Marcel Massé

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate. This is a budget of very strong measures, because this is what it takes to break the deficit's hold on our policies. This budget contains the most draconian measures taken by a government in 50 years.

The budget achieves our deficit goal without increasing personal income tax rates. For the second year in a row the government has refused to reduce the deficit on the backs of individual Canadians.

I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to explain the process and significance of the program review, one of the core elements of the budget.

Last September in Quebec City the Prime Minister outlined the four key elements of the government's jobs and growth agenda. This week hon. members have witnessed with the unveiling of the 1995-96 budget the details of one of those fundamental elements, the program review.

Last year the Prime Minister asked me to lead, in co-operation with my cabinet colleagues, the most fundamental review of government operations in two generations. The review was meant to be and was an exhaustive examination like none ever undertaken before of every government program and service, with a view to getting government back to basics and focusing on the priorities of Canadians.

I worked closely with my colleagues and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate them once again for their commitment to the exercise designed to get government right.

Unlike previous governments we listened to Canadians and the result we have seen in the budget tabled by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, demonstrates that we have the courage to set the country on a new, much more secure course.

I believe the Canadian people will agree that the budget and the program review results are ushering in a new approach to government.

It will be a dramatically changed national government. It will be a government that is getting back to basics, a government that reflects the priorities of average Canadians, a government that is affordable, a government that protects the most vulnerable, and a government that responds to the true needs of Canadians.

The Prime Minister detailed our intentions last September before the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce saying that control over the size and cost of government was vital to economic growth and job creation. It was in this perspective that the program review was developed and became one of the basic components of the budget.

This review will enable the federal government to focus on its major priorities, to return to basics while enabling it to reduce its expenditures in an orderly fashion. The review was guided by three objectives.

First, to strengthen public administration of federal programs and services; efforts in this regard will lead to a smaller but more efficient federal administration, which will provide the programs Canadians consider important. Secondly, to help modernize Canadian federalism; the government should provide only those programs and services it is best suited to provide. Thirdly, to help the government attain its financial objectives.

This involved, therefore, totally rethinking what government did and what Canadians could allow themselves. In the future, departments will have to drop all but fundamental responsibilities. They are amalgamating like programs and services found within a department or spread among several departments. They are eliminating job duplication and costly overlap. They are reducing the operating costs of programs through new approaches, while raising standards of service. They are funding necessary programs through cost recovery and user fees.

It must be stressed that the aim of the program review was not to identify or make cuts solely in response to financial needs. On the contrary, we asked each minister to review their programs and activities according to six criteria.

First, public interest: Does the program or activity continue to serve the public? Second, the role of government: Is it necessary or legitimate for the government to be involved in the area of the program or activity? Third, federalism: Is the present role of government appropriate, or should consideration be given to transferring it to the provinces? Fourth, partnership: What programs or activities could be transferred wholly or in part to the private or volunteer sectors? Fifth, efficiency: How could the efficiency of the program or activity be improved? Finally,

financial capability: In financial terms, can we afford all of the resulting programs and activities?

I can briefly summarize at this point that we undertook an unprecedented review of government activities because this government believes first and foremost it is crucial that we get our own house in order. As we have seen, this budget focused on cutting spending, not on raising taxes. Second, we began from the premise that the priorities of the government must reflect the priorities of Canadians. We did not want a blind slash and burn exercise.

The approach we took in our program review was guided by three fundamentals: one, its fundamental objective to sustain growth and job creation; two, its fundamental challenge to get the economy right; and three, its fundamental requirement to refocus government on priority roles.

Program review encompassed about $52 billion worth of government spending. The result is that over the next three years program spending will decline by almost 19 per cent, more than $16 billion. Some departments will see their spending cut in half.

The Department of Transport over three years will be cut by 50 per cent. The Department of Natural Resources over the same three years will be cut by 49.8 per cent. The public service will be reduced by 14 per cent, 45,000 positions over three years.

Program review will lead to long lasting structural change in what the government does. These are not, as my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance stated Monday, the phoney cuts we saw so often in the past, measures that pretended to define a slower rate of increase in spending as actual cuts.

The cuts in this budget are real cuts in real dollars. They were accomplished by refocusing government programs on basics, eliminating overlap and duplication, improving the efficiency of our operations and shifting market interventions away from direct subsidies. Let me give some examples.

In the past, agricultural subsidies have been tied to specific commodities which resulted in a large number of programs. The emphasis will now shift from income support to income stabilization.

Fisheries and oceans will focus its resources on science and regulation to ensure conservation and sustainable fish stocks. We will discuss with the provinces the possibility of eventual devolution of freshwater fisheries management.

