Madam Speaker, with pleasure I rise to debate third reading of Bill C-76. As you know, I am a member of the finance committee and have been inextricably intertwined with the development of this bill for the last nine months.
Nine months ago the Minister of Finance came to the committee and directed its members to begin the first ever prebudget consultations. This was the first time the finance committee went out in advance of the preparation of the budget to talk with Canadians about their will, their concerns, their interests in the preparation of what is possibly the most important aspect of the legislative year.
During the debate committee members talked with over 600 members of the Canadian public about the budget. Despite what the member for Kootenay East said in his reference to time allocation, I can say unequivocally that this budget has probably had more discussion, more debate, more consultation than any budget to date in the history of the Parliament of Canada.
When we talked with our fellow citizens it was clear and interesting the level of consensus that we were able to build. The message from the Canadian public, from region to region, was very similar. In effect, they agreed that the government must take responsibility, that the deficit must be reduced and the debt managed. There was agreement to that. There was agreement by and large that the method of reduction should focus on expenditures as opposed to revenue or tax measures.
The people of Canada said to the committee, as members of government and members of Parliament, to take a message back to the minister that said start with government and then move to program reduction, but please start with government, get your own House in order. That made sense to us.
It was in December when the committee reported to the Minister of Finance. Then as an individual member of Parliament I went to my riding of Brant and had lengthy discussions with the constituents there. I had public forums and individual groups of Canadians actually took it upon themselves to think about the issue of budgetary management and fiscal responsibility. I congratulate them for the time they spent in preparing briefs that were subsequently presented to the finance minister.
After that we waited. The budget was presented in February and in the interim we know what the international community was like. Things were upset financially. The international community challenged us to make sure that a tough budget was brought in. We watched with trepidation, with worry but knowing all the time that the minister would respond directly to the information he received from the committee and from those of us who as members of Parliament provided him with our points of view and the points of view of our constituents.
In February the minister did proffer a budget that responded to the needs of Canadians. He clearly indicated a direction so that we will move to a deficit of GDP ratio of 3 per cent as we promised in our election platform and in the red book. He has listened to Canadians because the deficit is being reduced primarily through expenditure reductions versus revenue measures in a ratio of seven to one.
Finally he responded to the issue of getting government right, saying that cuts will be made in government first and then move to programs. When this is looked at we find a new structure has been created for the federal government. We are embarking on a change in the role of the federal government.
As the system of legislative review progressed the finance committee took the budget bill into committee and continued its deliberations and its open consultations with the people of Canada and talked further about the details as they had been laid out in Bill C-76. It was interesting that the focus of the debate in committee shifted. People feel that the government has taken fiscally responsible initiatives.
The nervousness in the public marketplace has quieted and we are now looking at the thing which we call new government structure. We spent a lot of time talking about the structural changes, because they are different.
I have to make the analogy that we have given birth to something which is quite new. It is significantly different from what the people of Canada have seen in the past. Government has been restructured. Many departments have been downsized. There will be a physical downsizing of staff to the tune of 45,000 individuals. Longstanding Canadian assets, CN for one, will be privatized. Finally, but not exclusively, the way that some transfers to the provincial governments are made will be changed.
We have something which is distinctly new and something which is very different. Our job now as a government is to recognize that we have created a fiscal framework which is fiscally responsible and under which we as a Liberal government must continue. We must develop our baby in a very Liberal way.
We looked at the strategies which the government has planned. The Minister of Human Resources Development will be presenting a new strategy for unemployment insurance in September. The government is undertaking and will over the next year begin discussions on pension review, looking at the CPP and all the bits and pieces that go into providing a safe and secure retirement for Canadian citizens.
The new block transfer to the provinces has to be looked at very carefully. It is quite a different transfer than in the past. It is a block transfer. It contains the same standards of requirement for health care, but it addresses education and social assistance as well. We have to be very careful with that transfer because it does talk to our future as a country.
I was fascinated by the witnesses as they came before the committee and encouraged us to maintain national standards, a federal presence in the continuing development of those programs, while recognizing the need for flexibility and control in the provinces. With that transfer we have provided an opportunity to do just that.
The Minister of Human Resources Development will be working very closely with the provinces to build a mutual consent on the development of new principles and guidelines. That speaks volumes about a new structure, a new role for the federal government, and its responsibility to facilitate discussions among the provinces to find the best possible strategies to provide health care, solid post-secondary education and social assistance. It gives the government a new opportunity at the federal level to use different strategies and not just the control of cash, which continues to be very important.
In the report to Parliament at report stage the finance committee indicated that it would prefer that the Canada health and social transfer continue as part of the federal responsibility over the next number of years. However the government must facilitate discussion. It must consider using new technologies and new techniques, perhaps like a social audit, comparing provincial successes in these different areas. That is the job which we as parliamentarians take.
One of the critical situations which will occur is the loss of 45,000 public servants. I recognize that our public service is the best public service in the world. As did my hon. friend from Ottawa West, I would like to mention that the President of the Treasury Board did respond to the very good submissions made by the public service unions and has put together a labour and management committees to ensure that the downsizing is done in a humane, fair and equitable manner.
These kinds of activities speak volumes to the kind of government we are. It will be important for us as a government to now work within a new fiscal framework, to continue the Liberal tradition of providing fairness, equity, compassion and understanding so that we continue to be the best country in the world in which to live.
