Debates of June 7th, 1995

Supply

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for those watching this debate. We are now debating a Bloc motion on grants and contributions from the human resources department's main estimates. The Bloc motion calls for $1.3 billion in cuts. Those cuts would cover programs, everything from youth initiative programs to employment assistance programs.

We are all making do with less in these times and government should be no exception. Even though this message is coming from Canadians, the government is not listening. Instead it has actually increased its spending in its first two budgets. This includes substantial increases in its interest spending. The government keeps borrowing money and having to increase spending on interest but it decreases spending on some other things for which we would rather pay.

The Reform approach in dealing with the main estimates for the human resources department was to propose modest 5 per cent reduction in the operating expenses of the various programs under this department. Instead the human resources estimates propose significant increases in spending. This is interesting because it is at a time when the services being delivered by these programs are being significantly cut back to Canadians.

For example, we know that pensions are going to be cut back sometime. That has been announced. We are not sure when or what. We know that unemployment benefits are being cut back. The budget said a minimum of 10 per cent but it could be more than that. We know that health care is being cut back under the Liberal budget. We know that tuition fees are rising because

there is less money available for post-secondary education. The list goes on.

During the time when these benefits and services to Canadians are being cut back significantly, the department that delivers them, instead of getting leaner and more efficient, is increasing its spending significantly.

Reform felt that in fairness to Canadians who were having to take less from this department that the least the department could do would be to operate on at least 5 per cent less money than it asked for from Parliament.

Unfortunately the modest decrease in operating funds of 5 per cent which we proposed was voted down by the Liberal majority on the committee and interestingly by the Bloc members on the committee. In committee the Bloc members did not support even a 5 per cent decrease in spending but in the House they want a $1.3 billion decrease. We find that quite interesting.

Reform proposed a very realistic 5 per cent cut to operating expenditures. This would have been an important first step and one which the government could have and should have been able to live with.

Instead the government is pushing through the votes in the main estimates without even the kind of public scrutiny that we should be able to expect as Canadians from a massive spending program by government. These estimates are being put through without the members of Parliament who hold a majority being able to decrease that spending by even $1.

Whatever government departments ask for, whatever the bureaucrats propose, is what they are being given. Is that any way to show accountability to Canadians? We were elected to oversee the spending of their money as carefully and prudently as possible. No. Whatever is put forward, we just put it through. We will see this later on today. There will be not one vote that will diminish the spending estimates put forward by government departments by even $1. That is not accountability. It certainly does not hold the civil service accountable for the kind of spending they are supposed to be doing of Canadians' money.

This spending affects every Canadian from St. John's to Victoria. We should be looking very carefully at how that goes forward.

Even the Bloc motion on vote 10 that we are debating right now is being countered with a government motion to boost the spending in the area of grants and contributions right back up to where it started. This is in spite of all attempts to give the matter serious consideration.

The Reform Party in February released a budget which we believe the country should operate by. It was called the taxpayers budget. This budget was a direct result of input from our party members at the grassroots level right across the country. What ordinary Canadians were calling for and what was reflected in our budget were reductions to the bloated and inefficient programs, especially funding for special interest groups such as the ones that are funded under the motion we are debating at the moment.

Reformers spoke out loud and clear in this area of government money for special interest groups. We supported cuts in these particular areas and our support is solid.

Also in the taxpayers' budget Reformers were clear that areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as training programs, should not be intruded upon by the federal government. In that one area we agree with our friends from the Bloc and their opposition to some of these requisitions for money that really should not be allocated by the federal government but should be left to the provinces as the Constitution provides.

Many of the grants and contributions in this motion are dealing with services which are the responsibility of provinces. That should be acknowledged and respected.

The Reform plan consisted of a formula for dealing with grants and contributions depending on whether they were provided for businesses or special interest groups. We believe contributions to businesses should be cut on a formula of 100 per cent cuts and that the funding for special interest groups should also be cut 100 per cent. That is our formula.

Let us now look at some of the specific expenditures that are covered under this motion. Part III of the human resources main estimates breaks funding down with vague descriptions only, such as "grants to improve employability and to promote employment opportunities". These are broken down further into what the department calls partnerships. It calls for labour market adjustments-it is scary for the labour market to think that good old government is making adjustments on its behalf-and what the department calls community development projects.

Money from this area is supposedly to be used at the local level to create jobs. The problem is that the expenditure of this money often creates no real long term sustainable jobs at all. They create only artificial jobs or jobs that last only long enough to give an individual enough weeks of work to qualify for unemployment insurance, of course calling for more funding and more money from the government department that started them on this nice cycle in the first place.

These are the sorts of make work projects the government prides itself on, instead of allowing the private sector to energize our economy. This government acknowledges openly

that long term sustainable jobs are created by business, particularly small and medium sized businesses. Instead of allowing these people to keep the money they generate and get on with the job, government spends lavishly and in order to fund that it has to take money out of the pockets of these businesses, which therefore drives us further into debt and stifles the kind of private enterprise that would provide jobs in this country.

The taxes that support the kind of spending we are talking about today are job killers. That is what is happening in our economy. Governments are scooping so much out of it, draining so much out, taking so much out of the pockets of people who are trying to keep the economy going that the economy is suffering and reeling from the shock of this kind of government spending.

The future in getting Canadians back to work is to have a country where companies can hire with minimum amounts of red tape, pay lower taxes than they currently do, have less government tinkering in their affairs, and also have businesses that are able to utilize a workforce that is not dependent on government make work projects.

The economics of the situation is simple. The money the government spends for projects to supposedly increase jobs could be much better spent. It has to come from somewhere. In this case the somewhere is from investors, Canada savings bonds, treasury bills and Government of Canada bonds. When Canadians and foreigners buy those instruments they are really loaning our government money. In order for the government to pay them back for these instruments and pay interest as well it has to tax individuals and companies.

Now the cycle has gone so far that the government is actually borrowing money to pay interest on money it previously borrowed. That is why we are in such trouble. The end result is these so-called make work projects are actually paid for with borrowed money. This is not a healthy situation. It creates a shaky economy and we are seeing signs of that today.

The recovery everybody talked about last year is showing signs of slipping. The robust profit growth of Canadian corporations, private companies that create jobs in this country, slowed in the first quarter of 1995. Operating profits grew by a mere 1.9 per cent in the first quarter, compared with over 10 per cent in the first quarter of 1994. That is a significant, incredible change and downturn. Economic activity also slowed in the first quarter, as the gross domestic product dropped 0.7 per cent in March after a 0.2 per cent drop in February.

There are some real signs the government tinkering in the economy, taking money out of the hands of business people, entrepreneurs and investors, is simply destabilizing the situation, not helping it. Governments cannot run an economy but can only help make it possible for an economy to operate in a healthy way.

