Debates of June 7th, 1995

Motions For Papers

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of motions for concurrence in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996.

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

Today being the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 31, 1996, the House will proceed as usual to the consideration and passage of a supply bill.

In view of the recent practices, do the hon. members agree that this bill be now distributed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Vote 10, in the amount of $1,329,481,000 under Human Resources Development-Employment and Immigration-Employment and Insurance Program-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, while it is normal practice that I would remain after my remarks on the matter to hear the initial

presentation of the opposition, another meeting requires that I leave after I make my presentation and answer questions and comments.

I will initially speak to the notice of opposition to Motion No. 1 as placed by the hon. member for Mercier and will deal with the substance of the expenditure recommended in the main estimates on that item. Also in the course of my remarks I will get into some general comments about the estimates.

We have 59 opposed motions with respect to the estimates today that we will have completed by ten o'clock this evening.

With respect to Motion No. 1 which deals with vote 10 in the amount of approximately $1.3 billion for the Department of Human Resources Development, this specifically being for employment and insurance program grants and contributions, I would ask that this allocation be concurred in.

Most members of the House will support the view that the employment and insurance program is one of the key elements in the federal government's social and economic development efforts. The program is comprised of three major activities: employment, unemployment insurance, and Canada employment centre management and joint services.

In the fiscal year 1995-96 it will be a transition year for the program as the department completes the integration of various components that came together with the creation of the new department.

The employment and insurance program develops and supports productive utilization of labour market resources in Canada while respecting the principles of equity in employment and ensuring the protection of public funds to promote the effective and efficient functioning of the Canadian labour market.

The main goal of the employment activity is to provide Canada's social security system with the capability to help people get back to work and the dignity that work brings to Canadians.

The activities and overall orientation have been redesigned to accommodate such tasks as increased focus on youth along with offers of increased planning and management responsibilities made to provinces and territories.

The objective of the unemployment insurance activity is to promote economic growth and flexibility by providing temporary income support to unemployed workers who qualify for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act without placing an unnecessary burden on individuals, on groups or on regions of the country.

The vote affected by the motion before us is in the federal government's main vehicle for delivery of employment development services to Canadians who are out of work and not eligible for the unemployment insurance benefits of development youth initiatives.

The federal government payments from this vote will be used to assist Atlantic fishermen. They will be used to assist youth, aboriginals and other Canadians seeking to improve their job readiness and to enhance their ability to secure steady and productive employment.

Specifically the payments in the hands of the recipients are directed toward self-employment assistance, mobility assistance, job training and income support while awaiting training or not.

Funding provided from the vote represents the federal government's commitment to its belief that it has a role in manpower training within Canada and its efforts to work closely with provinces and territories to eliminate overlap and duplication in the area of manpower training.

I should like at this point to turn to some more general reasons as to why we should have the support of the House with respect to the main estimates for the current fiscal year, which I initially tabled in the House on February 28.

The main point I want to make is that Canadians want an efficient, responsible, and affordable government.

The 1995-96 main estimates help deliver just that by reinforcing the approach taken in the February budget to reduce spending and to reshape the role of the federal government.

Canadians support the budget in part because it is aimed at refocusing government on the key priorities and key needs of Canadians. It is about getting government right.

The estimates lay out planned spending department by department, program by program. They reflect tough choices on spending on programs the government has had to make to meet its fiscal targets, to get its fiscal house in order.

The main estimates detail in 80 separate volumes $164.2 billion in total planned budgetary expenditures for this fiscal year. This includes $116.2 billion under existing legislation and $48 billion in expenditures for which we are seeking parliamentary authority.

Why should we have members' approval for these expenditures? Because we have acted decisively to reduce the size of government as a result of the budget review process. Because we have rationalized the activities and programs we should deliver

and those that should be delivered by other levels of government or perhaps by the private sector or through partnerships. Because we must deliver quality services to Canadians that they need and quality services that they can afford.

Altogether, the estimates include $2.3 billion of the total $4.1 billion in expenditure reductions announced in the budget. They could not reflect the impact of legislative proposals to cut spending. They must indicate the reality of legislation that exists at that particular point in time. Nor do they include all the revenues to come from new cost recovery initiatives. As they are fleshed out and as they are further developed then of course they will become part of the process.

Nevertheless, they give a very good description of the government's expenditure plans and priorities. Canadians want affordable government. Canadians want us to deal with priorities. Canadians want us to provide efficient and effective programs.

Program review looked at our program expenditures and our services. That process has helped us to bring the size of government down by almost 20 per cent over the next three year period.

