House of Commons Hansard #81 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senate.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, a recorded division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 10 p.m. later today, at which time the bells will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Vote 5 in the amount of $164,985,000 under the heading Parliament-House of Commons-Program expenditures, in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss the concurrence of the main estimates placed before this House.

I would like to congratulate the hon. whip on the government side for his fine speech and his Gagliano plan that he talked about. I was hoping that his Gagliano plan does not become a Galileo plan and they revert to star gazing rather than getting the job done.

He also said that they want to give an example starting with themselves to demonstrate to the country that they are prepared to provide leadership. I cannot think of a better opportunity than this evening when they get the opportunity to provide leadership in the vote we will have later on the estimates because there are two things that concern us as Reformers. One is to give Parliament the opportunity to get back into its real role of passing its opinion on the estimates rather than rubber stamping what the government lays in front of the House.

There are two elements that have denied Parliament the opportunity to fulfil its role. One is the convention of confidence which has prevented this House from being able to express its opinion on the estimates. The other is excessive party discipline by the government in power.

These two elements when combined have led to the fiscal rubber stamping by the House of Commons once the estimates have been reported back to this House by the committees which were supposed to have examined them beforehand. I say supposed because quite often the committees do not even address the main estimates before they are tabled in the House and through convention and party discipline the House is forced to concur. Therefore it is a sham and a mockery of the role of Parliament to control the public purse.

The traditional role which Canada inherited in many aspects and in many forms from the government and traditions of the British parliamentary democracy is that the Canadian House of Commons reviews the government's proposed expenditures. We inherited that tradition from the British parliamentary democracy. It is outlined and enshrined in the British North America Act, 1867.

This theory goes back a long way and is based on certain principles. The crown must come to this House and request funds on the advice of the crown's ministers. In Canada, the requests originate from the Governor General on the advice of cabinet, which forms the government, to this House of Commons in the form of recommendations. As in Britain, it is the House of Commons which grants or denies-and let me emphasize or denies-the requests for funds after having reviewed them.

In theory this House has the authority to grant or deny the elected government's request for funding of expenditures it wishes to make in the upcoming year. Unfortunately, as I said, because of the convention of confidence and excessive party discipline we have made a mockery and a sham of the process. It has been many a long year since we have seen this House exercise its prerogative to express its real opinion on the estimates laid before it.

The record of this House in making reductions to the government's expenditures at this stage in the estimates process has been a complete and dismal failure. It is a fiscal disgrace and an abomination. Since 1969 the House of Commons annual review of the estimates has resulted in a reduction on percentage terms of only one-millionth of one per cent. By one-millionth of one per cent have we in this House reduced the estimates in the last 20-odd years that they have been laid before this House. That is an absolute disgrace and my colleagues agree with me. Listen to them over here.

The last time this House exercised its prerogative was in 1973, 21 years ago. It was a Liberal government, albeit a minority government, and that is when conventions of confidence really do matter. The government at that time, when confidence really did matter, allowed a reduction in the estimates. Ever since then Liberal governments and Tory governments-the only governments we have had-have refused to allow any further reductions in the estimates.

Tonight the government said, and I quote the hon. government whip: "Give an example starting with ourselves". That is a direct quote of what he said. Now is a wonderful opportunity for government members to say that the convention of confidence and strict party discipline need not necessarily apply any more and this House is going to demonstrate the open government they so liberally campaigned upon last fall. This is their opportunity to realize upon that commitment they made to Canadians, to express the will of this House and reduce the estimates as laid before us.

The amount was $20,000 out of the entire government expenditure which was around $60 billion at that time. The government cut $19,000 from the Department of Labour for an information program. We talk about advertising and polls today and I think we should cut them as well, but it cut $19,000. It cut $1,000 out of the salary of the president of the CBC. There must have been a tiff with him at that point in time. I think Reformers have a tiff with the CBC today and maybe we should cut more than $1,000 out of his salary, but we are not recommending that at the moment.