Also covered under this motion are grants paid out under the Atlantic groundfish strategy, or TAGS. Over $164 million was allocated to the TAGS program, to be spent over five years. The Minister of Human Resources Development touted this program as being the new face of social programs in Canada.

We have heard many examples of how TAGS has failed in its quest to be a training program and a program to move people from failing industries into healthy ones. This has evolved into simply another income support program. Not only is it creating additional dependency in an area that certainly does not need that and where there is already a lack of hope for viability in the economic sector, but the training part of those funds, the funds that were supposed to be given to people to train them for jobs in healthy labour industries, is now simply being diverted into more income support.

In fact, 80 per cent of the funds for this five-year program have already been spent in the first year. For the remaining four years we have only 20 per cent of those funds left. We also know that a great amount of these funds, we do not know how much, is going to people who are already earning more than a good living in other fisheries activities, such as snow crab fishing.

This is an area that needs to be re-examined. This is a spending area that is not working. There is room for reductions that would be not only not a hardship for people but would actually benefit the economy, because this kind of tinkering simply hurts it instead of helps it.

Also under this motion is about $1 billion of spending on payments to facilitate the efficient functioning of the Canadian labour market. Who better to tell the Canadian labour market how to be efficient than a very efficient government?

It seems to me that if we would leave that $1 billion in the hands of entrepreneurs, business people and investors, that would do more to help the Canadian labour market operate efficiently than anything the government could ever do to teach it to operate better. That would be the best investment we could make: simply let the people who know how to be efficient get on with the job, rather than taking their money and having it inefficiently allocated by bureaucrats, politicians, and grant recipients.

This brings us to another component of the Reform Party's principles that we have been urging the government to follow when it talks about ways to spend better on the social side and stimulate the economy. This is the whole idea of effectiveness in government. It is not too much for Canadians to ask that their government provide them with this fundamental right, the right to have an efficient, effective government. Careless spending by this government and others before it has not been helpful, to say the least. It has put our country in over $500 billion worth of debt and it has left us with a country with a spending problem.

That is why so much funding being provided in all these areas we are talking about has had very dubious results.

We believe that Canadians simply are not getting value for their money. Canadians themselves believe that. In a recent poll published at the end of last week in the Financial Post , a large majority of Canadians really felt they were paying too much in taxes and they were even willing to take illegal measures to avoid paying tax because they felt that governments were wasteful, corrupt, inefficient, that programs were not giving value, and that the money they were giving to government was not giving them bang for the buck. It was not worth the money they were giving up in taxes for what they were getting back. They did not believe the management of it was prudent.

When a large proportion of Canadians say openly to pollsters that their tax dollars are being squandered in a way they do not approve of and are not prepared to support and when their tax dollars produce very little positive result and only lead to unnecessary dependency on the part of many Canadians, then it is time for governments to sit up and take notice, to stop spending that money, stop wasting that money, and to demand less of the taxpayer and more efficiency from government departments.

What we have in this whole business of the estimates is government simply saying to departments: "Spend whatever you want. Spend more on your operations, because we do not expect you to do more with less, like other Canadians". This is why we cannot support the government motion on grants and contributions being put forward today.

Bringing spending under control by cuts in grants and contributions is one way to return the country to a healthy, competitive identity that will let us stand proudly on the threshold of the next millennium.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the hon. member's comments in relation to the TAGS program in Atlantic Canada.

I understand her concerns, but it is important that she realize that the process of retraining people who have been working in the fishing industry, which has been so devastated in the last few years by the failure of the cod, for example, and other aspects of the fishery, and trying to institute a program whereby you help people retrain and build them toward the possibility of working in other areas is not an overnight process.

I am not at all surprised that there have been problems and that the training programs have not succeeded greatly in getting people into other industries. If there is someone who has perhaps worked always on fishing boats or in a fish plant and has maybe grade five or grade ten education, they cannot be turned overnight into someone who will to be prospering in the information age. It is a long process and it takes a lot of effort and a lot of investment. It cannot be done overnight.

There seems to be a theory in the Reform Party that says let us cut them off and they will find something else. That is an interesting theory. It may work if they are in British Columbia. There is enough happening in some parts of the country, to some degree at least, so that there are other opportunities. In Atlantic Canada there are some opportunities, but there are not the kinds of opportunities that are going to deal with that kind of situation.

If people who have been fishing all their lives or working in fish plants cutting fish are cut off instantly from all kinds of government support, from the TAGS program for example, then they will not instantly get into a situation where they are to be out there if they have no support. They do not have the money to go west to find a job. If they get out there, what job are they going to take? What would you retrain them for? How long would it take to train a person in that situation to get a prosperous, successful job in a modern economy?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, but I am not sure why anyone who suggests prudent spending on these programs can be accused of wanting to cut people off. That is a rather extreme interpretation of what I said about spending the money in ways that really benefit people, in a prudent manner, in a defensible manner, in a way that is accountable to the people who should be able to count on these moneys to do some good.

What do we have under this TAGS program? We have snow crab fishermen who make over $200,000 a year being given extra money from a program that should be benefiting the people who are trying to get out of devastated industries. We have people who have perfectly good jobs in fish processing plants saying: "This is an easier program. This is easy money. Why do we not just quit working and go on this program? We are able to do it".

Will that be helping people? No, it is not helping the people in need. It is wasting money that should be helping people in need. It is the waste and the inefficiency and the ineffectiveness we are talking about, and we are trying to get the government to correct this.

This money was supposed to train people to get out of devastated industries and find jobs somewhere else. As this member rightly says, we should try to help them. What is happening? The money that was supposed to go to training people is now going into income support for people, many of whom do not even need that money and should not be entitled to the money.

Yes, we should be trying to help people if we can. When we have a program that is clearly being mismanaged and ineffectively administered, is helping people who do not need help and not helping people who do, and which has not yet created one long term job for anybody on the program, it should be criticized not just by members in the opposition but by the hon. member who comes from that part of the country where people are outraged. The government is taking money that could and should be helping and it is instead being totally wasted.

That kind of help cannot take effect over night. Any sensible person realizes that. When there is instance after instance where the program is being mismanaged and wasted and not helping people, then we should all be on our feet demanding to know why, demanding accountability of the department and saying on behalf of the people get it right, get it right now.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on what my colleague from Calgary North said regarding our public responsibilities, including the fact that programs would no longer be efficient if they came directly under provincial jurisdiction.

There is some discrepancy in what she said. She just stated how important it was to fund training. She also mentioned that with its motion, the Bloc Quebecois was refusing, so to speak, any cuts, especially to the Department of Human Resources Development for the unemployment insurance program.