I would like to talk about how we carried out this review which was innovative and required a change in the approach by ministers and departments. I believe it has proven to this point to be very effective. We asked departments to review every one of their programs and activities and to check them against a series of tests. Members may have heard of the tests before but I think they bear repeating.

Some of the questions were what is the department's key role? What are the services that must be provided to people to here and abroad? What must be done by the federal government that cannot be done better by another level of government or perhaps by the private sector? Of the services that should continue to be provided by the federal government, which ones are being carried out efficiently and which ones are affordable?

As a result of program review and these various tests, we were able to collectively make the difficult decisions that were set out in the February budget. By 1997-98, in three years, departmental spending subject to the program review will decline by some 19 per cent relevant to the 1994-95 fiscal year.

Looking at this from a departmental perspective, each department has had to pinpoint areas best served by the private sector or other levels of government. The departments have had to focus on their key responsibilities to decide what businesses they are in and what they can no longer afford to provide. They are examining how technology can make their operations more efficient. I believe that technology can be an enabler to help our public service in the provision of more effective services.

We are moving away from direct subsidies to business and putting more emphasis on repayable contributions. Departments are moving ahead on ways to recover costs of certain government services from those who benefit most directly. They are also merging similar types of programs to create greater efficiency.

I mentioned earlier that we want to deliver effective and responsible government that Canadians can afford. The expenditure management system will help us to do that. The revamped system which I announced in February of this year will help departments manage within available resources. It requires them to review their programs and spending continuously and to reallocate resources to meet changing priorities, not further adding to the tax burden.

The system we have put in place will help the government make responsible spending decisions by delivering the programs and services that Canadians need and that Canadians can afford. It also promotes a business planning approach that allows departments to focus on making changes to programs and lines of business to meet budget targets. It also provides flexibility to ministers and departments to help them manage within approved resources. The system will also help establish a more effective way of accounting for program results.

Performance measurements. It will do so by requiring the government to deliver better and more timely information on program performance to Parliament. We are making the system far more results oriented.

This spring for the first time reports called "Departmental Outlooks" are providing parliamentary committees with information on the future year expenditure plans and priorities of departments. Very clearly this is bringing all members of Parliament into the process far beyond what has been the case up until this government took office.

This report provides committee members with the context for consideration of the Main Estimates.

As this is the first year for the outlooks, I am looking forward to seeing how the committees put the new information to use. My understanding is the reports are being well received by committee members and have been discussed as part of this year's review of the estimates.

I am aware that at least one hon. member opposite has questioned why the dollar figures for the main estimates I tabled on February 28 are not identical to those announced by the hon.

Minister of Finance in the February budget. I will he happy to explain that for the benefit of hon. members opposite.

As I mentioned earlier, the main estimates cannot incorporate any budget measures that require the legislative approval of the House. Likewise, the budget includes planned spending for which Parliament's authority will be sought later this year in supplementary estimates, once program details are fully developed and approved. Also, some budget decisions were made too late to be reflected in the estimates documents that had to go to press. Members will know that the estimates were filed the day after the budget was presented in the House.

These are only three examples of the many technical reasons that the estimates and the budget figures differ, as they do every year. This is a normal situation because of the legislative restrictions.

I want to assure hon. members that we have the internal controls under the authority of the Financial Administration Act needed to achieve the full savings announced in the budget. The information hon. members are seeking will be set out in the public accounts. This report and not the estimates is where members can expect to reconcile the planned expenditures laid out in the budget with actual departmental expenditures.

Reducing the public service was not an objective of program review. It soon became clear however that changes of this scope would require reductions in the size of the federal workforce. As a result, we developed a program of options to help departments deal with the planned reductions and to help affected employees make a successful transition from the public sector. We intend to treat all of our employees fairly and reasonably.

These options include the early retirement incentive and the early departure incentive programs. Our goal in introducing these and other transition measures, for example training and counselling measures, is to be fair to the taxpayer as well as to the affected federal employees. I believe that the programs we have put in place to carry out the downsizing have balanced these objectives.

I am enthusiastic about the prospects of a smaller, more effective and more affordable government. I believe we can develop a government and a public service that will have a greater sense of satisfaction for employees, for the customers they serve and for the taxpayers that we all serve.

I suggest that members of the House should support our request for full supply in the 1995-96 estimates because the estimates reflect strong decisive action that meets our fiscal targets. They prove our commitment to being fiscally responsible by providing quality services to Canadians that Canadians need and that Canadians can afford.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech has given me further incentive to voice my objections to the vote in the amount of $1,329,481,000 under Employment Insurance Program, money that is part of the Human Resources Investment Fund, since the hon. member just said that these estimates were the result of a program review by the federal government and concluded that they represented the most effective use of these moneys for all Canadians.

