Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to say a few words on the government's throne speech, which I find most appropriate at this time.
When the Liberal Party formed the government in 1993, the country was, in my opinion, headed toward disaster. We were dreadfully in debt. Before our time, the whole idea had been to spend, spend, spend. The mortgage on the country, in other words the national debt, was increasing madly. Every year we had a deficit which was getting up near $50 billion.
Suddenly, in 1993, the new Liberal government was faced with a situation calling for an economic program that held out some hope for Canadians, some hope for young people, some hope for their future and for the future of Canadian workers, and in particular some reassurance for seniors about government programs.
Yes, the government did want to make cuts.
The bond market had a very negative outlook for Canada in 1993. The interest rates were going up and one wondered if the international bond markets would keep on giving us a triple A rating. We were near collapse, going in the other direction, and not even getting requests for the purchase of bonds.
A program had to be instituted to put our house in order. That is exactly what has happened. The deficit has kept going down, down, down.
The government does not create jobs. It did that in the past and it is only short term when it occurs. What we have to do is establish a climate for jobs and that climate has to be the proper economic climate.
Our program was disciplined in cutting some programs. We are downsizing government, not shutting down government. That is the difference between us and some members of the opposition. We do not want to shut down government.
We have to stop giving to everyone who thinks that all they have to do is write to the government requesting a grant. We have to do this in a reasonable fashion.
This morning the interest rates decreased again. We have not seen interest rates like these in 40 years. People can now borrow to buy a home or to invest in some other fashion. That will create jobs. That is good. People can now spend money. It is affordable to borrow money in order to invest it. It is not to borrow money to have fun, to be wasteful. It is for investment, for example, in a home. Equity will build in that home and when it is sold in the future the owner will be able to live on that equity or they will be able to leave it to their children. We have to think of leaving something to our children.
We had to downsize government. Government programs had to be cut. I had some concerns about that because my constituency is comprised of many public servants and people who have contracts with the federal government. As vice-chair of the government operations committee I was very diligent in ensuring there would be no abuse on anyone's part.
The program review was to cut programs in an effort to downsize the federal government. There was a question of a lump sum of money that was to be cut. Obviously some jobs had to be annihilated. We had to let go and make way for a better system. We had to improve the way in which we were working. This meant we had to abandon those activities that did not need to keep going.
We privatized in areas where the private sector could do better. For example, we privatized many activities that were once under Transport Canada. We developed Nav Canada and a great number of public servants who once worked for Transport Canada were transferred to this new private sector organization.
The media interpretation was that 45,000 jobs would be lost. I did not appreciate the fact that 45,000 employees would be laid off. Lately one newspaper reported that with the new calculations the
number could be more like 55,000. Obviously this has a very negative impact on the community. This made people in the national capital region business community very insecure and the economy slowed down quite a bit.
However, in the downsizing process the government made sure it did not maltreat its employees. We had programs like early retirement. The early retirement program was oversubscribed to. Many public servants, those who were getting close to retirement age, thought this was a wonderful opportunity to retire.
Others accepted the early departure incentive. They were mostly public servants, managers or middle managers who were interested in going into private business. They are now the people in the national capital region who are working for the government, doing some projects, working on contracts. They are now the private contractors in the region.
We have saved a great deal of money but I do have concerns. I want to make sure the government does not save money by downsizing on the one hand while on the other hand increasing by a phenomenal amount the money spent on contracting out. This is something I am watching for very diligently at the committee on government operations.
In September 1995 the unemployment rate in the national capital region was 10.1 per cent. That percentage has now gone down to 7.4 per cent, an improvement. People in the national capital region are starting to feel secure again.
They are at ease, can see that there is some future, and the Canadian government decided that the National Capital Region would not be a "one horse town", that it would have a mixture of private industry and public industry.
As well, organizations such as Systemhouse have sprung up, where former public servants have started up in high tech, and now the National Capital Region has a burgeoning high tech industry.
The National Capital Region has, in fact, now become the major North American centre for high technology.
There is a balance between the private sector and the public sector now. I am happy to report that the public service is improving constantly in its effectiveness and efficiency. I am asking the government to make sure, though, that there is a renewal, that there is an opportunity for the young to be able to enter our reputable public service.
We have to make sure that there is an entry situation where young graduates can come to work with the federal government and, if not the federal government, work on contracts for the federal government. That is very essential. I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on the question of the throne speech.