Since the unemployment insurance fund is showing a surplus, why not allocate this money, which belongs to the workers and the employers, the very same employers who are clamouring for top notch skilled workers-which is what the Bloc's amendment is all about-to training and programs specially aimed at employees and employers, or even give it to the provinces, which are in the best position to use it efficiently? How can she draw a parallel between the Bloc Quebecois not wanting to cut and its wish to train employees and employers?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing up that subject. I know it is near and dear to the movers of the motion and the Bloc.

Just because money is being managed by the provinces does not mean it is being managed more effectively. A number of provinces have a very dismal fiscal record of management. That should be honestly addressed.

It is sometimes hypocritical for representations to be made that somehow provinces which are deeply in debt and have some fiscal problems criticize other levels of government.

What I did acknowledge is some of the services and activities were constitutionally put within provincial jurisdiction. They are with in the purview of the provinces and that should be respected. We do have a Constitution. We did have an agreement on these services and it should be respected.

I agree with my hon. colleague when he suggests UI contribution funds should be managed by the workers and employers. He is on the right track. These people are paying the shot and they should be calling the tune. It makes sense and it is perfectly logical.

He is correct when he says services should be delivered on a level closer to the worker. It is more accountable to workers, more responsive to workers, more sensitive to the needs on the local level, and we get away from these one size fits all, mother government knows everything programs. I certainly support his proposal that expenditure of funds for job training and education of workers would be better managed on that level than it is being managed today.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.

Opportunities, growth, jobs, balance, honesty, fairness, vision, responsibility, consultation and compassion; we ran on those words in the last federal election campaign and the government has delivered on those words during the last two years. The Minister of Finance has delivered on those words in the budget. We made commitments to Canadians in the red book. We are keeping those commitments in these estimates.

Canadians told us they wanted deficit reduction with no increase in personal income taxes. The deficit is going down and for the second year in a row there has been no increase in personal income taxes.

Canadians have told us to cut spending. For every dollar raised in new revenues the government has cut $7 in spending. The government is launching the largest restructuring of government spending since the end of the second world war.

In contrast to the recommendations of the Reform Party the government is not simply slashing spending across the board. The government will not choke off growth. It will not throw the country back into a recession.

The government has carefully rethought the role and structure of the federal government. The redesign of the federal government launched by the program review is reflected in the esti-

mates and will result in a smaller and smarter government. Government can no longer be all things to all people.

The program review looked at all areas of government spending with the exception of major transfers to persons and major transfers to provinces. All the programs were reviewed under the following criteria: did the program serve the public interest? Did it involve a necessary role for government? Was it affordable and could the private sector or the provinces do it better?

As a result of the review the government is reducing subsidies to businesses and agriculture. Many government services will be commercialised where practical. The government can no longer afford to intervene directly in the economy. The government from now on must concentrate on creating the best possible economic framework in which the private sector can create jobs.

Canadians told us to revamp our social programs to meet today's needs but to make sure that we respected our heritage of social justice. The government has embarked on a program which will do just that.

The Canada social transfer is not an abandonment of national standards, as some have argued. This transfer will provide more flexibility to the provinces. It will allow them to experiment and find the best way to deliver social programs and reduce administrative costs.

The conditions of the Canada Health Act, universality, comprehensiveness, accessibility, portability and public administration, will be maintained. The government will be working with the provinces to develop a set of shared principles that will underline the Canada social transfer.

The Ontario New Democratic Party has suggested the federal government has abandoned the promises it made in the red book. This is not true. In the 1994 estimates every key commitment in the red book was funded. This year's estimates have maintained the government's commitments. The government will maintain the health of our social programs while getting the deficit under control.

As promised in the red book, the government has begun to bring the deficit under control while at the same time funding the national infrastructure program, cutting unnecessary defence spending, introducing gun control legislation, reforming the Young Offenders Act, establishing a national crime prevention council, taking action to address foreign overfishing, promoting trade with Latin America and Asia.

It is establishing a youth service corps, restoring literacy funding, establishing a national form on health, introducing parliamentary reform to give MPs more influence, introducing legislation to make lobbying more fair and open, reinstating the residential rehabilitation assistance program, establishing a prenatal nutrition program, beginning an aboriginal head start program, establishing a centre of excellence for women's health, restoring the court challenges program, restoring the law reform commission, eliminating, downsizing and privatizing government agencies, boards and commissions.

The government delivered a tough but fair budget. It has spread the cost of deficit reduction evenly across the country. Despite the claims of some Ontario provincial politicians, Ontario did not receive more than its share of cuts.

The government has started Canada on the path to economic renewal, social reform and fiscal responsibility. The government has not solved every problem but it has started in the right direction.

The Prime Minister remarked repeatedly during the last election that a Liberal government would offer Canadians realistic hope. That is the hallmark of the Prime Minister's approach to government and that is the hallmark of the budget.

If we are to offer hope we must introduce programs which will encourage job creation in the short term, in the medium term and in the long term. If we are to be realistic we have to make choices.

I know some people were not happy with the choices made by the government. However, after extensive consultations the government made the tough choices that best reflect the priority of Canadians. For example, if we are to find money to fund research on diseases affecting women or spend money on badly needed infrastructure then tough choices have to be made.

The government is taking steps to ensure our social programs are maintained. Many seniors in my riding of Hamilton Mountain are concerned about the future of their pensions. The government will be releasing a discussion paper on the future of the pension system later this year. The government intends to make the pension system fairer and more sustainable in the long term.

I have spoken to many students in my riding who are concerned about their future prospects. The government is taking steps to improve the employment prospects of today's students. The best means of improving employment opportunities of young people is to provide them with practical experience and job skills. The new youth services corps and internship programs sponsored by the federal government will provide students with the experience and skills they need to succeed in today's job market.

Many people have expressed concern about the changes to the unemployment insurance program. I assure Canadians the Liberal government recognizes the importance of the unemployment insurance program. The government's aim is to allow people to become independent, to increase help for those in

really desperate circumstances. The government's goal is to find the maximum dollars to put people back to work.

Many of my constituents have expressed their concerns over Canada's crime rate. In recognition of Canadians' concern about public safety, the smallest reductions in spending were made in departments dedicated to justice and corrections. The government is willing to spend the money necessary to ensure the safety of all Canadians.

Our goal is to create opportunities for all Canadians from all regions, from all backgrounds and from all walks of life to make the most of their own lives and to help our country seize the future.

In the budget and in other initiatives the government has created the opportunity for us all to seize the future together through growth, jobs, balance, honesty, fairness, vision, responsibility and compassion.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I note the member's commitment to the red book and to deficit reduction is in accordance with what is perceived to be the policy of the government.

