Art Eggleton

[Main Estimates, 1995-96, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I presented the 1995-96 main estimates for the Government of Canada.

They are the second main estimates of the 35th Parliament containing the expenditure plans of the government for the next fiscal year.

They reflect the government's commitment, as the Minister of Finance outlines in the budget, to restrain spending, streamline operations and change fundamentally what government does and how its programs and services are delivered.

The main estimates lay out details of $164.2 billion in total planned budgetary expenditures for the next fiscal year. This includes $116.2 billion stemming from existing legislation and $48 billion in expenditures for which we are seeking parliamentary authority.

The main estimates are the first step in carrying out the expenditure plan set out in the budget.

Yesterday we heard the Minister of Finance announce an expenditure plan amounting to $163.5 billion in 1995-96. As I mentioned, the main estimates that I have tabled today total $164.2 billion for 1995-96.

The difference between these two figures is explained by the fact that the main estimates do not include the impact of the proposed legislation that is needed to implement some of the budget expenditure cuts that the Minister of Finance talked about yesterday, nor do they include some other technical adjustments which are set out in part I of the estimates.

Program spending in the budget which excludes the cost of interest on the public debt will decline to $114 billion in 1995-96. It will go down to $107.9 billion in 1996-97, down 10.8 per cent from $120.9 billion in 1994-95. This is as a result of the program review and previous budget measures.

The budget cuts spending. It demonstrates that we will continue to reduce the deficit and continue to meet our fiscal targets.

The budget focuses on the need to cut government spending and to improve the economic climate so that job creation can flourish. The program review is a central part of the budget and a key element in our jobs and growth agenda. The government launched the review to pinpoint the programs and services that are no longer useful or that could be delivered more efficiently or effectively by others.

We have seen the results in the budget reducing the federal role in some areas and highlighting the programs and services that other levels of government or the private sector could provide.

By 1997-98, and this is important, departmental spending subject to the program review will decline by some 19 per cent relevant to 1994-95 which is very key in our meeting our deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP in three years and of course going beyond that.

I will give some examples of how the government is implementing the program review in an environment of declining resources. First, the government will focus on its essential responsibilities. For example, Transport Canada will concentrate on developing policy and legislation and setting and enforcing standards for safety and security. As a result some of the department's activities such as its air navigation services will be commercialized. In addition, transportation subsidies will be reduced or eliminated and the remaining operations will be made more efficient.

Second, the government is reducing federal and provincial overlap. For instance, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will negotiate the transfer of its freshwater programs with the provinces and concentrate on conservation and the sustainable use of the fisheries and oceans and other resources.

Third, the government will use new technology to become more efficient. As an example, Environment Canada will automate its atmospheric environment services. The department will also be looking into providing weather services in a more effective and efficient fashion.

Fourth, we are promoting self-reliance by shifting away from direct subsidies to business. The regional agencies will move from direct subsidies to providing loans with more emphasis of course on small and medium size enterprises.

Fifth, the government will recover its costs by charging or increasing service fees to those who benefit directly from them, a move that is fair to taxpayers in general. Such charges include fees for immigration, agricultural inspection, drug testing and drug certification.

Sixth, we will merge similar programs for more efficiency. For instance, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada will take steps to integrate the coast guard and fisheries surveillance fleets.

What I have just outlined shows that we did not shy away from tough decisions. We are focusing on the key functions of the federal government and we are going to get them right.

Inevitably the transition from trying to be all things to all people to offering Canadians fewer but high value programs and services will mean a smaller federal workforce. As a result of reshaping the government and the transfer of some functions to other sectors, the government will reduce the public sector workforce by as many as 45,000 jobs over the next three years. That is the largest workforce reduction by the federal government since it returned to peacetime operations after the second world war.

I have announced a program of options that will help employees to move successfully to new lives outside the Public Service. This program, which is comparable to private sector plans, will be fair to employees as well as fair to the taxpayer.

It will allow us to make the program changes and meet the fiscal targets in the budget. For the remaining programs and services the government will provide services that balance the interests of taxpayers with those of the clients who are receiving them. It will seek cost effective ways to deliver quality programs and services that improve service and efficiency where it can.

Across the government, departments and agencies are responding to the challenge of innovation. The results of the program review and the initiatives I mentioned demonstrate that government is intent on being more efficient and focusing its energies and resources where they are most needed while living within its means, and that means what Canadians can afford. We have a very dedicated professional public service I know can deliver those services.

