Mr. Speaker, today we debate the main estimates of the government. Later on we will vote on the main estimates. I doubt very much we will see any changes in the main estimates and therefore one has to wonder
what on earth we are trying to accomplish by a debate such as this when the government stonewalled at every opportunity to decrease the estimates by even one dollar.
The House will be asked later on today to vote on over $48 billion of spending, which has been reduced by the interim supply passed in April. This represents the new spending requested by the government. The $48 billion is in addition to the $116.2 billion in statutory spending already authorized by previous acts of Parliament. That brings the total spending to $164.2 billion. I always thought we were in an era of deficit reduction, spending reduction, and yet it continues to increase.
In the past the House simply rubber stamped requests for spending by the government. I think in this day and age when we should have deficit reduction, we should have spending reduction, when it is paramount that we insist we get value for every dollar spent by the government, we should take the estimate process seriously.
Not since the 1972-1974 Parliament have we seen any cuts in spending. During the last 21 years governments have completely and absolutely stonewalled any opportunity by the opposition to reduce spending. That is why the spending was out of control over the last number of years.
In 1972 there were two reductions allowed, one for $19,000 from a grant and $1,000 from the president of the CBC's salary because there was a problem with the president at that point. One millionth of 1 per cent reduction was allowed.
Today as we debate the spending of $164.2 billion in expenditures surely in the House and in committees, which have spent many hours this year debating the estimates, examining the estimates, we would have found some reasonable reductions. We feel we have.
These motions have been put on the floor. We will find out whether this government is prepared to listen to this House and the Canadians who pay these taxes. We will see if the government is prepared to make some adjustments. I have my doubts and I have my reservations. However, we must wait and see.
I think it is time the government allowed Parliament to do its job to examine, make recommendations and approve the spending not rubber stamp, approve. Check it out, call the witnesses, listen to the justifications, find out if it is reasonable. That is all we are asking.
We are asked to approve. Therefore we should be entitled to have that type of insight into the estimates. Once we have that, if we find out there is room for reduction then surely it would be the honourable thing for this government to listen to the recommendations of these committees and approve the reductions.
The committees are all deemed to have reported to this House. They have agreed in many instances that the reductions put forth are reasonable, rational, and quite appropriate. What have they done? They defeated the motions. This government again is stonewalling and saying they will not tolerate any reduction in the estimates. It is a farce that has to change.
It is time the government stopped hiding behind this excuse of confidence. We look at history and see that it has been recommended that this confidence be weakened and reduced. There is the McGrath report of 1985, the public accounts committee of 1988, and the House management committee of 1993. Take a look at what they have said over the years.
Remember the rules of the House are largely based on the Parliament in London, England. The McGrath report said that from 1972 to 1979 there were 65 defeats of government measures in the British House, and this was not the end of responsible government. The government did not cease to govern. It was simply forced to modify or abandon some of its policies in deference to the House. That is all we are asking here. Surely that is not too much to ask. The British Parliament has recognized that. When the House speaks and requests a reduction in the expenditures, surely this House, which draws upon the rules and the experience of the House in London, should defer to the wishes of the people who sit here and recognize some reductions.
Recent British experience makes it clear that at present, losing a vote, even on a financial measure, is not automatically a matter of non-confidence entailing either the resignation of the government or the dissolution of the Commons. Remember this is from the contents of the McGrath report that was tabled in this House in June 1985. I am talking about the Canadian perception of what is happening in London, England. I am not just drawing upon their experience specifically.
A minority government of Pierre Trudeau lost 8 of the 81 recorded votes between 1972 and 1974. Setting aside the vote of May 8, 1974, which brought down the government, four of the lost votes were on government bills, two were on motions pertaining to parliamentary committees, and one was on a supply item, specifically on a supplementary estimate of $19,000 for Information Canada.
That is exactly what we are debating today, reductions in supply. In 1974 that reduction in supply was approved and the government did not fall. Yet today the government argues that confidence prevents them from reducing the estimates. We have them speaking out of both sides of their mouths. It was a Liberal government back then that accepted a reduction in supply.
The Liberal government today has promised open, transparent, competent leadership and a balanced budget some time down the road, with a reduction in the deficit to $25 billion in the first three years. That government sits here today and refuses to
accept even one dollar's worth of reduction, even though the Liberal precedent recognizes that it can be done.
The minority government of Lester Pearson lost three votes, again another Liberal government. Two were on appeals on rulings made by the Speaker. The third came on February 19, 1968, and ended with the defeat at third reading of Bill C-193, respecting income tax. This vote was regarded sufficiently serious to require the government to introduce a motion to the effect that the House did not consider its vote of February 19 as a vote of non-confidence in the government. This motion was passed, after debate, on February 28.
When the government loses an important vote, as it did on that vote in 1968, the government does not fall. It went on to introduce a motion of non-confidence and the government survived that vote. That is exactly what the Reform Party proposes as part of opening up the democratic process so that we can have freer and more open votes in the House and we can speak and demonstrate the will of the Canadian people.