Page 20 of the red book, which the member was so willing to put her emphasis on, states there will be a 15 per cent decrease in spending on special services by the government should the Liberals win the election, and they did. However, there has been a $300 million increase in the estimates as proposed.

How does the member reconcile the red book commitment to a 15 per cent reduction compared with a $300 million increase? Is she prepared to vote against these increases when they come up for a vote later today?

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the cost of everything has gone up but I still think the cuts we have made so far in the budget and in the government's spending over the last two years are the toughest since the second world war. We have reached the goals we promised Canadians through our red book.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain concerning the estimates. She detailed everything from students to seniors and talked about specific programs.

I have been asking many questions since coming to the House concerning small business and what assistance it is receiving in order to create jobs and get people off unemployment and into jobs. Maybe the member for Hamilton Mountain could expand on that and on how we are going to help small business to get people back to work, where they really want to be.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. member for St. Catharines gives me the opportunity to discuss another important government initiative, the proposed changes to the Federal Business Development Bank.

The changes in that bank are an example of the government's commitment to promote small business growth, innovation and job creation. Many people in small business have told us over the last two years that they have a lot of problems with the banks in negotiating, refinancing and getting new money for their small businesses.

The minister responsible has decided he needs to make some changes directly to the Federal Business Development Bank. These changes have been made as the result of a comprehensive small business policy that was developed in 1994. This institution will expand its operations thereby ensuring its programs and services meet the changing needs of small business today. This institution will be given a revised mandate to develop and deliver innovative responses to small business financing and managerial needs. Small businesses in all the ridings across Canada have expressed the need for this.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for this member as I do for all of the members on the government side. With all of this talk about cuts, cuts, cuts, why is the total government expenditure up by $2 billion this year over last year? There is an inconsistency here.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member knows that the interest costs have gone up considerably. We have been consulting with Canadians and we are spending in the areas where they feel spending is necessary in the next few years.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker,

For my colleagues who do not understand Inuktitut, I will elaborate.

I am pleased to rise today to speak on the government's 1995-96 main estimates. When the government was elected one and one-half years ago, we said we would do things differently and we are doing things differently.

The government's main estimates for this fiscal year reflect a tough budget but a necessary budget. They also reflect the results of the program review announced in the 1994 budget. The purpose of the program review was to ensure the government's diminished resources are directed to the highest priority requirements and to those areas where the federal government is best placed to deliver services.

The government is clarifying its responsibilities. We are also reshaping federal government programs so we spend less but provide the best possible service to Canadians within the limits of need and affordability.

We are restraining spending, streamlining operations and changing what government does and how its programs are delivered. We are committed to reducing the deficit and meeting our fiscal targets. We are committed to improving the economic climate so more jobs can be created.

We are focusing on the essential responsibilities: reducing federal and provincial overlap; using technology to become more efficient; promoting self-reliance; recovering more of our costs; and merging programs which are similar in nature for more efficiency. Tough decisions have been made and more tough decisions will be made.

Public sector jobs have been cut. Some programs are being amalgamated; some programs have been cut and some have been eliminated. For the remaining programs and services, the government is seeking new and cost effective ways to deliver them. Because we have to live within our means, we must get rid of inefficient or ineffective programs so we can focus our energies where they are most needed.

I want to stress that the government is committed to ensuring that Canada's most needy do not bear the brunt of deficit reduction measures.

Among the most needy Canadians are the aboriginal people. It is a fact that the socioeconomic conditions in most Indian and Inuit communities are the poorest in the country. The government is committed to assisting aboriginal peoples to overcome the disparities in living conditions with other Canadians.

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been impacted by the budget and program review but not as much as other departments. DIAND positions will be reduced from 300 from the 1995-96 base of 3,237. The reductions will occur at all levels of the department. This is in addition to 442 positions eliminated in 1994-95.

The northern affairs program will be reduced by $15 million over the next three years. Regional economic development programming will be reduced in 1995 one year ahead of its original sunset date. I have to say that the cut to regional economic development programming is a painful one for the north. To create the jobs and opportunities the north needs, economic development is crucial. We have to keep working in this area to further northern development.

Social housing is another area of great need in the north. The last Conservative budget eliminated funding for new social housing construction. So far financial reality has prevented a major reversal of that budget's impact on social housing.

I continue to be deeply concerned about the poor housing conditions in the Nunatsiaq riding and throughout the north. I know that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is also concerned as is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I will continue to encourage the government to do what it can to help resolve the north's housing problems.

The budget and main estimates for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development confirm that DIAND will maintain its core roles and responsibilities to Indian and Inuit people, such as education and social assistance. Increases to the Indian and Inuit programs will provide funding for basic services such as elementary and secondary education, social services, construction and maintenance of schools and infrastructure such as water and sewage improvement.

Overall however in light of the government's serious fiscal situation, DIAND's funding will be moderated. It will increase, but not as much as in previous years. Funding for Indian and Inuit programming will increase 6 per cent in 1995-96 and 3 per cent in 1996-97 and 1997-98. The moderated growth is a balance between the need to make changes to reduce the deficit and the need to protect those who need assistance most.

There should be no misunderstanding on this point. The aboriginal people of Canada are the poorest people of Canada. The aboriginal population is also Canada's fastest growing population. The aboriginal population is growing at more than twice the rate of the Canadian population.

The aboriginal population is also a very young population. Over 40 per cent are under the age of 25 and the need for housing, education, and social services are great. While improvements have been made over the years in community conditions and individual circumstances, the fact remains as I said earlier that aboriginal social and economic conditions still remain significantly below those of other Canadians.

There is still much work to be done. This government will not abandon aboriginal people. We are continuing to work on the fair and expeditious settlement of land claims. We are investing additional funds in post-secondary education. Education and economic wherewithal through a secure land and resources base are necessary tools for jobs and development and for building healthier and stronger communities.

The government will work with aboriginal people and all Canadians to improve our financial situation, to create opportunities and jobs and build a stronger country.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Nunatsiaq. Interestingly enough, there are Crees and Inuit in my riding also and I represent them.

His speech made me wonder about something and, since he is part of the government, maybe he can give me an answer. Transportation subsidies for food and goods destined for the Crees and Inuit, and, in his case, the Inuit in the Northwest Territories, will not increase; some cuts are even planned. There is a high birth rate in those communities; how can these people feed their children adequately?

Transportation subsidies are frozen and since food is often brought in by plane, families go without fresh produce, children do not get the fruits and vegetables necessary to their development. As a member of Parliament, can he explain how his people will find the money necessary for their own development?

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

I thank the member for the question. Because of the riding he represents, the hon. member is as aware as I am of the high cost of food in the north.