It would be appropriate to say at this point that, on all these policies for manpower and employment development, embodied in the estimates before the House today, in Quebec at least there is a consensus. The people of Quebec, through its representatives, wants these policies to be the responsibility of Quebec.

When we held our hearings on social programs reform, we heard the Association des manufacturiers du Québec-this was in December 1994-say the following in its presentation: "Such measures mainly involve vocational training programs, apprenticeship programs, direct job creation programs and work force adjustment programs". The Association des manufacturiers du Québec made it clear that these proactive measures should be the responsibility of the provincial government, in their comments on patriating federal budgets for manpower development to Quebec.

The labour unions were just as emphatic. They said that by initiating this debate on social programs reform, the government confirmed their apprehensions about the constitutional aspect, in other words, the present team in Ottawa was led by a consuming desire to make Canada a strongly centralized country. This objective, which was apparent throughout Minister Axworthy's Green Paper, was diametrically opposed to the reigning consensus in Quebec and, contrary to the designs of the federal government, members of the CEQ, the CSN and the FTQ firmly believed that only full and complete recovery by the Government of Quebec of control over all economic, social and cultural instruments would create an environment that was conducive to developing the full potential of Quebec society.

After these comments by the Association des manufacturiers du Québec and the labour unions, I need hardly recall that this abiding desire to control manpower training and, even more so, job development and job readiness training, has been manifest throughout Quebec's history. When the minister tells us that these estimates are the best expression of the effectiveness of the decisions that Ottawa can make, I would like to say, with respect, that as far as Quebec is concerned, he is wrong.

The G-7 summit, soon to convene in Halifax, confirms the apprehensions of Quebec about the central government's desire for further centralization.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member is engaging in debate and this is actually the time for questions and comments. We are not all going to get a chance to question the President of the Treasury Board. Therefore, I ask that she limit her remarks to comments on his speech and a question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not think the hon. member was in the House when I asked if there were any questions or comments. At that time nobody rose so we went to debate. The hon. member is now speaking on debate.

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

I apologize if I missed that, Mr. Speaker.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague cannot give me back my momentum.

The G-7 meeting in Halifax confirms our fear that the federal government intands to centralize further. The G-7, which includes the word's most industrialized nations, is concerned about education and job development. We understand this to be the current trend of centralized countries, and this is why we feel these votes must be controlled. The reason for our speaking out against the votes this afternoon is to say, in the only way this Parliament allows and on the budget, what we could not say during consideration of Bill C-76, which is that, as far as Quebec is concerned, at least, others may agree, the votes available should be transferred to Quebec as tax credits.

Why? For greater efficiency. The Conseil du patronat and the labour congresses are saying what they are saying, simply because Quebecers are a distinct people and Quebec is a distinct society with its own approach to its development. Its labour market is also distinct. And in the case of this measure, the only way to ensure efficient use of the rare public funds available for employment training, skills development and job development, the various job readiness programs is for them to be integrated. The key word is "integration".

The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development was concerned about integration for Canada as a whole. I think integration is what they are after and I can understand why, for the rest of Canada, it would be considered efficient to run it out of Ottawa. I respect this decision, because it is historically based. I submit, however, that differences in labour markets will mean integration will have to take these differences into account. In the case of Quebec, however, efficiency dictates the integration of all programs.

Last week's women's march evocatively known as the "bread and roses" march illustrated the need for integrated employment training policies. Why? The clientele of job development or job readiness program training are either welfare recipients or people who have never had benefits of any sort-women who have been at home and have to join the labour force, young people and people receiving UI benefits. The clientele is varied and, with the unresolved jurisdiction problem, we feel the only solution is for Quebec to have full control, even though elsewhere in Canada Ottawa has full control.

The only way to be effective and to ensure this integration, to provide these people with the services that they need, whether they are welfare recipients or unemployment insurance beneficiaries or whether they never received any benefit, is to have an integrated system. As things now stand, however, that is impossible. Who is paying for this? The hon. members opposite? Us? No, ordinary Canadians, the people who have some needs.

This is why we are saying that there is only one way, in this sector, to be efficient. As federalist Liberal ministers from Quebec have said, we must agree that the manpower development policy must be the responsibility of Quebec and that the necessary funds and tax points be transferred to Quebec.

We are again faced with the problem of people who are falling through the cracks in the system, as we saw with the Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi program. There were different types of clients, and the minister claimed that he had to put an end to the subsidy. This does not make any sense. Nor does it make any sense that we were not able to put forward an amendment to correct the situation, to have a debate and a vote on this issue. It makes no sense whatsoever that we should constantly have to plead, that we should be unable to control all the government funds to better serve the public.