If perchance we defeat a motion being proposed by the government, then we do not suggest that the government fall but that it be followed by a vote of non-confidence. If the government survives that vote, then the government shall remain in power. It is fairly simple, fairly clear and it allows this House to do its job.
Instead we make a mockery of democracy. We sit here in committee, we sit here in opposition, and we put forth motions. We debate them in committee and we hear from the government side that these are appropriate, they are reasonable, they are rational, they are legitimate. What happens? The answer is no.
The time has come to change. These are the types of things the Reform Party, as a matter of principle, speaking for Canadians, says. We hear what Canadians are saying. The government side is not prepared to listen. It stays with the old story of stonewalling all the way and saying that it is a matter of confidence when they find that its members agree with us that there are reductions available. Yet nothing is done.
We will see this evening if the government is brave enough to allow Parliament to do its job or if it will hide behind some outdated notion of confidence.
Before us at this time we have a motion prompted by the member for Mercier. It is to eliminate the funding for vote 10 in the human resources department, which is the grants and contributions under the employment and insurance program.
The largest single grant in vote 10 is for $1,049,905,000. That is for payments to facilitate the efficient functioning of the Canadian labour market. It is kind of fuzzy, but there it is. To be more specific, over $1 billion is being spent on payments to provinces, territories, municipalities, and other public bodies, organizations, groups, communities, employers, and individuals-nobody is left out-for the provision of training and/or work experience, the mobilization of community resources and human resource planning and adjustment measures necessary for the efficient functioning of the Canadian labour market.
It is very specific. Nothing was left out. This is a very ambiguous justification for $1 billion on that: broadly based, nobody is excluded, let us spend a billion dollars; anybody can come up with a program; let us approve it. When we talk about trying to create work, create jobs, get people back to work and we are going to spend $1 billion in this fuzzy and unclear way, then surely it is time that we expressed an opinion, that this government listen to it, that we work together in harmony to achieve some real reductions in spending and go on to balance our budget.
In part III of the estimates for Human Resources Development Canada we find that it says "support for the program review exercise by contributing to the deficit reduction and continued negotiations", and so on. That statement goes on to say that the focus is to reduce expenditures. Yet we find out that they are actually going up. These types of things we have called into question.
If the government truly wants to contribute to deficit reduction then it should begin by making some serious reductions in its spending, cuts in the range of 25 per cent to the grants and contributions. Overall, the human resources development that this vote pertains to has spending increases this year from $32.827 billion to $33.547 billion, and that is on top of the statutory spending, which we will not even be voting on today. Vote 10 has increased from $1.281 billion to $1.321 billion.
Also in part III, on page 258, we take a look at the government's real efforts to manage the department and reduce expenditures. On the personnel requirements, when we went through it comparing the actuals from 1993, just before the government took office, to its estimates today for 1995-96, personnel requirements have changed by the massive number of just under 80. The government reduced it from 19,479 to 19,392 people, a reduction of 87 people.
This is where the government is trying to say it will balance the budget in a very short period of time and it will give value for money to Canadians.
We take a look at the personnel requirements and we see that it has taken from the lower salary scales. It has taken 44 people out of clerical and regulatory, where the average salary is $27,000.
It has taken 45 people out of program administration, where the average salary is $41,000. Yet when we move up into the area of economic, sociology, and statistics, where the average salary is over $57,000, we see an increase in numbers. When we take a look at the executive category, where the average salary is $79,000, again we see an increase in numbers.
These are the types of things we questioned in committee. Yet what did we find? Stonewall. It cannot be changed. Why? I do not know why. I ask the government why.
When we take a look at page 258, on goods and services, again we find that comparing the actual 1993-94, where the spending was $264.097 million, it has gone up to $319.997 million, an increase of about $55 million. We ask why. We get the answer from the witnesses and the senior bureaucrats who have come before our committee. We make recommendations. Is this justified? Can that be justified? Is there a good reason for these increases? When we find there is not and we make the recommendations for the cuts, what do we find? They stonewall.
That is why we feel a mockery is made out of the estimates process. That is why this Liberal government, with its commitments to good government, transparency, responsibility, open government, and a clear way to manage this country, has fallen far short of its responsibilities. Its broken promises litter the floor with the way it has taken every promise in the red book, ignored them, and passed them over in favour of what the government would consider pragmatic government.
We are looking for responsible government. We are looking for principled government where the government lives up to what it promises. That surely is not too much to ask. That is why we are saying confidence on the estimates must go. If the government feels threatened by a defeat on any particular motion then let it be followed by a motion of non-confidence. If it survives that non-confidence, then there is no threat.
If we could introduce that as a matter of policy then the opposition and the government could work together to ensure that the Canadian taxpayer gets value for money on the $165 billion that we spend on their behalf. This is what we are asking for and it is what Canadians expect.