Finally, assistance to business will be considerably reduced. Assistance will shift to repayable loans.

In many departments there will be fundamental change in how programs and services are delivered. For example, an immigration fee will be charged to newcomers and sponsors will have to provide financial guarantees.

Environment Canada will concentrate more on science and policy and finding new ways to deliver services. Environmental protection remains a priority in order to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. Pollution prevention will become a priority in partnership with the provinces, territories and industries.

A large number of specific measures are based on a common philosophy and foundation.

For example, we have taken important measures in this budget to substantially reduce business subsidies offered under all government programs. Subsidies will be reduced by close to 60 per cent over a three year period. Some programs will be discontinued or drastically reduced. For example, we will be eliminating the transportation subsidies offered under the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and the Maritime Freight Rates Act.

Some programs will be restructured or merged, for example, regional development organizations will be more geared to the needs of small and medium size businesses. Some activities will be transferred to other public administrations. For example, several responsibilities concerning inland waters will be turned over to the provinces; recreational harbours will be divested to municipalities; the forestry and mining development agreements with the provinces will be revoked, since the provinces have indicated that development of these resources falls under their jurisdiction; the operation of airports will be transferred to local authorities.

Some activities will be commercialized or privatized: the remainder of the government's share in Cameco and Petro-Canada, Canadian National, the Air Navigation System, Canada Communication Group. Cost recovery and user fees will be implemented for some services.

Treasury Board will put in place a new spending management system which will improve the management of public funds.

The program review has allowed us to put our house in order in order to tackle the challenges of the next century. It fundamentally changes not only what we do but how we do it. The program review allows us to restore fiscal health to the nation's

finances and also to make necessary spending reductions in an orderly way. The program review actions in the budget only start what will be an ongoing process of reform and renewal of the federal government.

Clearly, as announced in the budget, these results will have a major impact on the public service. All regions of the country are affected by the cutbacks and reductions. This is no less true for the national capital region. I want to say that as the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal and as a member of Parliament in the national capital region, I am particularly and acutely aware of the difficult period many public servants across the country are going through at this time.

The departure of employees who over the years have demonstrated loyalty, professionalism and dedication is the most painful part of any restructuring process. Decisions that affect people's livelihood are the most difficult to make. Departures are never easy. Let me reiterate this government's commitment to deal with employees in the fairest and most sensitive way possible. We will continue to work with the unions and local governments to ease the transition. We hope to keep layoffs and the number of employees on unpaid surplus status to an absolute minimum.

Some individuals will be accommodated through normal attrition. Some will take advantage of the departure and early retirement incentives announced by the President of the Treasury Board. Some individuals will transfer to the private sector as some operations are being privatized. Others will find work in the private sector. No doubt there will be a period of change and uncertainty as we move to what I firmly believe will be a revitalized public service in the coming years.

I deplore the fact that the representative for the Outaouais region, Mr. Blais, and some members of the opposition are misleading the local population and are creating more uncertainty. They are proclaiming that the budget cuts 14,000 public service jobs in the Outaouais region.

In fact, the total number of jobs that will be affected in all of the national capital region, on both sides of the river, will be 12,000 to 13,000 over the next three years. This means, therefore, that the real number of public servants in the Outaouais region that will be affected is more like 3,000. I cannot accuse them of telling untruths, since the difference between their current claims and the true figures is only one job to five, which is about par for them.

I am happy that regional players, including Hull mayor Ducharme and Outaouais urban community president Croteau, have taken a clear, credible and realistic stand on this budget.

With the various measures I mentioned and the co-operation of the private sector and all economic stakeholders in the region, we will manage to minimize job losses while at the same time diversifying the region's economy.

As the member of Parliament representing Hull-Aylmer, I have had the privilege of rubbing elbows with people of this area. I was able to observe how imaginative they are and how enthusiastically they tackle new challenges. I want to salute their courage in these tough times.

The budget is further proof of the flexibility of federalism; it is not stuck in status quo. The budget stresses our commitment to provide the people with good government in Canada. And this entails the challenge of bringing the deficit down and streamlining government. As part of our commitment, no region will be receiving preferential treatment nor be subjected to more cuts than the others.

The new Canadian social transfer combines into one lump-sum transfer three formerly separate transfers, thereby lightening the administrative burden of the provinces. This transfer will ensure maximum flexibility in developing provincial programs suited to the needs of the regions. The new lump-sum transfer limits the restraint the federal government can impose in exclusive provincial jurisdictions.

This new and more flexible formula does not affect the quality of services provided to Canadians.

