate sewer and water treatment facilities. One or two visits to First Nations communities will likely leave members disenchanted with current conditions.

The federal infrastructure works program speaks to these conditions. But I emphasize that northwestern Ontario and other regions in Canada need improved infrastructure. The north, remote areas of my riding such as First Nations communities, require basic infrastructure such as roads to open up economic opportunities. A road network where there is currently nothing will create the opportunities for trade within the region as a starting block.

Further road links such as the highway I have talked about in this House on many occasions from Red Lake in my riding to Winnipeg, which I have been requesting for some time and more reasonable air transportation connections, will then lead to enhanced trade outside of the region.

This trade will not only be in goods and commodities but also people themselves. Although tourism is a strong component of economic development in my riding there remains many untapped opportunities mainly because of poor transportation infrastructure.

Finally, I return to where I started, the resource sector. First I would like to comment on the mining industry which as most people are aware is a struggling industry in Canada. It is encouraging that the federal budget makes contributions to trust funds for mine reclamation tax deductible. This deduction will help mining companies utilize cash flow for other operating costs as well as making it convenient to ensure mine sites are rehabilitated after operations cease.

Certainly market trends have not been favourable recently for the mining sector in Canada. That is why it is all the more important for this government to seriously consider tax incentives or other measures to help stimulate mining activity. We need to encourage grassroots exploration and investment in Canadian based mineral companies.

I understand the Minister of Finance is open to the concept of mining incentives and I look forward to contributing to the process of renewing this policy.

Furthermore, I acknowledge that environmental guidelines for the mining industry are necessary and it is our responsibility to protect the environment. However, the procedures in place are convoluted and confusing, resulting in unnecessary delays to legitimate mine start-ups. As a result we are losing mineral investment dollars to foreign nations.

We must stop this leakage and support mining projects in Canada by established, concise and efficient environmental assessment procedures. We can protect the environment and ensure mining operations are safe without frightening away investment due to red tape and uncertainty from within the bureaucracy.

I can say from talking to the Minister of the Environment and the understanding that I have within the government that we are now in the process of dealing with that very difficult and complex issue of duplication of environmental policy across the country. I hope to be able to stand up here very soon and share in the announcement of this government that we now have one process for mines, one process for forestry, one process for Canadians as it relates to the environmental assessment process and not have to spin our wheels going from one department to the next, municipal, provincial, federal and God only knows wherever else we have to go before we can get economic development within our regions.

Second, I would like to directly address the forest industry in Canada which is by far the primary economic activity in my riding. The federal government as we all know does not have direct jurisdiction over forestry practices. The federal government instead contributes to research and scientific development through federal-provincial forestry development agreements.

I feel it is the federal government's responsibility and should remain an eminent priority to lend as much support as possible to the development of sustainable forestry practices. A viable and environmentally responsible forestry sector will provide a launching board for the growth of diversified businesses in northwestern Ontario and other forestry regions.

In the estimates there are many things involved, as I have talked about, relating to forestry and mining. It is so obvious to those of us who have been around this House for awhile, the opposition, where I was before this Parliament, that it is very easy to stand up and pick one or two issues to criticize the government on. I hope the members opposite get the opportunity to be on the government side, as some of them have. It would be of benefit to not hold their breath, but if in fact it were their wish to get the opportunity to create policy they would look at initiatives like this in a very favourable light as I have.

Coming from a region that is one-fifth of Ontario, almost the size of the Atlantic provinces put together, that fits in my riding, people have to understand that there is tremendous potential for economic growth given the right kind of policies. These are the policies that I am trying to relate tonight.

I want to conclude by saying that there are many decisions reflected in the budget estimates which hold promise for me and a renewed and vibrant future within the small business community which I talked about extensively in my speech.

Although I have expressed concerns for northern infrastructure and certain resource sectors, I want to stress again, as I have said to my colleagues opposite, that I am confident that if this government does not do what the previous government did, and that is lose its way and forget why we are here and why the people put us here, we will put the kind of policies in place that even the members opposite will cheer.

I know the member for Beaver River will stand up and cheer with me as she has done on numerous occasion when we were in opposition and did get our way on occasion.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, now that my name has been mentioned I feel I should stand up and say something.