For the record, back in 1973 when the government allowed the estimates to be reduced, albeit by $20,000, the member for Shawinigan, our current Prime Minister, voted against the motion. He refused to allow the reduction. Here is a great opportunity for him to make amends by allowing this motion to go through this evening. The Liberal government has a great opportunity to change and redress the problems of history and the things that have gone on in the past.

The confidence convention has traditionally been interpreted to mean that any motion to reduce the vote on the estimates would be viewed as a test of the confidence of this House in the government. We are saying that if there is a reduction in the estimates the government need not necessarily have to resign. We are not going to go that far.

The confidence convention reinforced by excessive party discipline leads to fiscal rubber stamping and fiscal irresponsibility by the House of Commons and the committees when it considers the estimates at this stage. The result has been an extremely modest reduction since 1973, as I said, one-millionth of one per cent.

We would like to see that changed. The negative implications of those two things have contributed to the fact that we are now $500 billion in debt. This House has never been able to express its real opinion as we rack up $40 billion deficits every year. This year is going to be no exception.

We have never been able to express our opinion on the lavish and excessive government spending which has gone on unabated now for over 20 years since we last had a balanced budget. Why? Because there has been no genuine parliamentary safeguard on government spending and there has been insufficient scrutiny by this House on these changes. Change and reform are required and are long overdue.

That is why the Reform Party has offered an alternative. There has been a longstanding Reform policy that says we want to modernize the confidence convention. We are saying to allow this House to express its will freely and democratically on the estimates. If there are reductions, then let there be a motion after it has all been debated and voted upon. If reductions are approved then let a motion of confidence be placed in this House. If that is approved as well then the government knows it still enjoys the confidence of this House and can continue to govern.

These are the things we are talking about as Reformers bringing a fresh new face to Parliament, a new opportunity to do things so much better. For the government whip who said earlier to give them an opportunity to show they are prepared to make an example of the government, here is a great opportunity for them to start now by allowing the reductions.

We are talking about a reduction in money spent by the Board of Internal Economy. The main estimates according to the President of the Treasury Board indicate they are going to spend $164,985,000 in the administration of the House of Commons.

The government whip has told us of his plan which has already led to specific reductions in this fiscal year of over $2 million. We are saying to this government, since that amount has already been reduced and eliminated from spending by this government in this year, which was acknowledged by the previous speaker, then surely it is not a threat to the convention of confidence that we amend the main estimates to reflect the new reality.

The point we want to make is that these reductions are already in place. They have been approved. The government whip has acknowledged that point in his plan. We are saying there is no threat of confidence by recognizing that and putting them back and changing the main estimates to reflect the reality.

We will be talking on other motions about minuscule amounts like $20,000. Out of the total expenditure of $163.6 billion this government is going to spend this year, what is $20,000? Is $20,000 a threat to convention? Does the member think the government is going to fall on that? No. That is the point I want to make.

Another point is the Liberal platform that cuts the grants and subsidies. We are concurring with that point because we also believe in cuts to grants and subsidies. We knocked 5 per cent off that as well.

There are three great opportunities where those members can concur without any threat whatsoever to them and to their government by acknowledging that a cut has already been made. The main estimates should be amended to reflect that reality. The minuscule amount of $20,000 based on all the inflation caused by the Liberal government in its past life and the Tory government is not what it used to be. It is worth a lot less than in 1973. How on earth could that affect the confidence this House would express in the government?

Liberal policies say cuts to grants and subsidies. We concur so let us just do it. That is all we ask. That is the point. My challenge to the government and to all members on the other side of the House is to recognize what they have been saying which was reiterated by the government whip: "Give an example starting with ourselves". A direct quote of five minutes ago.

Here is a great opportunity to do so. I challenge government members to stand up later this evening and vote according with what they have said in the red book and in accordance with the platform on which they were elected.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for his good comments about me, but I regret he is turning this debate into something it is not. We are debating budgets and not free votes or recalls. I am sure the hon. member knows that.

Yes, I said that the plan of reducing the expense is in effect. It was announced in January. The board took a decision on the global plan. Some decisions were taken on individual items and some are already in effect. Some are entering, for example, the July 1 householder. The restaurant section has not been decided on.