I must add that within this budget, money going to job stimulation and employability has been reduced. We can question the fact that the money that will help people to get back to work, if it is used as effectively as is claimed, has been reduced. We can question that.

Yet, we can question even more that the money once taken from the consolidated revenue fund is, increasingly, being replaced by money taken from the unemployment insurance account. It is unacceptable to use the unemployment insurance account as a cash cow. It is important to point out that not all workers pay unemployment insurance premiums, but only those whose maximum earnings are $40,000. I will check the figure. Anyone who works extra hours does not pay more that the maximum contribution limit. Therefore, it is in the employer's interest to hire people to work long hours.

Therefore, middle income and upper income workers are the ones who pay unemployment insurance premiums. Companies

with a lot of workers, those that have less equipment and use less technology than others and give work to more people also pay unemployment insurance premiums. Those companies that hire the most people pay the most in unemployment insurance premiums. So, it is the workers and the companies that pay for unemployment insurance.

Is it normal, and we mentioned that in the minority report we issued with the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, that workers and companies, through the unemployment insurance account, pay more for job stimulation, for employability? The government is drawing more and more on this account, and is withdrawing from contributions to the general fund. It means that workers and companies paying unemployment insurance premiums are doubly hit, doubly penalized.

The whole of society is desperately in need of such jobs-while taxes collected by governments are ever increasing-since a more healthy economy increases the general level of wealth. In addition, it is not the government nor the taxpayers as a whole, but the workers themselves who pay for that.

The minister who, a while ago, made the important point that appropriations do not provide for everything mentioned in the budget, should perhaps answer the following question: When will appropriations and governmental spending reflect the additional $700 million in cuts to unemployment insurance?

As a matter of fact, the government announced in the throne speech that an additional $700 million in cuts or 10 per cent of the total contributions, in cuts would be made to unemployment insurance as of July 1996, which means that the year after, additional cuts will amount to $1.5 billion. We fail to see where the $700 million will come from, in the appropriations. Highly arbitrary decisions will be made without due consideration. We are told that this is the way things are done, but this is not really the right way.

The minister said earlier that the government had to make tough choices. In the case of employment development, which should be a key concern for a government that was elected on a "jobs, jobs, jobs" platform, we see that, on the contrary, the amounts from general funding have been reduced.

Yet, the new human resources investment fund, which is mentioned in the budget speech but does not appear in the estimates and which includes the appropriations I am referring to, has applications that come directly under provincial jurisdiction. According to a discussion paper distributed across Canada as part of the consultations on social program reform, the possibility of using the UI fund in a more flexible way in order to provide Canadians with better employment assistance will be considered.

In my opinion, the government's intention with respect to this human resources investment fund is to use UI reform to fulfil that mandate. What does it say? "Greater emphasis on employment development services". "Greater emphasis" requires more money. "For example, initial needs assessment, counselling services, literacy and basic skills training, on-the-job training and experience, child care services and income supplements". Most of these functions currently come under provincial jurisdiction. It goes on to say, "The Minister of Human Resources Development will define program parameters in the coming months". It is that simple. The minister has full discretion.

The intention reflected in this appropriation, the budget and government action is that, far from being prepared to give back to Quebec what belonged to it in the first place, namely control over job development and manpower as a whole, the central government has set out to dip into the unemployment insurance fund to invest more money directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

In our view, this is unacceptable because it goes not only against the very essence of the distinctness, the uniqueness of Quebec as a people and a nation within Canada, but also against the most basic rules of efficiency, that the people of Quebec have been demanding in strong terms.

Let me remind you that those who need this money, these programs the most include, and there may be more, the 342,000 families on welfare and 320,000 jobless people in Quebec.

The sad truth is that, on the contrary, and I want to emphasize this as strongly as possible, this appropriation which, according to the minister, was reviewed on the basis of efficiency reflects a stubborn and deliberate failure to recognize the basic needs of ordinary people. Such an attitude tells many Quebecers that there is no time to lose, the situation has become so urgent that we can no longer afford to come and plead in this place, year after year, for those who are in the greatest need.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mercier referred to the control of manpower training. She mentioned in her speech that she wants that control to be a provincial responsibility.

I have a question for the hon. member. Let us assume for a moment that the responsibility for manpower training is left to the provinces. Here, in the national capital region, over 30,000 people come from Quebec to work in Ontario, and vice versa. We often see the need for national standards on training provided to employees. Would the hon. member agree to the development of national standards by all the provinces working together?

