Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate.
As I listen to the Reform Party and particularly the last speaker, I cannot help wondering if they believe in a country called Canada at all, believe in a sense of nationhood, in a society in which the public sector, the private sector all have a role to play. Do they believe in the kind of liberalism that has always defended the proper balance between those two roles but above all has stood for a sense of nationhood from coast to coast and not a patchwork quilt?
This debate provides us a good opportunity to bring Canadians and the Reform Party up to date on some of the very specific measures that the government has undertaken to control spending and to use their money prudently.
If the hon. members opposite would only take the time to look at the budget the Minister of Finance tabled last year and to add up all of the initiatives on public finances taken since, they would conclude that the motion is a little off the mark.
In that budget we made a start, but only a start, by reducing the deficit from $45.7 billion to $39.7 billion. This was done by cutting spending. There were $5 of cuts for every dollar of revenue action.
More important, we introduced a number of policies to stimulate job creation and the economy responded admirably. Since we came to office in November 1993, 413,000 new jobs have been created in Canada. I have to say on behalf of my own region that 13,400 of these were created in the national capital region in spite of expenditure reductions and government restraint. The Canadian economy is now out performing those of all G-7 countries and it is expected to do the same next year.
For clarity and conciseness, I will only comment on initiatives sponsored by the hon. Marcel Massé, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal.
These initiatives, in general an integral part of the government's overall approach of fiscally sound management, will themselves contribute in a substantial way to the longer term economic management of the country.
When the government took office, we realized that as a nation, we are confronted with change the magnitude of which we have never seen before. The changes that are occurring here, in other countries and in most spheres of human endeavour are ushering in an altogether new era.
It was obvious to us that the old methods of approaching and resolving problems were longer adequate. It was also obvious that, to continue serving the population well in the next century, we would have to change the very role the government played.
As a government, our agenda is clear: creating the conditions to sustain economic growth, facilitate the creation of new business and get people back to work. As a government, our message is clear. Government spending is being and will continue to be brought under control.
As a nation we have reached a point of no return where we no longer have alternatives. Postponing the hard decisions that are needed this year would merely postpone the inevitable need for more dramatic and disruptive action in the future.
My hon. colleague, the minister and the government caucus understand that any serious attempt at deficit reduction now and especially in the long term requires a basic restructuring of what
government is and what government does. That is exactly what the minister has been doing this last year, looking at precisely how government can be restructured in such a way that it not only spends less but also concentrates on its core roles and responsibilities.
The full details, as we are all aware, will be announced in the forthcoming budget. However, the minister has looked at ways that government operations can be more focused, more client centred, more efficient and more cost effective. In a word, the kind of government Canadians want, at a price they can afford.
It is very obvious that Canadians have understood our intentions, that they agree with and support our approach. We need only look at the results of yesterday's byelections for confirmation of this. The voters in three riding enthusiastically endorsed the Liberal government's actions to create jobs and growth.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Prime Minister asked Mr. Massé to lead a review of every department's programs, activities and expenditures. This initiative, known as a program review, covered approximately $47 billion in program spending.
The program review had three major objectives. The first was to strengthen the public administration of federal programs and services. Program review will lead to a smaller, more efficient federal government delivering high priority programs to Canadians.
The second objective was to make a contribution to the modernization of Canadian federalism. Program review will help ensure the federal government delivers only those programs and services it is best equipped to deliver.
The third objective was to help the government meet its fiscal objectives. Federal departments have recommended major reductions in program spending based on their priorities. In general, ministers proposed a range of program changes and consolidations which are to be implemented following the 1995 budget.
These changes are designed to ensure that departments discard non-core responsibilities. Similar programs and services are placed in a single department to achieve maximum efficiency. What has been done with pesticide control in recent days is a very good example of that.
Overlap and duplication among and between departments and jurisdictions is removed. New technologies are used to lower the cost of program delivery, while increasing service standards. Cost recovery and user fees are to be used to finance programs that provide economic benefits to clients and stakeholders.
Every sector of government activity-from transportation, farming and fisheries to energy, mines and forestry, as well as assistance to businesses, immigration, etc-was reviewed. Almost all federal departments will be called upon to restructure their programs and to concentrate their efforts on sectors of national or international importance, sectors which are in the general interest of the country. This was one of the program review's guiding principles.
Program review outcomes will provide clear and undeniable evidence that the federal government has confronted its fiscal pressures by getting its own fiscal house in order. The federal public service will be reduced significantly. Its size and functions will be brought into line with the federal government core roles arising from the program review.
This is and will continue to be a difficult period for public service employees right across the country and here in the national capital region. Local members of Parliament such as myself and the newly elected member for Ottawa-Vanier are all committed to ensuring that reductions in the public service workforce are managed in a fair, orderly way so as to reduce to an absolute minimum the stresses and disruptions to the lives of individuals affected.