I said at the beginning that we had to adopt a budget. We had a deadline to prepare a detailed budget of expenses that the government wanted to introduce and have passed by the House according to the rules. There is nothing wrong. Next year we would show a reduction in expenses instead of what the member is proposing.

If I am correct, he is proposing to reduce the budget expense by $2.471 million. The difference between the member and I is that everything we accept is detailed. I do not know what he is counting in the $2.471 million. He should tell the House which items they are because the motion is on the House budget. He should do a service and tell us about them.

I thank all my colleagues in the 35th Parliament. We started in good will and displayed good decorum. We have done very well so far. However I do not think this is a case for a free vote. In an administrative way we do not know the exact effect of the plan I announced on a yearly basis. For this fiscal year, and being the author of the plan, I do not know exactly how much it will reduce this budget.

The member says that we should reduce it by $2.471 million. He should start by giving us the details. Did he check the figures with members of the administration? We enact policies but on a daily basis they keep the books.

From the beginning I have approached this issue on a non-partisan basis. If the member checks with his colleagues on the Board of Internal Economy who have been working with me on the matter, I am sure he will concur. The purpose here is not for each party to make political points. It is to make sure we save money for Canadian taxpayers.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the question. The member sits on the Board of Internal Economy and tells us that he has a plan.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

An hon. member

It is a secretive board that nobody can get into.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

"It is a secretive board that nobody can get into", according to my colleague. The Reform member who sits on the board advised me that certain savings have been introduced, passed and are being implemented at this time. This year there will be a savings of that amount of money.

The point I made during my speech was that it was a confidence convention. I never mentioned a free vote. I am just saying that we should allow the House to recognize that savings have already been approved by the Board of Internal Economy in the amount of $2.4 million. Why do we not collectively recognize that already exists and change the main estimates to reflect the new reality?

The President of the Treasury Board comes into the House any time he exceeds a budget and asks for more money. All I am saying is that now we recognize the Treasury Board is not going to be spending the money, let us make that recognition in the House. That is the point I am trying to make today.

I know the government whip concurs with our idea of saving money. They have gone along and made these changes. Let us recognize that and change the estimates now to reflect that.

What signal are we sending to other departments to save money if we say that we do not care if they save money, that they have been allocated money and we are not going to change it, that we are not going to take it back from them, that they can go ahead and spend it anyway? This is a great opportunity for them to reduce the estimates.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the member who tells us to reduce the budget by this amount.

Does he have a list to prove what he is saying now, that it is in fact the amount of savings realized by the government whip's plan? Or, is it not true that those figures are concocted and he has no idea what the savings are? If it is true that he has such savings in mind with a detailed list, I say to the hon. member that I am ready to give him unanimous consent to table the list now. If he does not have such a list, why does he not just withdraw the item from the Order Paper?

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have a list in my office. I do not have it in front of me at the moment. I was advised by our member who sits on the Board of Internal Economy, although it is a secretive board and we do not know what really goes on there until the minutes are tabled long afterward, that these payments-

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is an unfair statement about the board because it has passed a policy wherein the minutes are tabled once they are approved. In the past few months we have been tabling minutes in the House every two weeks because the board meets every two weeks. Before the member makes such a statement he should check his facts.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I must inform the government whip that I do not believe that is a point of order. Certainly as we all know there is representation from the various official parties.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, my point is that our representative on the board has assured us of these savings. The cuts are effective for this particular year. Therefore we are asking the House to recognize the savings and amend the estimates accordingly.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick comment that has more to do with the member's remarks on the question of party discipline and the question of confidence.

I would like to say to him as a member of the Reform Party that members of the Reform caucus should be careful not to think that this kind of debate about free votes, party discipline and the confidence convention came to the House with them.

I recommend the member read the McGrath committee report on parliamentary reform tabled in the House in 1985. It was an all-party report, headed by Jim McGrath, a former long time Conservative member and then lieutenant-governor of Newfoundland. I was a member of that committee in which it was said that the Canadian parliamentary system was far too dominated by party discipline, that there needed to be a broader range of issues on which members of all parties felt free to vote as individuals rather than as party members.

