moved:
Motion No. 1
That Vote 10, in the amount of $1,329,481,000 under Human Resources Development-Employment and Immigration-Employment and Insurance Program-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker, while it is normal practice that I would remain after my remarks on the matter to hear the initial
presentation of the opposition, another meeting requires that I leave after I make my presentation and answer questions and comments.
I will initially speak to the notice of opposition to Motion No. 1 as placed by the hon. member for Mercier and will deal with the substance of the expenditure recommended in the main estimates on that item. Also in the course of my remarks I will get into some general comments about the estimates.
We have 59 opposed motions with respect to the estimates today that we will have completed by ten o'clock this evening.
With respect to Motion No. 1 which deals with vote 10 in the amount of approximately $1.3 billion for the Department of Human Resources Development, this specifically being for employment and insurance program grants and contributions, I would ask that this allocation be concurred in.
Most members of the House will support the view that the employment and insurance program is one of the key elements in the federal government's social and economic development efforts. The program is comprised of three major activities: employment, unemployment insurance, and Canada employment centre management and joint services.
In the fiscal year 1995-96 it will be a transition year for the program as the department completes the integration of various components that came together with the creation of the new department.
The employment and insurance program develops and supports productive utilization of labour market resources in Canada while respecting the principles of equity in employment and ensuring the protection of public funds to promote the effective and efficient functioning of the Canadian labour market.
The main goal of the employment activity is to provide Canada's social security system with the capability to help people get back to work and the dignity that work brings to Canadians.
The activities and overall orientation have been redesigned to accommodate such tasks as increased focus on youth along with offers of increased planning and management responsibilities made to provinces and territories.
The objective of the unemployment insurance activity is to promote economic growth and flexibility by providing temporary income support to unemployed workers who qualify for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act without placing an unnecessary burden on individuals, on groups or on regions of the country.
The vote affected by the motion before us is in the federal government's main vehicle for delivery of employment development services to Canadians who are out of work and not eligible for the unemployment insurance benefits of development youth initiatives.
The federal government payments from this vote will be used to assist Atlantic fishermen. They will be used to assist youth, aboriginals and other Canadians seeking to improve their job readiness and to enhance their ability to secure steady and productive employment.
Specifically the payments in the hands of the recipients are directed toward self-employment assistance, mobility assistance, job training and income support while awaiting training or not.
Funding provided from the vote represents the federal government's commitment to its belief that it has a role in manpower training within Canada and its efforts to work closely with provinces and territories to eliminate overlap and duplication in the area of manpower training.
I should like at this point to turn to some more general reasons as to why we should have the support of the House with respect to the main estimates for the current fiscal year, which I initially tabled in the House on February 28.
The main point I want to make is that Canadians want an efficient, responsible, and affordable government.
The 1995-96 main estimates help deliver just that by reinforcing the approach taken in the February budget to reduce spending and to reshape the role of the federal government.
Canadians support the budget in part because it is aimed at refocusing government on the key priorities and key needs of Canadians. It is about getting government right.
The estimates lay out planned spending department by department, program by program. They reflect tough choices on spending on programs the government has had to make to meet its fiscal targets, to get its fiscal house in order.
The main estimates detail in 80 separate volumes $164.2 billion in total planned budgetary expenditures for this fiscal year. This includes $116.2 billion under existing legislation and $48 billion in expenditures for which we are seeking parliamentary authority.
Why should we have members' approval for these expenditures? Because we have acted decisively to reduce the size of government as a result of the budget review process. Because we have rationalized the activities and programs we should deliver
and those that should be delivered by other levels of government or perhaps by the private sector or through partnerships. Because we must deliver quality services to Canadians that they need and quality services that they can afford.
Altogether, the estimates include $2.3 billion of the total $4.1 billion in expenditure reductions announced in the budget. They could not reflect the impact of legislative proposals to cut spending. They must indicate the reality of legislation that exists at that particular point in time. Nor do they include all the revenues to come from new cost recovery initiatives. As they are fleshed out and as they are further developed then of course they will become part of the process.
Nevertheless, they give a very good description of the government's expenditure plans and priorities. Canadians want affordable government. Canadians want us to deal with priorities. Canadians want us to provide efficient and effective programs.
Program review looked at our program expenditures and our services. That process has helped us to bring the size of government down by almost 20 per cent over the next three year period.