I do appreciate the hon. member's comments. I realize what a huge geographic area he has to represent. He is quite right when he states that we did sit together for some months or even years I think at the beginning of the last Parliament, and I did appreciate that.

I want to address a couple of things which he talked about. We in the Reform Party caucus said that we have one or two areas that we want to cut. Let me make it very plain that we would only start with one or two areas. There are dozens and dozens of areas in all of these main estimates that need to be cut; not just that it is a good idea, but it is absolutely necessary. Only then will forestry, mines and all these other things be able to take first place, as they should.

However, if there is no money left in the federal coffers then there is going to be nothing to help out any sort of social programs that the member needs in his area. We know that there are certain things absolutely necessary there.

If we focus on one part of the red book and not on the other part of the red book in which he refers to and the Liberals always refer to the fact that we need to cut spending to make sure that there is money available, we are not just talking about one or two areas that we need to cut but dozens and dozens in order to save those social nets and in order to make sure that programs and policies in his constituency are going to go ahead.

With the debt rate going up at an incredible rate of thousands and thousands of dollars every minute that will do more to harm any social programs or any forestry or mines or infrastructure programs that are going on his riding. Perhaps he could respond to that.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am much better in debate than I am at making speeches. I appreciate that the member would entice me to get involved in the debate.

One of the things that concerns me about the Reform Party's continued approach of the zero in three, which was part of its main plank in its campaign, that it could reduce the deficit in three years, is the fact that Canadians did not believe it.

If in fact they did believe the Reform Party, it would be sitting over here and I would be sitting over there. Let us face it, there are times when members in the opposition, when members of Parliament continue to suggest things that may appear to be a good political tool to get governments to react to certain issues. We lay down the facts and give the numbers as the Reform has done. I am one of those who has read the direction you would like to go as far as reducing the deficit in three years.

For example, if it reduced $20 billion, which is what it suggested roughly during the campaign, if you take the very conservative estimate of a reduction of a billion in an export economy, a billion dollars relates to 15,000 jobs of reduced activity per billion. It does not take a rocket scientist, as has been mentioned on the opposite side, to figure out how many jobs would be lost if we reduced that quickly out of an economy that is used to having $20 billion creating economic activity.

What I am suggesting is that we would not have 11 per cent unemployment, we would probably have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 17, 18 per cent unemployment.

I am a history buff and my colleague who sits on the committee opposite me will know that in the thirties there was a Conservative by the name of Bennett who tried the same thing, who used the approach that the quicker you slash everything the quicker you will get more economic activity. He drove the economy of Canada right into the ground completely within a period of three or four years. He said: "It is an international recession, we cannot do anything about it".

My understanding, and the history books will prove this, is that as soon as the Liberal government came back in after Mr. Bennett and reversed those programs, the economy took off and we started to make money again, people started to pay taxes and we started to pay our debt off.

That is the only issue that I am relating to members on the opposite side. People do not believe that if you were in govern-

ment you could reduce this massive deficit that we inherited in three years. You should stop kidding yourselves about that.

The issue is we believe that a balanced approach is a better approach. We were elected on that platform. We are going to reduce the deficit. We are going to make some very tough choices. I want to suggest to the member from Beaver River, if I am mistaken, and I would hope that my colleagues will back me up, you will be one of those who will be very happy to see the next budget in February of next year when we will be making more severe cuts to make sure that when we get our fiscal house in order it is done in a very balanced and structured way.

That is why you have to negotiate with the provinces and not do as our friend Brian Mulroney did and say to the provinces it really does not matter what they think, this is what we are going to do. We know how many seats the Conservatives have.

The opposition members should stop suggesting to Canadians that the zero in three is the way to go, because it is not. Nobody believes it. As a member I know that it will not work and they should revamp that strategy.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River attempting math. Math is a very precise science and I know that our zero in three got us from one to 52. That was in five years, but give us another four years and there may be very few opposition members in this House when the Reform Party forms the government.

It is interesting that the hon. member's own finance minister indicated that by reducing unemployment insurance premiums, a type of tax, jobs would be created. How can the hon. member then suggest that by cutting government spending we would be reducing jobs rather than creating jobs? He is not exactly lining up with some of the logic or the math of his finance minister.