I have been assigned the task of looking at the food mail program. I am to report back to the minister of Indian and northern affairs and the Minister of Health by the fall. I will be assisted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health who probably knows more about the nutritional values of fruits and vegetables, et cetera, than I do. I know the nutritional values of meat. If anyone wants to know about the nutritional values of meat, I can expound on that.

When I was sitting on the other side of the House the government of the day decided to slash that program, to eliminate it over a period of years. There was a cut in the last year but I think it is being sustained until the review is finished.

I assure the member that during the review we want to see how we can improve it. I will be seeking the member's comments on this. We know that money is very hard to come by today, but we want to see how we can improve the program so that we can stretch it out further to the people who have the highest cost of living anywhere in Canada and perhaps anywhere in the world.

I am sure members have heard me expound on the high cost of food in the north. A litre of milk costs $5 and a loaf of bread costs $3.95. There has to be a way to reflect the needs of the people in the north on how best to ensure that they get nutritional food.

As the hon. member is well aware, and we have been expounding on it, the north has to be considered at the same level as the west, the east or central Canada. Therefore the services the people in the west and the east are used to should be available in the north, whether food or other services such as those of doctors, nurses, teachers and so on.

I thank the hon. member. I will be seeking his comments as well, because of the area he represents, on how to improve the particular problem.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware that over the last 20 years spending through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has increased by some 750 per cent, yet conditions in the communities that native people live in have essentially remained the same?

Is the hon. member aware that within the last four years DIAND has committed $1 billion toward native economic development? The auditor general's report last year clearly shows that the effect of that spending has been absolutely negligible in terms of its desired goals. In other words, the demand for social services continues to rise on a steady trend, the unemployment levels continue to rise on a steady trend, and the demand for social assistance increases in real dollar terms. This massive spending by the federal government has been an abject failure.

Would the hon. member agree that maybe it is time to review what the goals of the spending programs of DIAND were designed to do, whether or not they are actually achieving the goals, and whether the whole initiative the federal government has been engaged in for the last 25 years has been completely wrongheaded?

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly agree the situation is any worse since we have come to power. I should know. I go to my riding as much as I can and I go to other

aboriginal areas in Canada. There is still a lot of work to be done but conditions have been improving on reserves.

I refer to the comments we got from Chief Ralph Caribou of Pukatawagan, Manitoba:

I am very happy to report that the skin problems amongst our people have decreased considerably this spring.

That is because of the water and sewage program introduced in Pukatawagan. Conditions are improving. There is a lot of work to be done and we are doing it.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, as official opposition critic for youth and training, to talk about the motion introduced by my colleague for Mercier and dealing with the Department of Human Resources Development estimates, more particularly with employment services.

The first thing I would like to say is that grants and contributions under the employment and insurance program are presented in a misleading manner. Looking at pages 12.6 and 12.7 of the main estimates, you might think that grants and contributions to the program have increased from $1,281,552,000 in 1994-1995 to $1,354,381,000 in 1995-1996.

However, the total of grants and contributions for 1995-1996 includes grants to individuals under the Atlantic groundfish strategy, as well as contributions to provincial governments for the older worker adjustment program which were not there previously. The same amount for 1994-1995 does not include these grants and contributions and that explains the increase from one year to the next.

If you take these two items in consideration for both years, the total of grants and contributions decreases from $1,614,444,000 in 1994-1995 to $1,354,381,000 in 1995-1996. It is therefore a decrease of $260 million or about 16 per cent. The most important cuts are in the employment programs and in the Atlantic groundfish strategy.

We are particularly interested in the cuts in the employment programs. As the auditor general has often said, the departmental expenditure plans are more a way of hiding things than of informing people. The Department of Human Resources Development is more guilty than others in that regard, since it is presenting the information in a confusing and incomplete way.

When the time comes to collect taxes, the federal government is very clear. But when it has to explain what it does with the money, all of a sudden, everything is obscure.

Table 6, on page 2-24, shows that Quebec is not receiving enough of the employment programs' funds. According to these statistics, Quebec gets, in fact, 21 per cent of the federal funds in that field, when it accounts for 24 per cent of the Canadian population.

The Department's estimated manpower training spending, funded by the unemployment insurance fund, should reach about $1.9 billion in 1995, $521 million of which is for Quebec, which represents, in this case, a little more than its share of the Canadian population, that is 27.4 per cent of the total spending.

Since, in 1995, the regular benefits in Quebec cost $3.4 billion out of a total for Canada of $10.3 billion, which amounts to 33 per cent of the total, Quebec stands to lose $113 million.

Moreover, the federal government perpetuates duplication and overlap by putting in place new programs, such as the youth service corps and the young trainee program. It shows clearly that Ottawa does not want to get out of that area of provincial jurisdiction. As well, the federal government tried to interfere in the area of education last fall by creating the fund for initiatives in the acquisition of knowledge and the office of learning technologies.

Even if the federal government is hiding its intervention by avoiding the word "education", it is precisely in that field of provincial jurisdiction that it wants to intervene more and more actively, as we can see from the new initiatives.

Speaking of figures, I would have liked to dwell more on the resources given to young Canadians, but I must say that getting those numbers is not easy. I am not talking about what was announced in a press release, for example, when the minister made public a certain number of initiatives last year. They were implemented later on, but we could not get the figures and details on where these services are offered and how much money was spent.

We were unable to get the figures for this year and last, although we asked for them on several occasions; we even asked the minister when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. We can wonder why budget estimates concerning programs related to youth initiatives are not included in the government's estimates. Yet, they involve expenditures of several millions. This is also true in other areas of the department.

Thus last year we had to call each and every manpower centre in Quebec to ask for the amounts of money available for manpower development programs in the whole of Quebec because there was no breakdown of this information by province.

A few weeks ago, at the Human Resources Development Committee, I also asked senior officials about cuts in the amounts allocated to education support. There is a $262 million reduction from 1994-95 to 1995-96. Again last week we were

told that we would get the answer a little later because all the information had not been compiled.

Is the answer so complicated that the minister, his staff and his high officials are not able to give us an answer? Or is it because they have something to hide? If public servants cannot cope, why cut 5,000 jobs at Human Resources Development, a department which is precisely committed to finding jobs for those who are out of work, the unemployed and welfare recipients? We could also ask why new structures like the Youth Service Corps are created if we are about to close manpower centres?

In Quebec the minister says that the decision has not been taken. Yet, all employees presently working in Labour Canada centres already know that there will be a reduction in the number of manpower centres in Quebec. The number of regional centres is expected to drop from 100 to 30. This is not very encouraging for people who would like to receive employment services from the Department of Human Resources Development.

The department is cutting its spending, but is also cutting grants to organizations dedicated to employment development, particularly among young people. In the last two years, a 15 per cent cut has been announced. Yet, these organizations had a placement rate of 75 per cent, which is significantly higher than many government services. What happened?