The terms and conditions set out in the Canada Health Act will be maintained and the provinces will have to abide by the provisions of the act with respect to health care.

At the same time, we remain committed to fiscal equalization, one of the cornerstones of the Canadian federal system, through which Quebec receives nearly $4 billion per year.

The budget marks the beginning of a new era, an era in which the federation will be managed differently. Management will be simpler, more efficient and, yes, more sensitive to provincial jurisdictions. The budget give provincial governments full scope to meet the needs of the people.

The budget is convincing evidence of the fact that the federal system is a progressive, co-operative and dynamic system. Less than a year and a half into this Parliament, we have already tabled two budgets to substantially reduce public expenditures, something Ontario and Quebec will also have to do. We also restructured government organization. The measures outlined in this budget are the most stringent federal measures in fifty years.

We have abandoned the across the board cuts used by previous governments which proved to be counterproductive and ineffec-

tive. This budget is a rational way to bring the size and structure of government into line with our needs.

We agree with Canadians that a balanced budget is the goal and we will get there by setting realistic and achievable targets. This budget leads by example. We are cutting government first.

We believe this budget truly marks the beginning of a new era.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was really disappointed with the Bloc's presentation. Perhaps nothing more should be expected from someone speaking on behalf of a party which has already made fundamental choices for ideological reasons and is therefore impervious to the truth.

The truth is that, last year, 433,000 new jobs were created in Canada. This is actual job creation, not just idle talk. In Quebec, 116,000 jobs. In the National Capital Region, a net total of 16,600 new full time jobs were created in 1994. These are the facts, not a bunch of unsubstantiated claims like those made by the previous speaker.

Yesterday, when the hon. member for Verchères said 14,000 public service jobs would be lost in the Outaouais region, he showed his profound lack of understanding of the region. The truth is that the total job loss resulting from the budget over a three year period will be approximately 3,000, not 14,000.

In all of Canada, 45,000 jobs will be cut but this does not mean people actually losing their jobs because in many cases these jobs will be filled by other employees reassigned as a result of the attrition process. I cannot expect the hon. member opposite to have deep knowledge of government, but I would ask him to at least stick to the facts and analysis. The truth about the budget tabled this week is that it is the only way to promote job creation in the long term.

When the hon. member says that this budget will result in the loss of a few thousand jobs throughout the National Capital Region, he makes it sound like job creation would necessarily ensue if the deficit in the federal budget were allowed to continue to build up. If that were true, Canada would have achieved full employment a long time ago, given its accumulated deficits.

The truth is that this is the only way to avoid hitting the wall like New Zealand did. In just a few months, New Zealand had to cut its public service by two thirds, not a mere 14 per cent like us. Our public service will continue to operate with 86 per cent of its employees in three years. Because New Zealand acted along the lines of what the hon. member opposite recommends, it had to cut its public service by two thirds. These are historical facts, not empty words like those spoken by the hon. member.

By shrinking the size of the federal government, which was long overdue, by forcing ourselves to streamline and downsize government, we are ensuring that the 1994 job creation effort can continue.

If we had carried on with the deficit that we had, the rise in interest rates would very quickly have prevented investments in the private sector, thereby also preventing the creation of jobs. What we did was to foster the economic climate which will promote investments and new jobs in the private sector.

The member opposite has no idea of what is going on in the Outaouais, which is my region, when he says that the federal government is keeping it in a state of dependency. If you look at the 1971 census figures, you will see that, back then, one third of all the jobs for our region were in the public service. By comparison, last year only one fifth of the jobs in the Outaouais were in the public service.

In other words, 80 per cent of the jobs in our region are not in the public service. In the national capital region, there are more jobs in the service sector than in the federal government. It is based on that necessary economic diversification that our government developed a plan for the region which will allow the private sector to create jobs that are needed and that will reduce the excessive burden on taxpayers, since the federal public service had become too big.

I have a question for the member opposite regarding dairy producers. Quebec provides 48 per cent of the milk production in Canada and it exports that production elsewhere in the country. Should the province separate, where would it sell its milk, which costs two to three times more than the milk which we could get from the United States? It goes without saying that the rest of Canada would buy its milk at a cheaper price. Quebec's separation would totally destroy its dairy industry. While the federal government adjusts prices at the national level over a certain period of time, the member opposite wants to destroy the dairy industry in Quebec.

As regards public servants, the actual number is 3,000 for the Outaouais, taking into account the five provincial and three federal ridings. We are told that Quebec would absorb the federal public servants, there are 50,000 of them, plus the other 50,000 public servants they already have. They put the 3,000 public servants from the Outaouais and the 100,000 for all of Quebec in the same boat. These people would want us to believe that they will absorb all these public servants, a measure which would cost them $4.4 billion.