I have a young family and I am quite concerned about taking this national credit card that we have and continually running up a debt, year after year, deficit after deficit, to the point at which we are over half a trillion dollars in debt, and then at the end of my life presenting that credit card to my kids and asking them to pay it off.

I notice that the hon. member is approximately the same age as I am. I expect that he either has some similar concerns or knows friends who have similar concerns. I wonder how he can justify running up this debt for his children.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is somewhat of an insult since I am much younger than the member who just spoke.

My family is so young, not even a year old. During the campaign I ran against a Reformer and it was a very enjoyable experience, I might add. One of the things that gentleman said over and over again is that government is wasteful and we have to clean up the government and make sure that we tune it in right.

We know in this place, because we see the expenditures, that total government operations, everything that we do from RCMP to buildings we own across the country, are $20 billion. The fact remains that we could shut the whole government down. The member talks about selling the odd jet and doing this and that.

This government is talking about a fundamental restructuring of the economy, fundamental changes in the right direction, not tinkering around with one jet or a limousine versus a Chrysler, or a Honda versus a Tempo. We do agree that there have to be significant changes and cuts. We are not arguing that.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

That is what Mulroney said.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

The member suggests that is what Mulroney said. What Mulroney said and did are two different things, as we all know. He played around on the fringes. He liked to play around and pretend he was making cuts while he sat there with 40 ministers along the benches. There were so many of them and so many limousines around they had trouble getting to their offices after question period.

We do not see that in this government. There is a dramatic change in how we do things and how the Prime Minister is trying to use a more common man approach because that is where he comes from. We do not have a presidential kind of atmosphere around here any more. We have a House of Commons attitude with which we are going to slowly work our way through this.

I have said to my constituents that we need, and what I think we are following as a government, is about a 10-year plan, not a 3-year plan in which we slash and trash everything that is not nailed down and then say: "I cut the deficit but everybody is out of a job, but are we ever doing good". What we want to do is build the economy over a 10-year period. I certainly believe that I will still be in this place if I am so fortunate as far as my constituents are concerned to prove to members opposite that we have done the right thing and have the right policies in place.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before we resume debate I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight.

Just before the member for Kenora-Rainy River spoke, at the same time the member for Fraser Valley West and the member for Kenora-Rainy River sought the floor. I gave an explanation at that time on why I came to the final decision to recognize the member for Kenora-Rainy River when in fact upon further verification with the table officers I have been made aware that my decision was not consistent with the

precedents of this House. In recognizing the hon. member for Fraser Valley West I also add my apologies.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that the person in charge is always willing to admit an error from time to time. It is too bad the government in charge would not follow in line with that.

I had a great speech prepared tonight, but there have been so many quotes I have to address them and change everything.

The government whip talked previously about re-establishing our credibility. That was the comment he made. One wonders why the Liberal government has to re-establish its credibility rather than establish it. Could it be that this was the very government that started borrowing money on the backs of our youth in the first place and now it is back to try to re-establish credibility?

The question about why Reformers are in this House of Commons is quite obvious. The government did not quite re-establish the credibility it thought it did, and so here we are.

There was some prior discussion about tabling a list. I think one of the members opposite suggested that one of our members did not have a list. He was referring to the list of restraint measures to be reflected in future estimates, the reductions from the House of Commons budget. That was the list he was referring to. I intend to put forward an amendment to the motion based on that list. It is not as though he were coming up with something out of thin air. It is not a list this government needs; it needs a conscience. This government has to do a little soul searching on how to balance budgets.

We are asked time and time again what specific cuts could be made. We divulged a great deal of cuts during the election. Nowhere in these estimates have we see anything like reducing non-salaried items by a certain percentage, not even 2 per cent, not 3 per cent, not 10 or 12 per cent. If members look at some of the non-salaried issues in this government today it would not take very much to figure out there is some money to be saved. One wonders how hard they are looking.

I would like to get back to my old dilemma of how much we are spending to promote the official languages policy. The $650 million we have established could be anywhere from $650 million to $2 billion or $3 billion. No one is certain in this government. There are a lot of places to find cuts. It is just a matter of getting at it and doing it.