The government is committed to fiscal responsibility. We will continue to manage changing priorities by reallocating resources. The overhaul of the expenditure management system that I announced recently will help departments adjust their programs to operate with their reduced resources. It will also provide parliamentary committees with the information that they require to carry out their mandate to examine the future year expenditure plans and priorities of the various departments and agencies.

Our ultimate objective is to deliver quality programs and services with the resources Canada can afford. These Estimates are evidence that we are on the right track.

[Main Estimates, 1995-96, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table in support of the estimates part I, the government expenditure plan.

In addition, I will table with the Clerk of the House on behalf of my colleagues part III of the estimates consisting of 78 departmental expenditure plans. We distributed these documents to members of the standing committees to assist in their consideration of the spending authorities sought in part II of the estimates.

[Pensions Of Members, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the basic pension plan in accordance with the Income Tax Act is 2 per cent. As in the case in the private sector, there are many supplementary plans where additional moneys are put aside. It is quite common for that to happen in our community.

Let me also point out that what is not common is that in this case members of Parliament pay double what is normal in the private sector in terms of their own contributions. In spite of all that, we are reducing the amount of the taxpayers' contribution to the MP pension fund by a third, by 33 per cent.

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a personal choice and one that members will have an opportunity to make over a 60-day period once the bill has passed through Parliament.

I want to reiterate that there is a reduction in this plan. There is no retroactivity to the plan but I noticed that the head of the National Citizen's Coalition does not think that is a good idea. It is fair that members should continue to earn what they have earned up to the point where the pension bill is passed.

Overall, every member of this House, cabinet or non-cabinet, faces a reduction in the pension benefit, an overall reduction in the compensation package. I think that is showing the leadership that we need going into this budget today.

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I think was pointed out in the consultant's report that was tabled last year at the Lapointe commission, when it comes to compensation levels overall, and it must be looked at in this context, members of Parliament are lower than the equivalent in the private sector.

This particular reduction in MP pensions will make them even further down the scale in terms of that comparison. On top of that, members of Parliament contribute twice as much to the pension plan in many cases as private sector plans.

The hon. member still has his RRSPs and his clothing allowance, all of which he can-

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has been made quite clear that when the pension bill is approved by this Parliament there will be 60 days that members will have to consider that, including hon. colleagues in the third party.

When it comes to showing leadership we have cut taxpayer contribution to this pension plan by fully one-third, $3.3 million, and we are showing leadership in expenditure reduction.

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, February 24th, 1995]

The number that does work here and which is true is that this plan is being cut by 33 per cent. That provides leadership in terms of the cuts in budgets that have to be made to get to our deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP.

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Reform members cannot seem to get their numbers right. They go from four to five to two to three. They cannot get them right because they do not have them right to start with.

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, talking about take home pay, there is no increase in salary. However, the folks in the third party would be taking home an awful lot more because they plan to opt out.

We need to look at this matter in the context of a total compensation package. The consultant who was hired by the previous government and reported on the question of compensation said that in fact compensation for members of Parliament is lower than that in the private sector.

If we take it in that context and on top of that take into consideration that we are lowering the pension, members of Parliament are taking a compensation cut. The member's leader was four to five times and now he has gone down to two times. In the private sector it is very common to have additional supplementary plans over and above what is provided for under the Income Tax Act.

In terms of the inflation index, members of Parliament pay 1 per cent of their salary per year for that inflation index which does not even kick in until age 60.

The plan is not how that party is trying to characterize it. Let us again bear in mind that we are reducing the compensation package. We are reducing the size of the plan by 33 per cent.

[Pensions Of Members, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, not too many members of the House end up getting a pension plan because the average years of service are less than the vesting years of six. I can tell the House that in the case of third party members none of them would make it to the six-year vesting period anyway.

They like to talk about the private sector, but in the private sector individuals do not get an opportunity to opt in or opt out. They are told that this is the plan and because of the actuarial integrity of the plan people are required to be a part of it. The Prime Minister has indicated to members of the third party that they will have the opportunity to opt out, and indeed they can.

When it comes to the overall compensation package for members of the House, we are lowering that compensation package. We are taking a leadership position by cutting the pension by 33 per cent.