Given the analysis made by the hon. member, my question is this: Does he know Quebec sufficiently well to hope to create a better future than the one that we, federalists, have found to be adequate for over 125 years?

[Canada Health Act, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what I said very clearly in Quebec City is exactly what the Prime Minister stated, namely that the five standards governing the Canada Health Act would remain in effect.

What I said regarding the Canada social transfer was that we could, through mutual consent, change existing conditions applicable to social assistance. This is absolutely true and in accordance with what was said. Again, as I said yesterday during the press conference, the five standards governing the Canada Health Act will not be touched.

[Canadian Unity, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I find the opposition's questions very out of place. We are simply helping social and business groups in Quebec who wish to get information on the costs of separation. We are not intimidating banks and financial institutions which are not on our side.

[Canadian Unity, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the opposition can criticize letting social groups express themselves freely, when they have wasted $5 million of their and our taxpayers' money on regional commissions whose only aim is to disseminate sovereignty propaganda.

[Federal Public Service, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that members of the third party speak from both sides of their mouths. On the one hand they ask us to reduce the expenditures of government; on the other hand they complain when we do exactly that by reducing the size of the public service.

What we have done with the public service is in fact the best treatment that could be given. We have introduced the possibility for them to have either early retirement or cash outs. We have made it much easier for civil servants who cannot be employed any more to leave the public service in a humane way.

[Overlap And Duplication, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we currently have action plans with eight provinces and two territories to reduce duplication. Over the last year, we signed 64 agreements with the provinces and the territories and they are all public. Consequently, we have no problem with letting the opposition marvel at such achievements.

By September 12, 1994, eight agreements had been concluded with Quebec. Of course, there have not been any since, but we continue to use money to reduce duplication and overlap. We do not talk about it: We do it.

[Public Service Staff Relations Board, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 27th annual report of the Public Service Staff Relations Board covering the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994.

[Public Service, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all the issues concerning the budget's impact on the public service have been dealt with from the outset by the President of the Treasury Board. I believe we have said many times that we will treat our public servants fairly.

That is exactly what transpires from the proposals released last week by the President of the Treasury Board. Both sides of the river will be treated fairly, there is no question about that.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

moved that Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to take part in the debate on Bill C-65, an Act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies, and to explain to hon. members the substance of the bill and announce certain measures for public service renewal.

Bill C-65 is part of a concerted effort to act on our commitment to government renewal, as part of our promise to give Canadians good government and restore public confidence in government. The purpose of this bill and other measures we are taking, which I will describe briefly today, is to usher in a new kind of federal government, a government that is less costly and more efficient and that concentrates on its fundamental roles and responsibilities, in order to give Canadians government services better suited to their needs.

As we said in our red book, the most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable.

During the last election, and since then, the people of Canada have spoken. Their message was loud and clear. They are tired of large government. They have entrusted us with the task of ensuring the careful management of public funds. They want honesty and integrity restored to their federal institutions.

The previous government made a process of selecting friends when making appointments to the many agencies, boards and commissions that cabinet is required by law to carry out.

Madam Speaker, you may recall that in the last budget the Minister of Finance announced that we would have a full scale review to examine the size and relevance of existing boards, agencies, commissions and advisory bodies in order to both achieve cost savings by shrinking the size of some boards and commissions and by eliminating those that no longer play a useful role.

Over the last year we have listened to Canadians and taken action. An obvious measure of the importance that we attributed to the renewal and downsizing of the federal government was the Prime Minister's decision to ask me to assume responsibility for public service renewal. In this capacity the government has moved simultaneously on three fronts which will lead to a leaner, more cost effective and efficient government.

Bill C-65 will bring into force some decisions taken last July to reduce the numbers of, the size of, and otherwise streamline the operations of certain agencies, boards and commissions where this is in the interest of Canadians.

As hon. members will recall, on July 8 of last year I issued an interim report on progress to date. With the co-operation of my cabinet colleagues I was able to report that decisions had been taken affecting 41 agencies in nine different portfolios.

The legislation before the House today will place into law those decisions requiring legislative action.

More specifically, this bill will make it possible to abolish, or significantly streamline, 22 agencies and advisory bodies. As a result, we will be able to eliminate 150 positions staffed by the Governor in Council. In concrete terms, this will mean an annual savings to taxpayers of $1.5 million, and this is only the first set of such measures.

I am sure you realize, Mr. Speaker, that it would take too long to mention all these measures individually. However, perhaps a few examples will serve to illustrate how proper planning can yield major dividends.