I have tried to put these reductions into the House of Commons budgets we are talking about here of about $2.4 million. By the time we put this in perspective, it is interesting that in the period of a 20-minute speech we have already spent $1,767,600 in interest on the debt. Here we are this evening debating probably ten times that amount.

Today the cost to our young people, each and every one of them, is about $26,000 per annum to pay the interest. This is transferred to the young people listening and watching tonight. It is not this party that brought this upon these next few generations. It is the government of today and that previous party from Jurassic Park, wherever it is. I am sorry, I did not mean to point to the hon. member from the NDP. They are not Jurassic Park, yet.

There was a quote a little earlier from the government whip who said that we do not want to get into this discussion on a partisan basis. Unfortunately these discussions about dollars are partisan. They are biased. Many people are very angry at politicians and government. Reformers have come to this House in part to address some of those concerns people have. We have a right to speak about these things and we intend to do so with vigour.

Just imagine for a moment in any country in the world a government which spends $160 billion a year. This factitious country overspends by $40 billion a year. In other words the money it takes in just is not enough, so it borrows to spend $40 billion a year. This government borrowing that much each year then says: "We want to get more jobs. We want to show people up front we are going to get them jobs. What will we do? We will buy them some jobs. Let us spend $2 billion more, even though we are only borrowing $40 billion. Let us borrow $2 billion more and let us go to the municipalities and get them to throw in $2 billion and why not ask the provincial government for $2 billion as well. We have $6 billion, but there is only one taxpayer. Fancy that". Here is a government borrowing on the backs of one taxpayer at three different levels of government. This is the same government which is spending $160 billion a year, of which $40 billion is borrowed.

A member opposite said a little while ago: "If this government does not lose its way". I suggest this government has started to lose its way, it is on a different path than the day it started. It is already borrowing money to show politically it can create jobs when at the end of the day what is going to happen is there will be more people unemployed and we will owe more money.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

The Canadian people voted for it.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

The Canadian people voted the Conservatives out. They did not vote a red book in.

Government members say: "Why not spend $6 billion of the taxpayers' money on infrastructure jobs? Let us find something else to spend our money on. After all we are only borrowing $40 billion. Why not create 150,000 child care spaces if the economy goes to 3 per cent of GDP? That is a good idea, but we do not want to show the people out there that we are borrowing $1.5 billion to do that. Therefore we will spend $750 million federally and we will ask the provinces to spend $750 million". Here we go again spending another $1.5 billion on the backs of

the taxpayers. And it is in that silly red book if you do not believe me.

Where is this government going as far as spending money? In actual fact it is spending $3 billion more this year than last year. Yes, it has made some cuts. I am going to go through some of these cuts, but they are surface cuts and it has really not touched the problem at all.

By the way, I should not forget to mention it did give about $3 million to the Prime Minister's riding to help build a museum of industry. I think there was another $33 million given to Quebec City for a conference centre. So maybe the government is looking at cutting back somewhere somehow.

What do you say to a government that comes up with estimates and we debate them when in fact it is spending more money than it should? How does one get excited about discussing estimates? Why is it that we have not had a reduction in the estimates in the last 20 years? Just what is wrong with governments in this day and age, in particular this federal government? What is wrong with these folks that they do not understand that people want them to cut back, not spend more?

The government is cutting some surface things and spending more on other things. It is amazing how these governments continue year after year to justify their existence and justify the spending of more money.

We are the directors of Canada corporation. All 295 members are the directors. If you were a director of any corporation and you said to your shareholders: "Well we sort of overspent this year but it is only $40 billion. Next year we are going to overspend by $30 billion", what would the reaction be of the shareholders? I suggest that in private industry, in the real world out there, the directors would not be directors any longer. And this government sanctimoniously stands up and talks about cutting $2.4 million? It is not really a cut. Surface spending is all it is.

Changes have been made in some of the House of Commons expenditures. Why is it that it might be seen as a vote of non-confidence if the estimates were more reflective of that fact? What we have asked for is to have these estimates amended and sent back.