As public service employees across this country hear horrendous stories about the magnitude of downsizing, I want it to be clear that we are not talking about huge numbers of public service employees losing their jobs. Financial compensation packages will be there. They will be fair and they will be adequate.
We will be flexible and imaginative in our approach. Every means at the disposal of government will be used to ease and facilitate the acquisition of new skills to make the transition to new careers as smooth and as complete as possible.
Let me illustrate how the program review will translate into specific actions by citing the Department of Transport as an example.
As the Minister of Transport said several times, the transportation system in Canada is too intrusive, subsidies are distorting trade and several parts of the system are in bad shape. Following the program review, Transport Canada will no longer own large parts of the system. It will no longer operate and finance them. Instead, it will focus on its fundamental responsibilities in terms of direction and regulation in order to ensure the safety of the transportation system.
Market discipline and business principles will be brought into the operation of transportation services. Costs will be reduced, overcapacity eliminated, regulations streamlined.
Another example is in the Department of Industry. The minister has announced that the era of providing subsidies to big business is ending. I am pleased to hear that the Reform Party supports that initiative of our government.
The private sector is the engine of economic growth and job creation. Nevertheless, the federal government will continue to have a significant role in creating the climate for business to be able to invest, innovate and compete for markets.
These are the types of sensible and meaningful improvements that will result right across government as a result of program review.
I would now like to draw the attention of members opposite to another similar initiative taken by the minister to make the federation more efficient by reducing overlap and duplication between the various levels of government.
Members will recall that at the first ministers meeting in December 1993 very shortly after our election, there was agreement to forge ahead on tackling specific issues and areas of shared responsibility or jurisdiction where overlap and duplication could be greatly reduced or eliminated altogether. Six months later, through a process of joint bilateral agreements, the two territories and eight of the provinces with one more coming on board signed action plans and set timeframes for concluding their work to get rid of overlap and duplication.
To really understand the type of improvements sought, let us consider the situation faced by the pulp and paper mills. They now have to deal with inspectors from the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. We have agreed that, from now on, one inspector would be enough.
This is an example of the kind of sensible, meaningful activities which will result from the more than 50 action plans that have so far been signed between the federal government and the provinces. This work will continue. There will be more action plans in the months and years ahead as we continue to find ways to improve the efficiency of the federation.
It is important to underline that the reduction of overlap and duplication does not just result in savings. It also results in something as or more important and that is less government intervention on the individual and business and a more rational understandable environment in which to operate. That is not small change.
In addition to these two initiatives, the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal has also looked at the role, function, size and cost of more than 400 federal agencies, boards, commissions and advisory bodies.
Ministers have been asked to review the various organizations under their jurisdiction, in order to simplify the machinery of government, by eliminating the organizations which have become useless or inactive and by streamlining the others.
In undertaking this review of boards and commissions, there were no set targets. Rather, it was intended to identify sensible and practical changes to make government work better. I might also say that has also been our approach to the public service: not to set numerical targets and not to take the slash and burn approach, but to say what makes sense to make this government work better.
To return to the boards and commissions, the first phase of this initiative is already before the House as Bill C-65, legislation which will enable the government to eliminate or significantly streamline 22 agencies and advisory bodies. By doing this, 150 governor in council positions will be eliminated. In very real terms these measures will save taxpayers about $1.5 million a year.
That is only one step in that process. The minister will be returning to the House with a second omnibus bill which will conclude the work. At that time hundreds of additional governor in council positions will be eliminated at what is anticipated to be a savings of approximately $10 million.
As the minister said in the House last week, the government wants to ensure that federal agencies continue to be relevant, that they are serving Canadians as effectively as possible and also that sensible and practical actions are taken to eliminate overlap and duplication and simplify government wherever possible.
I have just described three impressive components of the overall approach taken by the government towards fiscal responsibility. I think it is important for members opposite to understand these initiatives and agree that, as is the case with all the measures taken by this government, these are thoughtful, rational and well-considered decisions.
Proposals for mindless, indiscriminate axing in spending do not work in the modern context. Such proposals are simple minded and damaging not just to the economy but to the people of this country. Protecting the vulnerable is an essential function of government and to this we are deeply committed.
Yet we must be fair to taxpayers. Fairness to taxpayers means eliminating abuse, eliminating the careless use of public funds, eliminating non-productive activities, reducing the size of government where possible and providing government that is not only affordable but answers to the real needs of citizens and of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will concur with me that the range of initiatives undertaken by the government meets the objectives of fairness, eliminates wasteful spending and builds a more co-operative approach to a better future for Canadians.