Workers in Quebec could decide to work in Alberta, or vice versa, since they would all have received the same training. This would promote manpower mobility from province to province.

Would the hon. member agree to the implementation of such standards?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that suggestion is very different from what I said in my speech. Quebec wants to control its manpower policy. It will try to harmonize it when it is in the workers' interests to do so, and not just with the rest of Canada, but also with the United States. Many people who work in the U.S. for a while, and then come back home. The same situation exists in Quebec.

We are discussing totally different issues. However, I will say that we would have a better chance of achieving efficiency if-and the other provinces will have to make their own decision in that regard-Quebec controlled manpower and employment development policies, as advocated by the manufacturers' association. It is for reasons of efficiency that we have to be in control. Quebecers cannot agree to any other formula without relinquishing their own identity. It may be that, in the rest of Canada, people do not mind letting the federal government impose standards, but it is just not possible in Quebec.

The sooner Quebec assumes full control of that sector, the sooner we can have efficient and well-thought-out measures which will benefit the public.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the hon. Bloc member's comments, reference was made to Quebec and also Canada.

I remind the hon. member that at this time Quebec still is very much a part of Canada. Quite frankly, after the referendum I am quite sure Quebec will be very much a part of Canada. I want Quebec to stay a part of Canada. They want Quebec to stay a part of Canada. I am sure she will be surprised by the vote.

I do not agree with a lot of the comments made by the hon. member for the Bloc. I also do not agree with the way the Liberal Party proposes to operate the unemployment insurance fund and program.

One reason why we have the conflict between Quebec and the federal government is manpower training and funds for job creation programs. If the unemployment insurance program had remained as it was intended, a pure insurance program to provide temporary assistance for workers temporarily between jobs, we would not have all this bickering over the funding for job creation programs coming out of the UIC fund. One way we will solve some of the problems is to return the UIC program to a pure insurance fund, giving employers and employees the opportunities to make decisions on how it is administered.

Back when politicians had their fingers on the UIC program and decided to use it for job creation programs, historically government job creation programs have never, despite billions of dollars spent on them over the years, created real, long lasting jobs.

The government has to get out of the job creation program and get business back into the job creation program. Real jobs come from private business, jobs that last and that pay well. They do not come from government programs that end when the money has run out.

When the Liberal Party adopts this attitude, when the Bloc members from Quebec, part of Canada, adopt this attitude, maybe we will get the economy going again and there will be jobs and we will not have to worry about income supplements and money for job creation programs.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, dear colleague, first I would like to say that the Bloc Quebecois has been asking again and again in this House for a reduction in the rate for unemployment insurance premiums. I would also like to say that our minority report suggested that initiatives other than the unemployment insurance program should not be paid for with the unemployment insurance funds. We have been asking that employers and workers be given greater control over these funds.

I must say, however, that we believe a number of measures, not all of them but some of them, will effectively help men and women who are temporarily out of work to find a job, by becoming more efficient or by developing new abilities. But we know, and have been saying so repeatedly, that job creation is of the utmost importance.

Having been a history teacher greatly interested in economic and social history, I would like to remind the hon. member that, even if at times there were no standards or regulations or unemployment insurance in the past, it does not mean that there was no unemployment, quite the contrary.

Also, there were periods when there were regulations and standards and when unemployment was lower. I will also remind the House, by the way, and I will conclude with this, that when the President of the United States tried to rally everybody during the Great Depression, he proposed standards, regulations, and salary increases for workers. Thanks to these measures and to the war, of course, there was an economic recovery.

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

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.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member attacking the public service of Canada when we know we have one of the finest public services in the world. I do not think taking a cheap shot at them was really called for in terms of what they are contributing or what they earn.

I will quickly move on to make the point that this government did something that was unprecedented when it opened up the process. It is the first time in the history of this country that a government has done a preconsultation on the budget.

I was elected on a set of promises that my party made during the last election. When I run I run as a member of the Liberal Party. To that extent, my responsibility is to vote with the party at least on the issues my party ran on during the election. For me to do otherwise is unfair.

At the same time, I have mixed feelings about having this open for every member of Parliament to vote the way he or she likes. If we are going to do that, then the government no matter which party it is in the future, will have to spend the vast majority of its time lobbying individual members of Parliament so they will vote for it. The reality is that the responsibility of a government is to carry through on what it promises the people during an election period.

How many times has the hon. member stood and voted against his party? During this past one and a half years we have seen the Reform Party day in and day out voting as a block. I am not saying that is wrong, but how often has the hon. member voted independently?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I did not take any cheap shots at the civil service. I just mentioned the pay scales. I pointed out that the government seemed to be protecting those at the top while cutting those at the bottom which I do not think is fair.