I am going to go through some of the changes as the government whip did. However, I am going to put another side to the story because the warm fuzzies that were presented are not so warm at all. In fact, even some of these small cuts would not have happened had the Reform Party not been here. We pushed this government to make cuts in all of its perks and it still came up with some surface stuff.

The suggestion has been made that we give ourselves too much credit, but we probably do not give ourselves enough. We will give ourselves more credit when we oust that motley crew.

Let us look at some of the reductions. It was talked about that we are going to save approximately 15 per cent of $98,000 and what is that on? The shoeshine service has been eliminated. The number of the barbers has been reduced from three to one. I am not a fan of barbers, as you might have guessed. However the facts are it is really despicable that any government would have the unmitigated gall to stand in this House and say: "We have done you a favour, Canadians. We have cut back on three barbers to one and on the shoeshine service". It is despicable and there is no other word for it.

However the government did save on the messenger service and some office renovations. As I say, the whole list of savings the government whip talked about amounts to just a little more than 20 minutes' worth of interest on our debt. I do not know how you can get in this House and really talk high on something like that. The people of this country should be ashamed of what is going on here.

I notice that we did leave something in the House of Commons budget. There are all kinds of things in there. Let us talk about the $9.2 million it cost for information services. It is still in there. You know what that is besides a PR exercise. It is more paperwork than Mount Baker which is very close to my riding. If you piled the paperwork up in this place you could probably build a small mountain out of it. It would not take a brain surgeon, as my colleague from Wild Rose says, to figure out there is a lot more money to cut in here. To throw some of these little numbers out as government is doing is really incredible.

I could go on about many of the costs in here, but there is a point to be made. This government has not got the idea yet that Canadians by and large, regardless of their political affiliation are looking for significant reductions, a sign that government is in control of itself. Two separate Auditor General reports said specifically that the government is out of control financially. I would be one who concurs with that and I think the greater number of Canadians agree. In fact I probably would guess even people who vote Liberal might think that, although the people they elected seem to have walked away with a different philosophy.

The bottom line is that we do want a change. We are desperate for a change. This country is going broke. We have to stop borrowing money. We have to stop the facade that it is okay to spend more of taxpayers' borrowed money to show people that there is a little blip in employment. That just will not do in the long run.

In line with that, I would like to move the following amendment to the motion:

That the motion be amended by deleting the amount of $164,985,000 and substituting $162,514,000.

That amendment reflects the fact there were some commitments on behalf of this government to make some changes. That is the list my colleague was referring to earlier.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for all the information, but I am not sure we really gained much.

He mentioned that we on this side of the House might like to re-establish our credibility. That was certainly re-established on the date of the election. I certainly notice in the polls from the west that we are doing very well in an area represented by a very regional party.

Our party has established confidence in the country. Confidence is something that we need. Certainly many of his constituents are very much more in favour of where we are headed today. There is a lot of confidence in the oil patch in the west. Prairie grain producers recognize what our ministers are doing and what we are doing around the world to protect the interests of our people. Things are certainly looking much better.

In Ontario small business is feeling better. Small business is starting to hire. The major employer in my riding is Goodyear Canada, the most modern tire plant in the world. It has just hired a few more people. It has gone over the 700 mark. It is investing in eastern Ontario and is shipping to auto manufacturers in Quebec, in western Ontario and right into Michigan. Its tires are being shipped all over North America. Why did Goodyear build a new modern plant in eastern Ontario? It is because it believes in the country.

The other day I was in the northern part of my riding. Georgia Pacific, one of the largest lumber companies in North America, has just invested several million dollars in a GP waferboard plant. Money is coming from the States and it is to hire 85 people next month. Certainly there is confidence there.

Our party is not like the party opposite. We do not want to cut the legs off the working people. We want everybody to be able to go to work.

You mentioned a $26,000 debt per person. Let me ask you: How many people in North America-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. I have been seized by the member's enthusiasm, but I remind all colleagues to address their colleagues opposite through the Chair.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

I would like to ask a question of the hon. member opposite. How many people in the world today would like to pay $26,000 or $50,000 and be able to move into this country? The world has recognized that we are living in the world's greatest spot. Many people would like to move here tomorrow.