I made my first speech calling for more free votes in the House in 1981. By way of advocating a little humility, I just say there were people advocating this kind of flexibility in the House of Commons before those guys came along. If the member wants to read the McGrath report, I would recommend it to him.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I regret the member's time for questions and comments has elapsed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Ottawa West Ontario

Liberal

Marlene Catterall LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak about the main estimates for budget year 1994-95.

These estimates represent the fulfilment of the government's commitments to Canadians. They also represent a balanced approach to promoting economic growth in jobs while taking steps to reduce the deficit.

These estimates reflect the fact that there are no quick and easy solutions to the financial issues which confront Canada. It is essential that Canadians understand this in order that they may be able to make with us the difficult choices which lie ahead. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity to talk about some of the highlights and significance of these estimates.

First it is important to set these estimates in the context of the government's fiscal plan. When the minister tabled his budget in February of this year he said that it represented the first stage of a two-stage budget. That budget has set the country on the road to economic recovery, but there is still a great deal of work now being done to prepare for the second stage of the budget.

As we promised, the government has launched a number of initiatives and reviews which will enable us to accelerate our progress down that road to economic recovery.

It is important that the government take action but it is also important that the government take the time to take the right action.

For example, the President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal is reviewing the programs of every department. He is also reviewing the structure of every commission and federal organization. Moreover, he is co-operating with the provinces to find ways to reduce overlapping and duplication. These measures will ensure more efficient and affordable government services to Canadians.

As for the Minister of Human Resources Development, he is currently conducting the most comprehensive review of the social security system in Canada since that program was put in place. It should be clear to everyone that the government intends to do what is necessary, and to do it in a responsible way, from a financial point of view. The results of these reviews and other initiatives will be made public as early as this fall, so that they can be discussed in the most open budget process ever put in place by a government.

Canadians will have a say in the critical decisions which will have to be made. At that point, we will have reached the second stage of the budget.

As the President of the Treasury Board said in the House when the main estimates were tabled in February, the estimates set out the details of $160.7 billion in planned expenditure for this fiscal year. Overall program spending, which is total spending less debt service charges, is increased by just 0.7 per cent.

Spending on most government programs has been reduced. The operating budgets of government departments have been reduced by $400 million, with further reductions of $600 million to come in the next two years. Defence cuts total $745 million this year alone, with more to come. Grants and subsidies to business have been substantially reduced. The government has frozen the wages of public servants for a further two years. This action has reduced the cost of providing necessary services

while making it possible to protect jobs and meet job security commitments to our employees.

At the same time as taking these necessary reduction measures, the estimates provide for $700 million for the implementation of the national infrastructure program. This is a key element in fulfilling our red book commitment to create jobs. We know there are two sides to the ledger. There is the expenditure side and there is the revenue side. With so many Canadians out of work the revenue side of our ledger book is not in good shape either. We are paying attention to both sides of the ledger book.

It was the Prime Minister who launched the infrastructure program in his December 1993 meeting with the premiers. Within eight weeks agreements had been signed with every one of the provinces in Canada. In spite of those who said it could not be done, a three-level program was put together in a matter of weeks. The municipalities have found the money to participate and all three levels of government are working co-operatively.

Furthermore the federal government came up with its $2 billion share of the program without increasing the deficit. As we promised, funds were reallocated from other less productive, less high priority federal programs.

I take this opportunity to say that we expect 80 per cent of the project funding will go toward core infrastructure such as water and sewer systems, roads and bridges. We are committed to funding projects with the municipalities that are their priority. Some of these projects are non-traditional but nevertheless are innovative and worthwhile.

When the budget discussions take place this fall it is important that Canadians understand where their tax dollars go, what benefits and services are provided and who receives them. It is important because I believe that many Canadians have been given the impression that with a few minor changes here and there, a bit of tinkering we could balance the budget and live happily ever after and nobody would be hurt.

This is nothing but a fairy tale. We can and we will return to full economic health but difficult choices lie ahead and making the right choices requires that the public be fully informed and involved.