I would like to talk about how we carried out this review which was innovative and required a change in the approach by ministers and departments. I believe it has proven to this point to be very effective. We asked departments to review every one of their programs and activities and to check them against a series of tests. Members may have heard of the tests before but I think they bear repeating.
Some of the questions were what is the department's key role? What are the services that must be provided to people to here and abroad? What must be done by the federal government that cannot be done better by another level of government or perhaps by the private sector? Of the services that should continue to be provided by the federal government, which ones are being carried out efficiently and which ones are affordable?
As a result of program review and these various tests, we were able to collectively make the difficult decisions that were set out in the February budget. By 1997-98, in three years, departmental spending subject to the program review will decline by some 19 per cent relevant to the 1994-95 fiscal year.
Looking at this from a departmental perspective, each department has had to pinpoint areas best served by the private sector or other levels of government. The departments have had to focus on their key responsibilities to decide what businesses they are in and what they can no longer afford to provide. They are examining how technology can make their operations more efficient. I believe that technology can be an enabler to help our public service in the provision of more effective services.
We are moving away from direct subsidies to business and putting more emphasis on repayable contributions. Departments are moving ahead on ways to recover costs of certain government services from those who benefit most directly. They are also merging similar types of programs to create greater efficiency.
I mentioned earlier that we want to deliver effective and responsible government that Canadians can afford. The expenditure management system will help us to do that. The revamped system which I announced in February of this year will help departments manage within available resources. It requires them to review their programs and spending continuously and to reallocate resources to meet changing priorities, not further adding to the tax burden.
The system we have put in place will help the government make responsible spending decisions by delivering the programs and services that Canadians need and that Canadians can afford. It also promotes a business planning approach that allows departments to focus on making changes to programs and lines of business to meet budget targets. It also provides flexibility to ministers and departments to help them manage within approved resources. The system will also help establish a more effective way of accounting for program results.
Performance measurements. It will do so by requiring the government to deliver better and more timely information on program performance to Parliament. We are making the system far more results oriented.
This spring for the first time reports called "Departmental Outlooks" are providing parliamentary committees with information on the future year expenditure plans and priorities of departments. Very clearly this is bringing all members of Parliament into the process far beyond what has been the case up until this government took office.
This report provides committee members with the context for consideration of the Main Estimates.
As this is the first year for the outlooks, I am looking forward to seeing how the committees put the new information to use. My understanding is the reports are being well received by committee members and have been discussed as part of this year's review of the estimates.
I am aware that at least one hon. member opposite has questioned why the dollar figures for the main estimates I tabled on February 28 are not identical to those announced by the hon.
Minister of Finance in the February budget. I will he happy to explain that for the benefit of hon. members opposite.
As I mentioned earlier, the main estimates cannot incorporate any budget measures that require the legislative approval of the House. Likewise, the budget includes planned spending for which Parliament's authority will be sought later this year in supplementary estimates, once program details are fully developed and approved. Also, some budget decisions were made too late to be reflected in the estimates documents that had to go to press. Members will know that the estimates were filed the day after the budget was presented in the House.
These are only three examples of the many technical reasons that the estimates and the budget figures differ, as they do every year. This is a normal situation because of the legislative restrictions.
I want to assure hon. members that we have the internal controls under the authority of the Financial Administration Act needed to achieve the full savings announced in the budget. The information hon. members are seeking will be set out in the public accounts. This report and not the estimates is where members can expect to reconcile the planned expenditures laid out in the budget with actual departmental expenditures.
Reducing the public service was not an objective of program review. It soon became clear however that changes of this scope would require reductions in the size of the federal workforce. As a result, we developed a program of options to help departments deal with the planned reductions and to help affected employees make a successful transition from the public sector. We intend to treat all of our employees fairly and reasonably.
These options include the early retirement incentive and the early departure incentive programs. Our goal in introducing these and other transition measures, for example training and counselling measures, is to be fair to the taxpayer as well as to the affected federal employees. I believe that the programs we have put in place to carry out the downsizing have balanced these objectives.
I am enthusiastic about the prospects of a smaller, more effective and more affordable government. I believe we can develop a government and a public service that will have a greater sense of satisfaction for employees, for the customers they serve and for the taxpayers that we all serve.
I suggest that members of the House should support our request for full supply in the 1995-96 estimates because the estimates reflect strong decisive action that meets our fiscal targets. They prove our commitment to being fiscally responsible by providing quality services to Canadians that Canadians need and that Canadians can afford.