The member opposite mentioned infrastructure.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Was that my question?

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

The member will get his question. I want to let him know that infrastructure is an investment in the country. We believe in Canadians and we invest for tomorrow.

Does the member opposite believe he would like to cut at random affecting the lives of innocent people? Does the member opposite not believe in investing in tomorrow? Does the member opposite not believe in Canadians?

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there were three questions. I will back to the first one.

The member opposite talked about how the Liberal government had established confidence in the people of the country.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

They are clapping, I say to those who cannot hear it.

Let me just cite a couple of things that have not established any particular amount of confidence, some things that I have tripped over lately. The government gives CPP, old age security, the old age security income supplement and GST rebates to criminals in prisons. Does that give a lot of confidence to people out there? I have received hundreds, if not thousands, of telephone calls from senior citizens across the country since we divulged that. Does that give people confidence?

Our people are overtaxed. Does that give people confidence? The Young Offenders Act so weak that it is just a plain, poor job. I do not know where the confidence is coming from. It is not oozing from my riding. Perhaps it is somewhere along the line.

There was a question about $26,000 per person. To have the unmitigated gall to justify that debt to our young people because they would like to live in the country is pretty poor justification indeed. It is future generations that we have to try to help. Because we live in such a great country does not justify Liberal borrowing at all or borrowing by the other party from Jurassic Park.

The final question was whether or not we could justify cutting at random. We produced during the election zero in three. We justified it. For a new party with 52 elected people, a lot of people understood it. The reason why the zero in three does not quite work right now and we have to amend it is that the debt

charges have risen so high. The government refuses to cut back on its budgets. What are we stuck with? Now we have to go with a higher number of zero in something.

It is a shame the government cannot understand what the people want. It will not take the bull by the horns.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to the issue my colleague raised as it relates to infrastructure.

There seems to be an underlying motive in the Reform Party's attitude that money should not be spent on infrastructure because they are part time jobs and that when there is a debt, the money should not be spent or used toward the development of infrastructure.

Even though we have financial and fiscal problems-we all admit it; we are not suggesting otherwise-his party is suggesting that we should not bother with infrastructure in regions like mine which of course are huge. There are 800,000 square kilometres with virtually no roads that have tremendous potential, as I mentioned before.

Should we hold off on trying to develop regions like that until some day when we may be able to get our debt back to zero? It is going to take a significant amount of time if we are reasonable about it. I need to know from the member whether he is suggesting that we should put everything on hold and let infrastructure crumble and fall apart as is the case in other countries around the world.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to go back a way on this one. We are in debt. It is so hard to get it through over there. We are borrowing $40 billion a year. The reason there are no roads or some infrastructure is breaking down in the first place is that we have been borrowing money on the backs of the taxpayers for years. They do not have it through their skulls yet that they have borrowed, borrowed and borrowed. We cannot afford these programs any longer.

I might add that I talked to several mayors about the infrastructure program. Basically in many cases, and I am not suggesting all of them, there may be some areas that require purposeful funding for infrastructure. In some cases the mayors said that these were jobs they were going to do in the first place. Their costs have been cut. Instead of having 100 per cent infrastructure costs coming out of the residential taxpayer dollar, the provincial government will pick up some and the federal government will pick up some.

All the government has succeeded in doing is borrowing more money on the backs of the taxpayers. That is the philosophy we have here. It is smoke and mirrors.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak on this most auspicious occasion, the debate on the first main estimates of the government.

Other members have talked about how the government has demonstrated its resolve to restore order to Canada's fiscal house. I would like to talk about another pledge that we made to Canadians: to provide government services that Canadians want and need in an affordable and efficient manner. We promised to work to eliminate overlap and duplication with other levels of government and to ensure that the Canadian taxpayer is not paying twice for the same or similar services.

The government is very serious about keeping these pledges and about restoring the faith of Canadians in their government institutions. It is equally serious about ensuring that a public service that has been cut repeatedly over the last 10 years is still able to deliver quality, responsive services to their clients.

