Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address the issue before us. I will focus quite distinctly on the motions in this group which the Bloc is proposing.
In this grouping we have an interesting juxtaposition of Liberal philosophy where the Bloc members want to maintain the two separate boards that are conducting reviews and the Liberals are proposing to combine the two existing groups into one.
The comment I will make is appropriate to the philosophy of the government. It is looking at who is administering the programs and trying to reduce these numbers, as it is in some other bills that are floating around these days.
The Liberals are talking about reducing the number of members on the board of the CBC, and other tribunals and appointed boards. They are reducing the number of people which is a move, in most instances, that could be applauded. However, one needs to ask the question whether it is being done arbitrarily and capriciously or whether it is actually based on a fair assessment of the workload. The important factor being omitted here is how many people can do the work efficiently.
The missing question, whether talking about the CBC board, this tribunal or any of the other boards it is proposed to reduce is, has there been a rational study of the actual amount of work that needs to be done? Also, what would be the actual savings accomplished by it?
The Bloc is proposing we keep these two boards separate. To the best of our knowledge the workload these people would be
carrying would be such that the amendment the Bloc is proposing is not justifiable. There should be one panel instead of two. There would be a certain degree of overlap and that overlap could be avoided if we were to combine them.
On a very broad spectrum, we need to address very carefully the administration of these social programs. As one of my colleagues already outlined, total government expenditures are some $160 billion a year, $40 billion of which is interest. The debt is continuing to grow. Even under the present Liberal's plan, we will still be adding $32.9 billion to the debt.
You do not have to be a great mathematician to compute that. If you add $30 billion at current interest rates, you will probably be adding in the neighbourhood of $3 billion to $5 billion a year in interest. As soon as you do that, there will be less money for social programs. It is $160 billion total, $40 billion of interest and interestingly a little more than $50 billion on the four main programs of old age security, Canada pension, guaranteed income supplement and UI. These programs need to be cut as well as the administration of them.
While we applaud the government's move to reduce the number of boards that do these reviews, we are reducing the crew members on the Titanic as it is most surely going down. It is a small and ever so gingerly taken step in the right direction but it does not address the real problem. We need to bring down total spending in these programs. It must be done dramatically. It must be done quickly so that we do not lose it all.
I want to say one other thing. Undoubtedly the Liberals as our opposition would be declaring: "The Reformers want to cut these programs". We do not. I have said this often. How I wish that the Conservative government and the Liberal government before that one would have been diligent in managing the fiscal affairs so that we did not have this huge debt.
If we did not have a debt so large that we are obligated to pay $40 to $45 billion per year on interest, we would have more than enough money to look after all the needs of all of these people. The numbers declare it. It is $52 billion for these four programs and $40 to $45 billion for interest.
We are talking about cutting these programs because we cannot cut the interest. It is not an option. If the previous governments would have been diligent in managing our affairs so that we would not have this debt load, we would be able to carry on with a very good solid social programs. Management is what is really critical here.
I encourage the members of the House to be opposed, with all due respect to my friends from the Bloc, to these amendments because we do achieve a small efficiency by going to a single board. At the same time I must emphasize strongly that it is not even the tip of the iceberg. It is one chip on the top of the tip of the iceberg. We are missing the whole point here.