When the main estimates were tabled in the House in February both official parties in opposition predictably expressed their disappointment and claimed that the budget did not go far enough to eliminate waste in government.

We recognize that we must constantly find more efficient ways of delivering services to Canadians and we are doing that. The Treasury Board secretariat is pursuing a variety of initiatives to improve efficiency, including a number which take advantage of the exciting potential of new information technology. These initiatives promote responsive and affordable government services.

In one of many examples 18 government departments are together establishing 10 Canada business service centres, many of them with the participation of the provinces and local authorities. These centres reduce complexity and overlap for business clients and provide one stop shopping with no increase in costs.

A wide variety of initiatives to improve service and reduce costs is described in part I of the estimates. It makes good reading for those want a current picture of what the government is really doing to improve efficiency.

I certainly recognize that, in a parliamentary system, the role of the opposition is to oppose government's measures. Moreover, it may be that the two sides truly disagree as to which policies would best serve our country. However, we are not doing Canadians a service by implying that the deficit could be reduced overnight if only someone had the courage to take the bull by the horns.

Last February, the hon. member for La Prairie said that there was some fat and some waste in the government operations, and that billions of dollars could be saved if only the government eliminated waste and poor management practices. The fact is that if these simple measures were enough to solve the problem, we would already have taken them.

As the main estimates show, the cost of operating the entire Government of Canada, excluding defence, is just 12 per cent of the total expenditures of $160.7 billion, about $19 billion. If the government were to shut down all of its operations, cancel every one of its programs, fire every one of its employees, there would still be a deficit of more than $20 billion.

There would be no food inspectors of course, no air traffic controllers, no prison guards, no scientists working for Canadians in the fields of health and the environment, and no tax collectors either. Some of us might like that, but then the deficit would be even higher. That there would still be a deficit without any government operation assumes of course that there would be somebody to write cheques for the other 88 per cent of government expenditures.

The other levels of government receive transfer payments of almost $29 billion, most of it going to health care, to social services, to post-secondary education and the equalization payments which ensure that from coast to coast to coast in this country the less wealthy provinces have an opportunity to provide comparable services to their citizens.

There is another $20 billion that the Minister of Finance perhaps would need some help in writing cheques for if we had no public service, no government operations; $20 million to Canadian seniors for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement as well as another $19 billion to the unemployed.

Perhaps people who complain about fat and waste could tell us how we can possibly solve the deficit problem by getting rid of the government.

Canada has just recently been rated by the United Nations once again as the best place in the world to live. This is something all Canadians should be proud of. It has not happened by accident. It has not been achieved without a cost either. We have been borrowing to finance our programs, programs which many Canadians have come to view as a right of citizenship.

The public accounts of Canada show that in the 10 years from 1984 to March 1993 the debt of the federal government has more than doubled to just over $500 billion. As a result this year's main estimates provide for interest charges of $41 billion or 25 per cent of the budget on that debt.

If we add another $11 billion for defence and $5 billion for crown corporations we begin to get a picture of where the money goes. We spend money on what Canadians want and need and that is what these estimates are all about. That is also why we have a deficit.

Part I of the estimates provides a comprehensive overview of the government's expenditure plans. I recommend it to all Canadians who want to know how their money is spent. I recommend it to all Canadians who want to participate in a meaningful and positive way in the budget consultations that will take place this fall.

So it is not being honest to tell taxpayers that we only need to cut some fat to alleviate the tax burden, or that it is possible to significantly reduce spending with no one feeling any real adverse effect.

To try to make Canadians believe that there is a quick fix and that the government is not prepared or able to apply it, undermines the confidence of Canadians in their democratic institution. When they hear about these so-called quick and simple solutions, Canadians are less apt to realize that some hard and vital decisions must be made.

My comments may sound somewhat like propaganda, but I want to tell this House that the government intends to ask members from all parties, as well as the general public, to participate in a comprehensive discussion on the importance of the budget. To that end, we must question the very nature of government spending. I would like to conclude, for the benefit of those who might still be sceptical, by referring to some comments made by the Auditor General.