I would like to talk about some of the many management initiatives of the government that will enable us to keep our promises to Canadians. As the February budget announced, the government will release a declaration of quality service by the end of the summer. This declaration will be a service scheme for all public servants to follow. It will describe what the government views as good government service. It will tell Canadians what kind of service and treatment they can expect to receive when they telephone a government number, visit a federal office or write to a government agency.

This declaration will provide clear direction to all public service employees about the kind of service the government wants Canadians to receive from all federal offices. While we may not be able to deliver all services in line with the declaration right now, an achievable but challenging target is one way of getting there.

The declaration is only one part of the government's plan to tell Canadians what they can expect when they use a government service. It will be a broad government-wide vision of quality service.

Just as important as the declaration are the service standards that each department and agency of government are expected to produce. Service standards will build on the quality pledge included in this declaration and go even further. Written in plain language they describe the particular services and programs of each department. They will talk about the actual level of service that Canadians should expect to receive, such as how long before the telephone is answered, applications are processed or letters are responded to. They will include some measures of the cost of the service or program so Canadians can judge if they are getting value for money.

Finally, service standards will include simple, easy to use complaint mechanisms so Canadians have an effective avenue of redress if they are not satisfied with the service they are receiving.

Service standards should be developed in consultation with the program's clients and employees. The government believes consultation with Canadians is an important step in restoring faith in federal institutions. To this end we are determined to develop an effective consultation process.

By talking to the people who actually use or deliver the service, government managers get a better idea of what is most important to their clients. When asked clients generally offer worthwhile suggestions on how the service could be improved. By finding out what Canadians value, government managers can concentrate their energies and efforts where the return in terms of increased client satisfaction is the greatest. They can use the information to eliminate or reduce services that no longer meet the needs of today's clients.

Service standards are real. Mr. Speaker, when you filed your income taxes this year you will have noticed in the guide the declaration of taxpayers' rights. This is not new. What was new was a statement by the department that even at the height of income tax processing in April and May returns can normally be processed and cheques or assessments returned within four weeks. This gives Canadians a very concrete idea of what they can expect.

Enquiries Canada, part of the Canada Communication Group, has a number of service standards in place. For example, phone calls are answered, with a bilingual greeting I might add, in three rings or 16 seconds 85 per cent of the time. Any inquiry requiring further research is answered by the research team within 24 hours and the research officers do the callbacks to the clients themselves.

Correspondence received by Enquiries Canada is answered within 48 hours.

As we can see, this is a real and concrete description of the services that are being offered, something Canadians can monitor to see if the organizations are continuing to meet these targets.

The inspections branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has developed draft standards that are based on consultation with clients and staff. One set deals with how the department will handle complaints. Complaints involving health and safety of fish products will be investigated immediately. Trade complaints or complaints involving quality or consumer fraud will be investigated within three working days.

This is an example of how the department is becoming more sensitive to the service needs of its clients.

My final example of the service standards comes from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The department has established a single access food labelling service for the Canadian food industry. The service consolidated food labelling activities involving the former departments of consumer and corporate affairs and agriculture under four different pieces of legislation. The new service will complete a label assessment within 10 working days.

These are all examples where federal departments and agencies have clearly spelled out for Canadians the level of service they can expect to receive. We can monitor their performance and see if they are meeting their targets. We can discuss their targets with them. For the first time we will know what response we should expect from a government department or agency.

Of course, developing service standards is only one step in more efficiently delivering effective and affordable programs. One way to really improve the services that Canadians are receiving is to eliminate the stovepipe mentality resulting from separate government departments. Based on clients' perspective, related services from a number of departments and agencies can be provided in one location. That is what the Canada Business Service Centre concept is all about, one stop shopping for the business client.

CBSCs provide a comprehensive access point for information, assistance and referrals on all federal programs and services to business.

In the last budget this government made a commitment to open at least one centre in a major urban area in each province this year. Furthermore, we are working with the provinces and the private sector to develop a single access point for federal, provincial and community-based programs and services of interest to business clients.

Clients have access to CBSC services by telephone and facsimile transmission, in person and in future electronically from home or business. Aside from some start-up funds to offset technology investment, CBSCs are being established within existing operating resources.