I want to respond to the hon. member's main point where he said that he felt his job as a member of Parliament was to stand by the platform on which he was elected. On page 20 of the red book, the Liberals promised to reduce the professional and special services budget of the government by 15 per cent. He may read this on page 20 of the red book if he has not read it already. I presume he has not since he is standing here today saying he stands by the policies he ran on at election time.

The professional and special services budget has increased by $136 million. If the member is going to say that he stands by the platform on which he was elected, he will vote against the motion that approves this $136 million because two seconds ago he said it was the platform by which he sits on that side of the House.

The whole thing we are trying to point out is that Liberal broken promises are littered all over the floor. This is another one which was just repeated by the member over there.

My final point is that on several occasions members of the Reform Party have voted against the block of the Reform Party which totally defeats the point he made earlier on.

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

Without any disciplinary measures.

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

Without any disciplinary action whatsoever.

Today, a longstanding member of the Liberal Party, a former member of the cabinet, has been turfed out of the chairmanship of the justice committee because yesterday he voted against the government. We have seen they will not tolerate it on that side of the House which is a disgrace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in what the hon. member for the Reform Party had to say about a particular issue. Why is it impossible to change things? I think the human resources investment fund is a good example.

I think the federal government, probably because of the power of the bureaucrats and also the impression that Ottawa can solve all Canada's problems for Canadians across the country and that it knows all the answers, this attitude, in the case of the human resources investment fund, means that the federal government will go on spending vast amounts of money but in addition, as in this particular case, it will be other people's money, because the money in the Unemployment Insurance Fund is provided by employers and employees. There is no government money in that fund. The federal government uses the fund to intervene in areas under provincial jurisdiction, especially education and manpower training. So when a member of this House wonders why change is impossible, one reason is that the federal government refuses to respect these jurisdictions and thus control its spending.

Now I realize that the Reform Party says we are separatists and do not want to go on being part of Canada, but even from a federalist perspective, would the hon. member not agree that in the case of the human resources investment fund, the government is committing fraud? Because if the money paid into the fund by employers and employees were not used in the human resources investment fund, do you know what we could do? We could gradually reduce employee and employer premiums so that the money, instead of getting lost in bureaucratic channels would go directly into the economy to create the jobs this society so badly needs and the present government has failed to create. What does the member for the Reform Party think of this approach?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question, of course the federal government can spend money as it sees fit.

As a member of the opposition side, when I look at my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois on my right, yes they are separatists. As far as I am aware, they always will be as long as they call themselves the Bloc Quebecois and are committed to the breakup of the country.

The point Bloc members have been trying to make is that they want control over the money. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for anybody to think that the panacea of the breakup of the country is going to create jobs. It will do the exact opposite.

Separation of the country will cause unemployment to rise. If Bloc members were interested in helping the people who elected them to this place, they would be working to create employment, to reduce uncertainty, to create an economic climate where people could get work.

When I talk to people in the province of Quebec they seem to be the same as the people I talk to in the province of Alberta. They are concerned about mortgages, houses, careers, their kids and their future. Nobody I talked to was concerned about separation, other than the detrimental effects it will have on their futures. There may be a future of high taxation and low opportunity created through the concept the Bloc is trying to achieve.

Now we see that Bloc members have become totally unprincipled in the fact that they have watered down their separation message by saying: "Please vote for us. We want to separate if we can get some kind of economic association with Canada". I suggest that they put their shoulders to the wheel and join with all Canadians in recognizing that we have a responsibility to all Canadians from coast to coast to provide them with a future, secure housing, education and to provide them with the things they want. I can assure the member, separation is not one of them.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the matter of full supply of the estimates for fiscal year 1995-96. This year the main estimates total $164.2 billion of which the government is seeking parliamentary approval for $48 billion and new spending authority. The balance of $116.2 billion represents statutory payments which have already received parliamentary approval.

The main estimates incorporate $2.3 billion worth of the $3.4 billion of 1995-96 expenditure reduction measures achieved through the government's program review. The comprehensive review was undertaken last fall to identify the federal government's core roles and responsibilities and to reallocate resources to priority areas in order to provide effective affordable government.

This program review was much more extensive than any previous across-the-board expenditure reduction initiative; every department was reviewed. As a result, all sorts of spending

cuts and resources adjustments were decided, as evidenced by Mr. Martin's budget for 1995.

It all goes to show that the government is committed to cutting expenditures, streamlining operations and making drastic changes in terms of program availability and delivery. In a word, we are determined to redesign the federal administration.