Contracts are for one year only, and we saw recently, at the end of the fiscal year, that the minister delayed giving an answer for the current year, with the result that, in some cases, it took two weeks to get an answer for the current year, with a warning that, this time, the contract would end on March 31. So, this suggested that further cuts might be made in the next budget. Of course, such cuts were announced in the budget. This suggests that further cuts will be made, beyond this 15 per cent.

Meanwhile, as the government wants to make cuts to manpower centres in Canada and has already announced some cuts in the positions of counsellors, the very people who are there to help the unemployed find jobs, as it is cutting grants to organizations dedicated to employment development, particularly among young people, by 15 per cent, last year, it set up a new program called the youth service corps. I want to remind people that this is a new name given to a previous program, killed by the Conservatives when they took office, which was called Katimavik. This program seemed to be very dear to Senator Jacques Hébert, whose hunger strike conducted on that issue was extensively commented on by the media.

Katimavik was re-established under the new name of youth service corps, but for what purposes? Occupational activities for youngsters like cleaning river banks, community projects, some travelling. In the meantime, very productive organisations providing help to people looking for a job had their budget cut.

Some are very clever when playing with numbers. For example, the minister told us not long ago that larger amounts of money were invested in the creation of summer jobs for students. It is always the same thing. He gets this result by adding data from the summer component of the young Canada works program and from the challenge program, which now has a new name. By compiling these data, he is able to claim that we spend as much and maybe more than last year on summer jobs for young people, although Young Canada Works is intended for much younger people and is offering activities which have nothing to do with any future occupation.

As I just demonstrated, in the area of social programs, the government tried to give less money, provide fewer services, and allocate fewer resources to help people find jobs. What is even more serious, however, is that the government-despite trying to blame the situation on its efforts to reduce the deficit and repay the debt, which will soon reach $548 billion-is pursuing another strategy that is totally inconsistent with this. It is trying to interfere to a greater extent in areas of provincial jurisdiction, as it did yesterday by passing Bill C-76.

In addition to implementing some budget provisions, Bill C-76 allows the government not only to maintain health care standards but also to set new national standards in education and job training.

I am talking about the bill that was passed yesterday, but we saw it coming as early as last year, when the government clearly stated in its first budget its intention of moving in this direction. Besides the government, there are the advisory committees such as the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, which, in its report submitted to the Prime Minister in May 1994, states that it is imperative that national standards of excellence be set with regard to the acquisition of skills and knowledge essential to good economic performance. After recently reading this little known report and checking with this advisory board, we realized that this study was done at the request of the Prime Minister's office.

Since federal funding for education comes mainly from the Human Resources Development Department, one would have expected this issue to be referred to the committee responsible for this department, on which I sit, or another related committee. Instead, it falls to an advisory committee on science and technology to examine the issue, at the Prime Minister's specific request.

If this report was completed in May 1994, this means that it was in preparation for a number of weeks or months before that. It is obvious that, almost as soon as it came to power, the new

government had the clear intention of interfering further in the area of education.

I recognize two government members who were on the team assigned to travel across Canada. They noticed, as I did, and this is a fact, that as far as national standards on education and other matters are concerned, throughout Canada except Quebec, and more in Alberta than anywhere else, people expected the federal government to step in because they were getting the feeling that their provincial government was going to the dogs and starting to cut social programs. I realized that, in the rest of Canada, Canadians did not care as much as we do about the fact that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over certain areas, such as education, health and social assistance.

However, in Quebec, the committee was able to see that it was just the opposite. Because of our distinctiveness, culture and history, because we are a nation, we want education to remain under provincial jurisdiction in Quebec.

The rest of Canada may change its views on social programs or education if it pleases, but we want to manage all of that ourselves. Since World War II, the federal government has been using its spending power, its power to collect taxes and redistribute funds in the areas I just mentioned: health and education in particular. It dips in the pockets of every taxpayer in Canada, including Quebec, to pay for that.

We demand our share, there is nothing wrong with that. Ideally, you know, tax points should be transferred to us. This is what we want. Quebec's National Assembly is unanimous in requesting this. Our claims began not even under the PQ government, but under the previous Liberal government. On many occasions, we asked for all our tax points for education and for job training.

I spoke about youth unemployment. We must not forget that more than 400,000 Canadians under 24 are presently unemployed. In Quebec, where 18 per cent of young people in this age group are unemployed, the situation is particularly worrisome. Add to that people on welfare. After last year's budget, unemployment rates have gone down, but because of cuts in the UI program, there are few additional jobs available.

That is why the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce voted yesterday against his own government, claiming that social programs are being destroyed. Referring to his long experience in the House, he said that the proposals were completely contrary to what was done under Trudeau and Pearson. Everything they did was destroyed in two years. He opposed the measures with good reason.

I am not of those who encourage parliamentary dissent, but in view of the reasons given by the hon. member, I think that it is worth mentioning.

Unemployment insurance cuts are being made in three ways: by extending the eligibility period, by shortening the benefit period, and by reducing the benefit rate. More and more unemployed can no longer claim UI benefits and are forced on to the welfare rolls.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to mention a particular case in my riding, which reflects the unemployment situation and which we have not heard from in quite a while. I am referring to the MIL Davie shipyard. Two years ago, 3,000 people were working at that shipyard which, like Saint John Shipbuilding, used to build frigates, military vessels. However, the number of orders has dropped since the end of the cold war.

As you know, during the election campaign, the government now in office promised "jobs, jobs, jobs". Yet, the figures show that there are no more jobs now than before. Moreover, a large number of existing jobs are not secure. Young people and women seeking to rejoin the labour force are the two groups most affected by this situation.

What happened to the shipyard? Nothing. The federal government indirectly gave $30 million to the Magdalen Islands shipping company for a used vessel. The Quebec government decided to do something and have a new vessel built, so as to create a number of jobs.

However, it is terrible to see 3,000 people in a riding like mine suddenly lose their jobs. Yet, since the local Canada manpower centre, along with Quebec, set up a reclassification committee, the unemployment data for the Quebec City region were not overly affected. There was a 0.4 per cent increase over a one year period. So the unemployment rate went from 12.4 per cent, in 1994, to 12.8 per cent this year.

MIL Davie workers were affected by the UI cuts. In Quebec, and that includes the Quebec City region, an additional 31,000 people are on the welfare rolls because of the cuts to the UI program.

I know that some questions will follow. This will give me an opportunity to conclude.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite mentioned that two fellow members of the human resources development standing committee are in the House. This reminds me of last November or December when our committee held hearings in 27 cities. I mention 27 cities to my hon. friend because some of us visited different cities. We held hearings in 27 cities in 35 days in 10 provinces and 2 territories, including

the eastern Arctic. If anyone thought that was a complete holiday I would ask them to try to do the same thing.

