Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate.
With reference to the motion brought forward in opposition to the funding of the other place, I should remind colleagues that we have a longstanding tradition that both Houses of Parliament work independently to fulfil the important work entrusted to both Houses. Both Houses actively review important legislation and policies in their work as parliamentarians. Both have processes in place for the approval of expenditures of funds.
I would argue that hon. members of the third party had an excellent opportunity to participate in the reform of the other House but chose to oppose the Charlottetown accord.
I would vehemently argue that the motion of the third party simply tinkers at the fringes, tinkers at the edges. Those members have chosen to attack the other place in such a manner that they are
unable to defend themselves. I would therefore argue that this is yet another example of the third party's opportunistic approach.
It is quite simply meanspirited.
Rather than deal in a meaningful rational kind of way with change, rather than look at the reasons why one might go about changing an institution and bring forward hard data and rational arguments, they play politics. Cut a bit here, cut a bit there. That is the approach of Reformers. They do not know where they are going, so why in the world would they know what to do with the other House?
The parliamentary system needs a chamber of second thought to pass good legislation. Perhaps it needs to be changed. Yes, I would agree and so would they, but what is being proposed is not change. What is being proposed is to use another House as a target to try to enhance their imminent electoral defeat. That is what they are trying to do. They are trying to deflect. They do not know what they are doing so they are thrashing about trying to find an issue. That is what is happening.
Parliamentarians in the other House come from all backgrounds. We know many of them. They have much experience and a great deal of knowledge in many fields. Some of them would embarrass members of the third party in terms of what it is that they know about Parliament, about democracy, and about the Houses in which we sit and serve. They bring a great deal of wisdom and a wealth of information to various committees and discussions held throughout the dominion.
But they want to grandstand. That is what they want to do because they have no plan. They spoke about the deficit and the debt. That did not work, because Canadians did not believe them. They spoke about violence in society and proposed extreme measures that would have solved absolutely nothing. So what do they do? They try to find a target, something to bring them back to life. We cannot revive a political party that is so feeble.
I am surprised members of the third party did not congratulate and commend the government for its performance and fiscal management. They know the government took a hard line on deficit reduction. They know the government is meeting and exceeding its targets. It is keeping its promises in the red book. They know interest rates have declined. They know inflation is at the lowest sustained level in 30 years. They know that as a result of job creation efforts on the part of government and the private sector close to 700,000 new jobs have been created since November 1993. They know Canada is projected to have the highest employment growth of any G-7 country, but they refuse to accept it.
They know very well that the government has made enormous progress in a number of areas. I have mentioned them: interest rates, inflation, reducing the deficit, the debt, job creation. They know that the vast majority of Canadians feel that the government has been very successful. They know it, but they do not want to admit it.
They know we have a great deal to be proud of as Canadians. They know we should be applauding what we have as a nation, what we have as citizens.
I will spend some time discussing some of the many changes we in government have implemented. The main estimates for 1996-97 represent the results of a number of initiatives by the government designed to reduce the budget deficit while providing the services Canadians need. It is a challenge to reduce what is spent and provide equal or better services.
The federal government's goal was to clarify its role and its responsibilities in order to make the federation more effective. It wanted to follow up on the public's call for better and more accessible government.
This means modernizing federal programs and services so that they better meet the needs of Canadians as citizens and as clients, today and in the future.
As pointed out by the President of the Treasury Board, this year's main estimates show $157 billion in planned budgetary expenditures compared with $164 billion last year, a difference of $7 billion.
The government has set clear priorities to guide the process of deficit and therefore debt reduction. It has articulated the roles of the national government thereby identifying areas where it is uniquely positioned to best serve Canadians.
This improves on the traditional techniques of modernizing public administration practices through doing more with less or through across the board cuts. These approaches have been replaced by more strategic choices about what programs and services should be treated as priorities and how best to deliver them.
The House will recall that the federal government launched program review and sector specific policy reviews to assess all policies and programs. It will also recall that the chief achievement or program review will be structural changes to the business of government, for example withdrawing from programs providing direct financial support to industry and not renewing resource sector regional development agreements when they expire while
maintaining a presence in areas such as international trade, science and technology.
It will address overlap and duplication by consolidating activities to make program delivery more efficient and effective, for example merging the Canadian Coast Guard fleet with that of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Federal spending has been refocused to meet changing priorities. Departmental spending devoted to economic programs will decline significantly between 1994-95 and 1998-99, reflecting the shift in the government's role from providing direct support to business to setting framework policies.
Therefore it should be completely and totally evident from these initiatives that the government is acting responsibly. It is reducing spending while putting priority on programs which are the real business of the federal government and are delivered in a cost effective manner.
For this reason members of the House should concur with the government's request for full supply.
By the way, I am absolutely astonished, I would even say appalled, by the motion of the Bloc Quebecois member for Richmond-Wolfe who proposes to cancel the grants and contributions under Heritage Canada. Do you realize this means the hon. member is actually proposing to cancel subsidies to francophone communities outside Quebec? Yes, to cancel subsidies to francophone communities outside Quebec.
I would have expected this kind of gesture or initiative from the Reform Party, perhaps, but not from the Bloc. Someone must have failed to consider the consequences.
The hon. member also wants the government to stop subsidizing programs for native communities, which are included in this budget. Imagine. That is what he suggested. I think it is appalling.
He wants to do away with bursaries for athletes in amateur sport, with exchange programs for students and all multicultural programs. This motion hits at francophones outside Quebec, native people and participants in multicultural programs. Unlike the Bloc Quebecois, which seems to have no compunction about abandoning these programs, we will never abandon the multicultural aspect of our country. We will never abandon Canada's francophone and Acadian communities. Never.