Beyond the program review savings, measures already included in the main estimates are cost recovery measures which will generate new non-tax revenues, initiatives which require prior legislative approval, and other changes announced in the 1995 budget which simply were not finalized on time for inclusion in these estimates. In the latter cases the savings will be achieved through the lapsing of appropriated funds.

Let me give some examples of the types of changes resulting from the program review exercise. Government departments will focus on their core responsibilities. Federal and provincial overlap will be reduced, which is something a number of people have been asking for. Technological improvements will create efficiency gains. Costs of services will be recovered by new or increased fees charged to those who directly benefit from the services. Where feasible, similar programs will be merged to improve efficiency.

By concentrating our efforts in key areas of responsibility and improving program delivery patterns, we will be able to carry out the most significant downsizing of the federal public service since World War II.

If and when all the decisions made following the program review are implemented, the public service workforce could be reduced by as many as 45,000 positions over the next three years.

The President of the Treasury Board has prepared a set of options to ease the transition for affected employees as part of a program that is fair both to the people involved and to Canadian taxpayers.

The bottom line is that these main estimates are $3.5 billion higher than those for 1994-95. However, as I just explained, some of the increase is actually overstated due to the program review savings not yet incorporated into these figures. Even so, at first glance any increase seems inconsistent with our major expenditure reduction efforts.

It must be noted though that the bottom line change is principally the result of an $8.5 billion increase in public debt charges, to $49.5 billion. The rising interest and servicing costs on the debt more than outweigh the significant savings achieved through the program review and previous expenditure reduction measures. This underscores our acknowledged need to live within our means and the need for continuing deficit reduction aimed at moving us in the direction of declining debt charges.

Program spending excluding public debt charges is $114.4 billion or $7 billion less than the 1994-95 estimates level. This is an important figure. By 1996-97 the impact of the program review savings will result in a decrease of 10.8 per cent relative to the 1994-95 level. By 1997-98 that decrease will amount to an impressive 19 per cent reduction in program spending.

Public debt charges come under statutory spending, that is to say expenditures already approved by Parliament. Statutory spending for fiscal year 1995-96 amounts to $166.2 billion, or approximately 71 per cent of the main estimates. This is a $4 billion increase over the 1994-95 main estimates. Besides public debt charges, statutory spending also includes the main transfer payments to Canadians for old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, spouse's allowance and unemployment insurance.

In addition, statutory spending includes federal transfers to the provinces under the fiscal equalization program, the Canada assistance program and established programs financing, providing assistance to Canadians for health care, post-secondary education and social assistance.

Established programs financing assistance to the provinces and territories takes two forms: cash transfers of about $9.1 billion form part of these main estimates. Beyond that amount a further $12.6 billion worth of tax transfers do not appear in the main estimates.

The total consolidated budgetary main estimates, both statutory and voted, of $164.2 billion can be categorized into 11 sectors. Of these, spending in three sectors comprise over 76 per cent of the total estimates: social programs excluding the federal contribution to provincial and territorial social spending account for 30.6 per cent, public debt charges amount to 30.2 per cent, fiscal arrangements with the provinces and territories represent a further 16 per cent of the total. The balance or about 24 per cent is spread between defence, general government services, natural resource based programs, foreign affairs and international assistance, industrial, regional and scientific technological support, justice and legal programs, heritage and culture and the transportation sector.

Social programs comprise the largest area of federal spending at $50.2 billion in 1995-96. This does not include an additional

$16.4 billion in major cash transfers to the provinces and territories for social purposes.

The objectives of the social programs are to promote the health and well-being of Canadians and to foster equality of access by all Canadians to the benefit of Canadian society. Benefits and services are directed at those most in need through a broad range of assistance programs. These encompass employment, health, housing and other initiatives which benefit aboriginal peoples, veterans, senior citizens, children, immigrants and the unemployed.

Generally speaking, the program review helped strengthen the primary mandate of the departments responsible for social programs, including Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Health, Human Resources Development, Citizenship and Immigration, as well as Veterans Affairs.

Reducing spending in priority social programs, a large number of which are closely related to the population increase, is a particularly difficult challenge.

These departments will have to pay greater attention to the streamlining of their operations, in order to function with reduced resources. This means that, more than ever before, social benefits and services will have to be provided to those Canadians who need them the most.

A larger proportion of the costs related to these benefits and services will also be recovered from users who benefit directly from them.

Similar approaches are reflected in all program expenditure sectors within these estimates. For example, natural resource based programs in the 1995 main estimates are $463 million lower than in 1994-95. The departments of agriculture, environment, fisheries and oceans and natural resources have redefined their core mandates in areas of expertise. More emphasis will be placed on the strategic use of public funds to promote sustainable development, enhance Canadian competitiveness and rationalize and recover costs.