In his 1991 annual report the Auditor General said that he had an impression that a dedicated, competent public service is dealing with complex problems that have developed over the years. He also stated: "The deficit is not a result of bureaucrats burning the taxpayers' money but rather the reasons for the deficit are profound, complex and difficult to solve. I sense that there are few easy fixes".

In his 1992 report he went on to say that the reality is that governments alone do not create deficits. International forces beyond our control and the needs and demands of the electorate also contribute to deficits.

I would like to conclude with a final piece of advice from our Auditor General also from the 1992 report: "There is a need today for full and frank discussion about deficit, debts and related public policy choices".

I invite members of the House today to begin that frank, honest, open discussion and I assure Canadians that this government will give them the opportunity to be part of that debate as well, well before the budget for 1985-96 is prepared, well before the tabling of the next version of these estimates.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments.

We all realize that to eliminate the deficit like that is an impossibility. One does not have to have the brains of a rocket scientist to figure that one out. However, what puzzles me is when we hear the rhetoric from that side of the House. Surely we are not ready to give up prison guards, food inspectors, air traffic controllers. We know the difference between essentials and waste.

However, how come when we hear speakers from that side of the House we do not hear such things as contributions to MP pensions which are somewhere in the neighbourhood of $17 million per year? How come we do not hear about Challen-ger jets that ought to be gone? How about blue limousines that we could do without? How about free residences and all the other things of that nature that amount to several millions of dollars? Why do we not ever hear that?

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member came in late, if he was not listening, if he was too busy talking to his colleagues over in the corner or if he has not read the estimates that he is now preparing to vote on later this evening. Had he and had he been listening since he walked into this House in January he would have seen our government tackling virtually every one of the issues he just mentioned and many more.

We are not looking at saving money by the millions. We have looked at saving money by the billions. The member really should know that if he has been paying attention. I do not know if he is attempting to mislead people. He knows very well that the matter of MPs' pensions is in the hands of a commission established specifically by law after every election for that purpose and that report will be coming back and we will be taking action on that report.

He also knows perfectly well that I said very clearly that the finance minister in tabling his budget said this is a two-stage budget. This is step one. We have done more cutting in this budget than in previous budgets. We have also closed some tax loopholes and he knows that very well. We paid attention to that side of the ledger as well by making sure that there is some increase in revenue and that tax breaks that certain people were getting are no longer there. However, we have done five times more in cutting expenses than we have increasing revenues through closing those tax loopholes.

The member knows perfectly well that these estimates on which he is voting today represent billions of dollars of cuts in government expenditures. I think he should be saying that honestly to the Canadians who are listening to us tonight.

SupplyGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK

Madam Speaker, I have a very brief comment.

I think we are making some progress in this House. I noticed the hon. member has recycled very large portions of a speech that I heard the member for Calgary Southwest giving about a year ago with the respect to the fact that of course you cannot balance the budget by tinkering, of course you cannot balance it merely by cutting fat. We know that. We still would like to see some cuts but the bottom line, as members will see, in our zero in three plan with which I hope members are familiar is that if one is ever going to get the finances of this country under control, deep substantive cuts have to be made.

SupplyGovernment Orders

8 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I notice the Reform members always get up and say that without ever saying where they are going to cut or who they are going to hurt.

We know perfectly well in the analysis of their three-year deficit reduction plan that it tabled during the election campaign that that could not be done without hurting 1.5 million children in this country who live in poverty, without hurting senior citizens who depend on their pensions, without hurting single parents, two-thirds of whom live in poverty with their children. Their plan was not realistic. Their plan would have destroyed the social fabric of this country. Their plan would have destroyed any sense of justice in this country.

The member opposite has said there were not cuts. From the moment our government took office we have been reducing unnecessary expenditures. The Prime Minister was the first to set an example by getting rid of his limousine. Members know the actions that have been taken to cut the use of-

SupplyGovernment Orders

8 p.m.

Some hon. members

Ah, gee.

SupplyGovernment Orders

8 p.m.

Some hon. members

Good.