Mr. Speaker, as the minister said a few minutes ago, in 1997-98, the federal government will budget nearly $106 billion for program spending, 2.9 per cent less than in the current fiscal year.
In his speech, the President of the Treasury Board seems to be looking at the world through rose coloured glasses, and what he says is far removed from the experience of thousands of public servants who have been laid off or whose professional future is uncertain.
Take, for instance, the situation at the cheque printing centres, where employees, non-unionized and in a vulnerable position, were given the choice of accepting a 40 per cent drop in salary or staying home, when their service was privatized.
The minister's self-congratulatory tone is hardly appropriate, considering the unemployed who are getting poorer because their benefits were cut as a result of unemployment insurance reform, while today, the Minister of Finance is using the UI fund surplus to reduce his deficit artificially.
The minister tells us, and I quote: "We are working to put the country's financial house in order". How can the minister say that when we know that 50 per cent of spending cuts represent cuts in transfer payments to the provinces? Similarly, putting the country's financial house in order explains only 21 per cent of spending cuts, in other words, $1 out of every $5 committed by the government.
The minister went on to say, and again I quote: "In the span of four years, we have significantly reduced the deficit". What the minister should have said in the House this morning is that, in addition to the provinces, the unemployed have also significantly reduced the deficit, when we realize that the other major weapon in the battle against the deficit is the unemployment insurance fund.
The minister also said: "This year, we can achieve our financial goals without announcing any new reductions". However, as a result of cuts in transfer payments, the provinces will have to cut funding themselves and do the minister's dirty work.
Of this $14 billion in spending cuts, only $3 billion is directly the result of spending cuts within the federal government. Does the absence of new reductions mean the end of federal house cleaning before the election?
Making the provinces pay and thus take the blame for spending cuts in health care, education and social services and making the unemployed pay as well, is that the beginning of a new culture in public financial administration the minister has been bragging about?
The minister also said the government was treating its employees with civility and respect as it moved through the public service reduction process. Where is the civility and respect in refusing, as the minister himself did, to invest the $18 million required to align the federal employee drug plan with the plan under which all Quebecers will be covered once the Rochon plan is in place?
In Quebec, maximum insurance coverage is $760 per year. This means that federal employees who suffer from a serious medical condition will have to pay 20 per cent of their drug costs however high they may be, which could amount to thousands of dollars every year.
In response to a question on this particular situation, the minister told this House only 2 per cent of federal employees living in Quebec may be affected. If so few of them are affected, why not put them on an equal footing with the other 98 per cent, those who are blessed with better health?
The minister added that, between April 1995 and the end of December 1996, the federal public service shrank from 225,000 to 195,000 employees. We will have to check how much contracting-out the government did during the same period, especially now on the eve of a federal election.
This old Liberal habit of spending money they have not earned yet is obvious here. Where is this financial independence the minister is referring to when he tells us, as he did a moment ago, that he does not need polls to tell him that Canadians are pleased with regaining their financial independence, when the accumulated debt is $600 billion? The only good news is that the debt collector is no longer knocking at Canada's door? Thanks to the contribution of the unemployed and the provinces, the threat of bankruptcy and insolvency is not as imminent as it was four years ago.
Go ask the unemployed, those who despaired of ever finding work and dropped out of the labour market altogether, and the provincial finance ministers. Where is the financial independence the minister is boasting about this morning?
Here is an example of this old Liberal habit-one might even call it an atavistic trait-to spend other people's money.
At page 2-14, Part III, of the 1997-98 Estimates, we read the following:
The government is considering obtaining four UPHOLDER class submarines from the Royal Navy.
I hope Canada is no longer buying the old tubs that the British Navy wanted to get rid of a few years ago. It goes on to say:
Delays in approving this project resulted in expenditures which were paid through the operating budget, to support an additional program to overhaul OBERON class submarines.
There is also $8.6 million to buy a patrol frigate by March 1997; $61.3 million to buy sophisticated air-to-surface missiles. However, as regards spinoffs for the Canadian industry, the defence department document says: "Since the weapons, pods, testing material and spare parts will be bought through the American government, the Canadian industry will not be directly involved in the contracts".
In other words, this document, the Estimates, is drafted in Canada, but benefits the American industry.
Meanwhile, the minister is proud of these results.
Granted, the minister is an intelligent person. However, he does not live in the same world as we do, he does not live in the same world as Canadians do. That is the tragedy.