My hon. colleague reminded me of the evenings. I especially remember one evening that involved a 45-minute trip from the airport in Sudbury to the hotel. It was cold and snowing but we had the most beautiful Christmas carols with a bilingual rendition supplied by the hon. member and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister who is here now beside me. This bilingual rendition of "Silent Night" should have been cut on a CD. I am sure our sales would have been very high.

We got along very well most of the time. The hon. member tells us that HRD is closing down employment centres across the country and there will be less points from which people can get services. I wonder if the hon. member has been listening to the minister who is always so prompt and efficient in telling about the future.

There will be more centres for information, more access points in Canada than ever before. Kiosks will be set up. Canadians will get better service than they have ever had before.

The hon. member mentioned the government is cutting back on bureaucrats and on civil servants. Does the hon. member not have confidence in the dedicated civil servants who will do a great job to take up the challenge to provide the best services possible to all Canadians?

The hon. member might realize that during those hearings in Quebec, as in all parts of Canada, there was one thing the people asked of us. They wanted hope and to see a light for the future. They wanted jobs and a chance to get back into mainstream Canada. They wanted their self-esteem to be improved. They wanted opportunities.

I recognize my colleague as having a lot of talent, but would the hon. gentleman focus on getting our fellow Canadians back to work rather than trying to tear the country apart?

With the talents that are sitting here opposite us, what a difference we could make if we did not spend hours and days and months trying to destroy what our forefathers have put together.

I dare say that if you go out on the streets of your home town or I do in my home town, our citizens have nothing against each other. They would like to live in peace and harmony and be able to feel that we are part of this one great country.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, who is a fellow member of the Committee on human resources development, is right to recall something that happened at Christmas time. Members of different parties sang together. This shows, on our part at any rate, that our intention is not to fight against individuals, against other Canadians, because we do not dislike them, we do like them, even though some are even more likable than others. We like them a lot and we feel that some of them do like us too.

That is not the problem. The problem is with the system, a two tier system, a federal system that might be suitable for the rest of Canada, but not for Quebecers. Even though you do like us, even though we keep repeating the same things to you, you do not understand how important it is for us to manage the areas of provincial jurisdiction mentioned in the constitution, like education. Yet everything was spelled out in this contract concluded in 1867 between the two founding peoples which had agreed upon that.

You know very well that since World War II, the federal government, through its spending power, has been interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and Quebec resents that. Yes, we are a different people, even though we do like you. This is not about fighting each other. That is why the Bloc Quebecois has stressed the need to maintain an economic union with the rest of Canada, and to propose such a union.

As for the management of public finances, and our taxes, as for what we feel is important to us like education and job training, we would like to manage that by ourselves. We are telling you again. You do like us, but you do not understand. If the minister or his predecessors understood or cared to give the impression they understand, the problem would easily be solved. The government could take the funds earmarked for occupational training, give tax points to Quebec, and set national standards for the rest of Canada.

We are not trying to paralyse the rest of Canada. We simply want to use the powers that were granted to us in 1867. Those are Quebec's historical demands.

The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is well aware of that, since he is from Quebec. All Quebec governments, including the Liberal government of which his brother was a member, demanded that tax points for occupational training be handed over. He should understand. He knows what this is all about. But there is the party line. The party line held fast despite all the demonstrations witnessed by my two honourable colleagues who sat on the human resources development committee. Yesterday, they voted with the government on Bill C-76 implementing the budget, despite all they had seen and heard, like tables being overturned in Montreal, and demonstrations in Vancouver.

I went to 23 of the 27 cities you mentioned, and you know perfectly well that there were demonstrations in all of them. People do not want cuts in social programs. They say our deficit and our debt are not due to social programs, and that the roots of the problem are to be found elsewhere, particularly in our tax system.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before resuming debate, I remind the hon. members that they should always address the Chair.

I remind colleagues on both sides of the House to make all your interventions through the Chair and not directly to one another. Maybe not today, but in another debate on another day it could be very useful that we follow the best parliamentary traditions of this House.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak in support of full supply for the 1995-96 main estimates.

In the preparation of these main estimates, the government made not only the tough spending and program choices necessary to meet its fiscal targets; equally important, it has taken steps to ensure that control over spending becomes a permanent feature in the management of the government's programs.

As announced by the President of the Treasury Board on February 15, 1995, a new expenditure management system, EMS, is being implemented. This represents the most significant overhaul of the government's expenditure system since the early 1980s.

EMS is a system designed to ensure that we keep spending under control and provide the best programs and services possible within the resources available. Among its key features, EMS emphasizes the ongoing review of programs and managing through reallocations. This is significant because new initiatives as well as most cost increases in existing programs will be financed through reallocation from lower priority programs.

The central policy reserves, which were traditionally a source of funds for new initiatives and did not encourage the ongoing review of existing programs, are being eliminated. A contingency reserve will continue to cover the risk of statutory expenditures exceeding their projections. It would be used, for example, to respond to changing economic conditions. In addition, the Treasury Board will continue to manage a small operating reserve. However, the role of the reserve will be altered from funder to banker. Departments borrowing from the operating reserve will have to repay advances with interest in future years.

In addition, in cases where reallocation is not feasible priorities for access to the operating reserve have been established. In considering requests priority will be given to funding bridge financing projects that offer significant productivity payback, meeting urgent health and safety requirements and protecting the essential integrity of critical programs and the capital asset base.

To ensure that we stay on track and reduce the deficit and meet our fiscal targets program planning will become more closely integrated with the budget planning process. Decisions on new initiatives and major spending reallocations required to finance these new initiatives will generally occur during the annual preparation of the budget.

The establishment of program review and resource allocation as an integral part of the budget process means that the opportunities to propose new spending will be reduced. Ministers are called upon to manage within the resource limits of their respective portfolios.

The government recognizes that funding through reallocation of resources calls for a more strategic approach to resource management at all levels. For this reason, the EMS requires the preparation of departmental business plans. In these business plans, departments are responsible for determining how existing programs must be changed to meet expenditure targets and new government priorities.

The multi-year time frame of business plans will encourage departments to look ahead and examine the major directions and objectives that should be pursued for the planning period, which is the estimates year plus two future years at a minimum.

A major focus of the business plan is the identification of strategies to bring about the major changes and adjustments that are needed. Other elements include the goals, targets, and performance measures that will be used to assess program results and performance information concerning areas affected by the significant changes.