Since these estimates were tabled on February 24 the Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre has officially opened, this in addition to three CBSCs in Halifax, Edmonton and Winnipeg which have been up and running for some time. Four new centres will open in the early summer in Montreal, Fredericton, St. John's and Charlottetown. Most of these will operate in conjunction with provincial services and one will even have the participation of the local chamber of commerce. The remaining centres will open in the early fall.

Harmonizing federal and provincial services in one location is a giant step forward. However, it is even more important to determine that the programs and services that we are delivering are still relevant to the needs of today's Canadians. To that end, the budget announced a series of program reviews. The most

fundamental and far reaching of these is the government's review of Canada's social security system.

The Minister for Human Resources Development is leading this review. He has already launched a dialogue with Canadians and the provinces on our social security system. The entire range of social programs and issues will be covered in this review. They include unemployment insurance, training and other employment programs, the Canada assistance plan, security for families and children, assistance for persons with disabilities, post-secondary education and student loans.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development will begin consultations on the action plan in the very near future. Members of this House will be invited to undertake their own consultations.

Redesigning services and programs to meet the real needs of Canadians is absolutely imperative to ensure that the most valued services and programs are delivered efficiently and affordably. However, it is just as important that public servants are ready and equipped to deliver these services.

As part of this broader re-engineering effort, the government released the blueprint for renewing government services using information technology. The blueprint contains a vision of how the government can use today's information technology to deliver responsive and affordable services. It identifies the need for a government wide electronic information infrastructure to support service delivery renewal.

The common infrastructure will allow the development of knowledgeable employees free from organizational constraints and able to answer questions and deal with the programs of a number of federal governments.

The blueprint is one of many approaches to advancing the one-stop shopping concept and eliminating the stovepipe attributable to government organizations.

The government is taking other measures to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent wisely, with true consideration given to real need. For example, with the introduction of operating budgets managers were provided with one sum of money to cover employee costs and operating and maintenance costs. This eliminated the person year control system. This person year control system often acted as a barrier to improving services to Canadians by not allowing managers to achieve the right input mix of staff, services and equipment.

To cut down on the wasteful year end spending practices that we often read about in the Auditor General's annual reports, departments were allowed to carry forward from one fiscal year to the next 2 per cent of their operating budgets. There was therefore no need to rush out and purchase computers or lab equipment that departments did not need right away but knew they were going to need in the next fiscal year.

This government is currently evaluating whether the 2 per cent carry forward has been effective in eliminating the so-called year end spending binge or whether it needs to be increased to 5 per cent. I am confident that the President of the Treasury Board will advise us of the results of this study in due course.

Departments and agencies that are closely located are starting to share common services like meeting rooms, libraries, internal mail distribution, to free resources that have been used in this kind of duplicative and costly overhead. To date there are over 200 such initiatives being discussed or implemented in every province across the country.

We are streamlining and updating our payments and procurement processes through the use of modern technology. This will have tremendous benefits both in terms of cost avoidance and in terms of better service to those firms that want to sell goods and services to the government.

In conclusion, let me assure hon. members of this House that the government intends to keep its pledge to deliver the services Canadians want and need in an affordable and efficient manner.

I have talked today about a number of management initiatives the government is pursuing. The list is just a start. It is just a beginning. As we look at how we are serving Canadians and delivering our programs, as we continually strive to learn and improve, other such initiatives will follow.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. I would like to ask a question related to the infrastructure program.

Canadians will remember that recently the United Nations had a study which said that Canada was number one in the world to live. However, if you looked more closely at that study, when the status of women in Canada was factored in Canada dropped to ninth place of the most favourable to live in the world. The same study also cited that women's net income is 51.5 per cent of that of men in Canada which is one of the reasons that we scored so low in terms of the status of women in Canada.

The infrastructure program was certainly in our jobs plan. The New Democratic Party supported having an infrastructure program. We think it is very important.

It is true however that the majority of jobs in that infrastructure plan will provide jobs for men. I think this is good. I am not suggesting that we should not be doing that but I would like to ask the member if in his government's plans, in his own looking into the infrastructure program or other employment programs, he would both support and perhaps give some examples of how the Liberal government has directly decided to address the very serious issue of poverty among women and increasing unem-

ployment among women which is reducing the standard of living for women in Canada.