The transportation sector estimates show a $329 million decrease, as Transport Canada moves from direct involvement in transportation operations to focus on its core roles of developing policy and legislation, and setting and enforcing safety and security standards. Reduced subsidies paid by or to the transportation crown corporations and agencies also lead to significant expenditure reduction in this sector.

The streamlining of our operations, combined with the greater efficiency achieved through technology, has resulted in savings of $209 million in general government services.

The main estimates also mark the implementation of a new expenditure manager system, one which reflects the government's commitment to funding new requirements by reallocating existing resources. The system will necessitate an ongoing evaluation of priorities, both within departments and government wide, and will lead to more informed spending decisions. Centrally funded policy reserves to support new initiatives have been eliminated.

The operating reserve managed by Treasury Board has significantly diminished, and its role has also changed. Traditionally, the reserve was used as an emergency fund to cover additional expenditures related to existing programs. Under the new expenditure management system, the operating reserve will, in most cases, fulfill the role of a banking institution.

Its main responsibility will be to provide additional financing for projects which have a significant impact in terms of productivity.

Departmental business plans will focus on strategic changes to programs and lines of business while the related outlook documents, a new initiative, will enhance parliamentary review of estimates and future year expenditures with emphasis on performance.

It is recognized that effective management within a fixed level of resources presents a challenge to ministers and departments. In that context, treasury board is examining ways to enhance managerial flexibility and to support reallocation efforts.

The 1995-96 main estimates, along with the related initiatives which I described today, clearly show that the government has taken a new direction as regards expenditure management.

Canadians have responded favourably to the changes put forward in the budget. They recognize that tough choices had to be made, that real change is necessary in order to implement the jobs and growth agenda and to get the country back on track. This year's estimates confirm that those changes have begun.

As I listen to the comments that have been made concerning the government's budget and the ensuring activity, I hear mostly favourable comments directed at the government. The Canadian

people recognize it is easy to cut. But at the end of each cut is a victim, someone who is going to suffer as a result of the decision.

Surely the government must be doing things right. The official opposition suggests that we should not cut, we should be spending more. The third party suggests that we should have cut even more dramatically, recognizing fully that a lot of people have suffered as a result of budgetary decisions.

Canadians understand you must go at this kind of exercise gradually. They want this kind of government. They do not want their co-citizens to suffer unduly.

If anyone is going to be fair minded about the budget and the ensuing activity, he or she will need to acknowledge that the government has taken an important first step at addressing the question of the deficit and the debt, at creating long term, well remunerated employment for Canadians and at addressing the whole issue of social programs that Canadians want for those who need them.

As I indicated, the government has taken a very important first step.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we listened to the hon. member articulate in his presentation numerous statistics, figures, rationale, justification for the Liberal Party's budget, a budget that fails miserably in meeting what this country needs.

The average Canadian trying to support a family is interested in only one thing. When on earth will there be some tax relief? The Liberals presented a budget that is to add another $100 billion to the debt. It is to add another $10 billion in interest paid on the debt. At the end of three years, according to their figures which are not exactly believable they will still end up with a $25 billion deficit.

I would like the hon. member to tell me how he explains to a pulp mill worker in Prince George, B.C. who is paying in excess of 60 per cent of his gross income in taxes of all forms, how a budget like this, a budget that is to increase the debt, that is to increase the interest on the debt that must be paid out of taxes, can expect in the near future to have more disposable income in his pocket so that he can provide for his family.

Also, I would like the hon. member to explain to me and to the corporations and private business in Canada how the Liberal government appreciates the role they play when in the budget it increases corporate taxes. They are the ones who create real, long lasting, good paying jobs. How is he to explain to them that the Liberal government is on their side and that their government wants them to provide more jobs, expand and invest in the country when there is no certainty whatsoever in the taxation levels that corporate Canada is to pay?

At the same time that the hon. member is rationalizing all the plans of the Liberal budget, how will he explain to Canadians the 1.5 cent a litre gasoline tax that affects everyone in the country whether they are private citizens or corporations that rely on the transfer of freight or vehicles running, flying in the air, taking trains? How will he explain that the government had to raise gasoline and fuel taxes by 1.5 cents a litre?

The average citizen is interested in only one thing. When will my taxes be brought down? When will overspending in the annual budget stop? The figures that the member just quoted might be for our benefit because we have access to all the details in the budget but the average Canadian citizen is not blessed with having all the details.

They are asking only the one question. I would like the hon. member to tell me how he is going to answer the average Canadian taxpaying citizen.