In addition, it is important to note that the business plans take an integrated approach to the management of change by examining all functions that are central to the department in making business adjustments, whether they be financial, human, technological, or capital. Business plans will help departments and central agencies plan in an organized and methodical way to make the adjustments required to get government right during a time of rapid reductions in resources. Furthermore, these plans will enhance the information available to Treasury Board ministers. Decisions on Treasury Board submissions will be made in the context of strategic perspective and clear business direction for each department and agency.

Members of the House of Commons will also be able to review the overall thrust of departmental programs over a multi-year period. In February 1994 the government introduced changes to our Standing Orders of the House of Commons, including Standing Order 81(7), which states:

When main estimates are referred to a standing committee, the committee shall also be empowered to consider and report upon the expenditure plans and priorities in future fiscal years of the departments and agencies whose main estimates are before it.

To assist members of the standing committees in carrying out their responsibility to consider and report on departmental expenditure trends and priorities for future fiscal years, ministers will provide the departmental outlook document directly to the chairpersons of the respective standing committees.

The departmental outlooks are based on the results of the business planning process. They will describe management and operational strategies departments intend to pursue over a multi-year time frame in order to make whatever fiscal and policy adjustments are necessary to deliver government services.

I am confident that parliamentarians will have a better perspective on the issues facing the government and the downstream implications of government spending as a result of the introduction of departmental outlook documents. Departmental outlooks are one example of the government's efforts to improve information available to all parliamentarians on government programs.

The government is also striving to enhance the performance information that is provided to Parliament. In recent years departments and agencies have been developing service standards in order to advise the clients of government programs what level of service they can expect in terms of timeliness, accessibility, reliability and responsiveness, and what action to take if service does not meet these standards. All departments and agencies will have developed standards for their primary services by the end of 1995. The publication of departmental performance in relation to these standards has already begun.

With the expenditure management system parliamentarians have an opportunity to become fully engaged in expenditure planning. Consultation with Parliament is in fact one of the guiding principles of this approach. Parliamentarians will be able to support ministers and their departmental officials in their efforts to reallocate resources and meet our target of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product by 1996-97.

The government will be consulting us on important initiatives designed to provide better information to Parliament while enhancing the accountability and flexibility of departments in managing their resources. In particular, I would draw your attention to the reform of the estimates currently under consideration. The introduction of departmental outlook documents emphasizes the need to rationalize reporting to Parliament. The current form and context of part III of the estimates and the departmental expenditure plans were derived from information needs defined by parliamentarians over a decade ago. Parliamentarians should now take the time to comment fully on how reporting to Parliament could be improved. The question to consider is how does the government ensure that the part IIIs meet the information requirement of parliamentarians today without placing an undue reporting burden on departments or agencies.

In addition to part IIIs, the reform of the estimates will focus on a number of related issues where changes may be introduced to create flexibilities and incentives for departments to manage their resource requirements through reallocation. The option of increasing the vote threshold for separate capital expenditures, grants, and contribution votes is a good example of the changes being considered in the context of the reform of the estimates.

The current threshold of $5 million was established in consultation with the standing committee on public accounts during the 1970 reform of the estimates. Over the past 25 years the number of separate votes has increased, in part simply as a result of inflation. To expand managers' flexibility to reallocate resources we should consider increasing the threshold at least to a level that would take into account the impact of inflation on capital expenditures, grants, and contributions.

A related option being examined is the possibility of establishing an operating budget vote. Minor capital expenditures are considered to be part of the operating budget. However, for departments and agencies with separate operating and capital votes minor capital expenditures are included in the capital votes. An operating budget vote would allow managers to use the full flexibility of the operating budget to transfer funds between minor capital, operating, and personnel expenditures.

In summary, the new expenditure management system will provide for ongoing review of programs and spending to reduce expenditures and identify opportunities for reallocation to higher priority programs. It includes parliamentary and public input into the budgetary process. It introduces better strategic planning and a process for adjustment programs and services through the implementation of departmental business plans. It also improves accountability through a focus on making better performance information available to Parliament and the public.

I remind members the overhaul of the expenditure management system formalizes the approach the government has taken to decision making on spending, namely financing, through reallocation. It is a major step forward in fostering greater fiscal responsibility and making the best use of taxpayers' money in delivering high quality service to all Canadians.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the talk from the hon. member about the new expenditure management system. I think there are, at least potentially, some innovative and good ideas from the government. It remains to be seen how that will be played out in the actual budgetary process. At least on paper there seems to be

some hope and optimism for improvement of the budgetary management system. For that we should all be grateful.

I am wondering if the member would comment on what we are doing tonight, working late on the estimates. It seems to me one other improvement to the system could be that instead of voting on the whole sum of the estimates, to vote on a reduction in the estimates. In other words, if we wanted to reduce the estimate by a million dollars, we vote on the reduction rather than voting on the whole block sum, which means we either have zero expenditures or the entire sum the minister would like.

I wonder if he thinks the estimates procedure would have more validity with the Canadian public by allowing some input at the end of the process instead of only at the beginning of the budgetary expenditure process he talked about. Does he think that is a good idea?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for noting that a number of ideas and proposals have been tabled by the government with regard to the expenditure management system, many of which I outlined in my comments.

We are working late. We expect the debate will carry on until 10 p.m. We have votes following that. I understand there are some 63 votes.

The House through its co-operative approach to House business has adopted a new approach to deal with the votes members take here. The other evening we did manage to get through some 19 votes in a very short time. That is the kind of example that bodes well for the suggestion the member has made that possibly the entire process of the estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board could be streamlined so that we could put some focus on those areas, particularly where changes, adjustment or reductions are being proposed by hon. members, and that the debate be focused on those items.

That is a productive approach and I encourage all members to make that input in the House and directly to the President of the Treasury Board. I am sure productive suggestions such as that will get very careful consideration.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. member who described briefly the management control system the government is trying to set up.

Indeed, this is an issue that concerns all hon. members. As elected representatives, we wonder how to regain control over the bureaucracy, to get more leeway in our dealings with the public servants and, especially, to be advised in a more timely manner of the decisions that need to be made. How are we to explain the difference between the commitments made by the current government when it took office and the very few achievements it has made since then and the results it got, especially in terms of job creation, if not by pointing out the influence of the federal bureaucrats?

I would like to know if the hon. member would, in order to show that the government is acting in good faith, be in favour of implementing the new management system right away in two specific instances, the first being the following. Some decisions found in this year's budget will only come into effect in 1997-1998. For example, the experimental farm in La Pocatière will be closed on or before March 31, 1997. Under these circumstances, could it be possible to review this decision during the new prebudget consultation process, so that if we were to realize that the decision is wrong, we could try to convince the government to reconsider?

To conclude, I would like to give you another example which deals with the reorganization of the employment centres. As a sign of good faith, could the government refer the reform proposal prepared by its bureaucrats to the hon. members, so that they could express their views on it before the decision comes into effect?