The Board of Directors of Petro-Canada Limited, which now has 15 members, will be reduced to three members. This agency has no employees, its sole function being to manage the remaining accounts receivable of Petro-Canada, which was privatized in 1991. By reducing the number of members on the board and replacing them with employees of the Department of Finance, the government will be able to achieve a substantial savings.

The Canadian Saltfish Corporation, which was created almost 25 years ago, is being abolished because there is no longer any need for it. When it closes, 24 positions filled by governor in council appointees will disappear.

The staff of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board will shrink from 18 to 7, which will allow it to rationalize its activities in Cape Breton and enlist more help from Enterprise Cape Breton to implement more effective programs in that region. Seven positions will disappear when the board of trustees is abolished for the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian fund to aid in research on the diseases of children. In the future, the Medical Research Council will administer this fund.

This is a very good example of what I mean when I say that good planning pays dividends. Continuing to study childhood diseases is essential. However, since the government supplies the funds but does not carry out the research, it is illogical in these times of fiscal restraint to keep paying for a board that only administers the fund.

By being more pragmatic and logical, we tried to expose areas of overlap and to see if we could merge or group together certain functions. This is what we did for the Fund to aid in research on the diseases of children. We managed to save the fund by having it administered more effectively by the existing Medical Research Council of Canada.

Another example of this kind of amalgamation was the elimination of Emergency Preparedness Canada as a separate agency. Emergency preparedness remains necessary and Canada will be well served in that area, except that this function will now be performed by DND.

The functions of each agency were also reviewed for relevancy, to see if they were still useful or had become redundant.

Where it was determined that we had to keep the agency, we then looked at its structure with a view, if at all possible, to fulfilling its role with fewer people, less money and, perhaps, more efficiency.

Some agencies had very large staffs. Given the present financial situation, that seemed difficult to justify.

Internal structure is also an important criterion and one that we have taken into account. For example, at the National Capital Commission, it is essential that adequate regional representation be maintained on the board.

Similar criteria of course apply to many types of boards and we have been careful to maintain appropriate representation of the boards that we will be reducing in size.

Over a dozen organizations will have their number of board members reduced, resulting in significant savings. Just to mention but a few in this group are the Canada Council, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Arts Centre and the boards of four of Canada's national museums.

I believe that hon. members will agree that this demonstrates, as I said last summer, we want to ensure that federal agencies continue to be relevant and that they are serving Canadians as effectively as possible. Bill C-65 will give effect to our objective which is the identification of sensible and practical actions to eliminate overlap and duplication and simplify government wherever possible.

Program review and efficiency of the federation: As I have already mentioned the review of agencies, boards and commissions is one aspect of the government's overall approach to streamlining and restructuring government.

The program review and our work in improving the efficiency of the federation are two additional initiatives. The efficiency of the federation initiative has allowed us to work jointly with the provinces in reducing overlap and duplication. With nine of the provinces and with two of the territories we have signed action plans which deal with specific sectoral issues where overlap and duplication can be reduced or eliminated within specific time frames.

I will soon report on the progress that we have made in this important area which will result in more effective and less costly government for all Canadians.

The program review is the other very significant initiative that will give the government a new look, a substantially different government which focuses on its core roles and responsibilities. The government is at one in understanding the absolute necessity for the government to renew itself, to restructure itself to better meet the evolving needs of our society during the next century.

As members know, the full details of the results of the program review will be announced by the Minister of Finance when he tables his budget.

Third, there is no such thing as the status quo; the federal system is evolving. What I have just described to you is but one example of this evolution in government. If we are able to take the steps I just referred to, it is because our system is flexible, adaptable and capable of meeting the changing needs of our society and our country.

Similarly, federalism is a form of government characterized by the capability of adjusting. Our history demonstrates the extreme flexibility of our government system.

Madam Speaker, if I can refer to my opening remarks of a few moments ago, where I mentioned the wishes of the Canadian people, I am certain that you and all colleagues in the House will agree that the government is taking the measures that will meet these expectations. Perhaps more than anything else, Canadians expect and want their government to be more responsive. A more responsive government will result from the efforts I have outlined here today.

To conclude, I invite all the hon. members to support Bill C-65. It is with legislation like this that we can give you a modern and efficient government. In closing, I would like to advise the hon. members that we will be introducing in a little while another omnibus bill to finish the job started with Bill C-65.

By the time our review is over, we will have dissolved many other agencies, boards and commissions; eliminated more than 600 positions and effected savings of over $10 million a year for the taxpayers. I cannot wait to be done with this review.