Debates of June 13th, 1996

Supply

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, listening to the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I thought he would continue right to the end of the debate.

Ottawa is the capital of Canada, and yet the rate of assimilation of francophones there is 30 per cent. I think we have to stop denying the problem and take some action to stop the disappearance of francophones outside Quebec.

Before I give you the figures on the assimilation of francophones in Ottawa-Carleton and Vanier, it is important to give you a brief background on Canada's capital and its founding.

The city is located on the Ottawa River, on the eastern side of the border between Ontario and Quebec, some 160 kilometres from Montreal. I believe the word Ottawa comes from the name of a tribe and means perhaps "do business". In 1827, the town, already of some size, was known as Bytown and the City of Hull was known as Wrightstown.

On the last day of 1857, officials in the colonial office announced that the city of Ottawa would be the national capital. Construction of the Parliament buildings began in 1859 and was completed in 1866. The city became the capital of the new Dominion in 1867.

In 1949, the federal government was the principal employer. For some 30 years, the federal public service grew by leaps and bounds. Until quite recently, government services were concentrated essentially in Ottawa, which became a tourist centre making tourism today its second largest industry. Annually, Ottawa welcomes some 2.5 million visitors.

Generally speaking, the Protestant and English community settled in Upper Town while the Catholic and French community settled in Lower Town. It went the same way for religious establishments, that is churches, schools, hospitals, as well as for ethnic groups and even political organizations.

Ottawa, at the end of the 19th century, became the centre of Catholic and Protestant Orangemen activism. Being the Franco-Ontarian capital, it was at the very heart of the language conflict. In 1927, the secret order of Jacques Cartier, to counter the Orangemen's influence and promote advancement of francophones in the civil service, was founded.

There was a time when francophones could stay inside their community in Lower Town, since they had their own French schools, cultural life and economy.

Today, the assimilation rate is the following: the proportion of French speaking residents in Ottawa-Carleton dropped to 16 per cent in 1991, compared with 19 per cent in 1981. In Vanier, a town with a French majority, French speaking residents went down to 52 per cent in 1991 from 63 per cent in 1981. Now, only 47 per cent of Vanier residents still speak French at home. In Lower Town, the francophone stronghold, 60 per cent of residents described French as their mother language in 1981, but there were only 40 per cent of them in 1991.

The fact that the community was decreasing this way led to the closure of five schools: Guigues, Duhamel, Routhier, Brébeuf and Bolton. Sainte-Anne's school had a one year reprieve thanks to the support of my colleague for Québec-Est. In the whole of Ottawa, the proportion of people having French as their mother language dropped from 19 to 16 per cent, while those who still speak French at home account for only 11 per cent.

Ottawa is Canada's capital. This city should reflect the linguistic duality. Given the fact that English is the official working language, the federal government becomes an assimilation agent for francophones and has a direct impact on the assimilation of the francophone communities of Ottawa-Carleton-Vanier.

In a press conference given on October 17, 1995, my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata who was the critic of the official opposition for Canadian heritage at that time, criticized the governments of the anglophone provinces and the federal government.

She accused them of enforcing linguistic policies that did nothing to slow down the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec and have led to the erosion of Quebec's cultural specificity.

She concluded by reaffirming the support of the Bloc Quebecois for the francophone and Acadian communities. She also mentioned that her party had made specific commitments with respect to them and approved the proposal of the Partenaires pour la souveraineté advocating the creation of a commission, whose mandate it is to investigate and make recommendations concerning the promotion of rights, as well as the preservation of the culture of francophone and Acadian communities in Canada, and that of the anglophone community in Quebec.

The federal government has the gall to describe Ottawa as a bilingual city based on the size of its francophone population. In 1968, the Canadian government passed the Official Languages Act. The City of Ottawa only became bilingual in 1970.

Even if the Ontario government claimed to offer more and more services in French during the ensuing years, Franco-Ontarians always found them insufficient.

In 1976, a movement called "C'est le temps" came into being. Hundreds of motorists in Ottawa refused to renew their licence plates because the forms were only in English. Twenty-seven francophones spent a few hours behind bars for refusing to pay a fine. The government finally came out with bilingual forms.

In 1986, Ontario passed Bill 8 dealing with services in French. This Act grants francophones an important right. They can receive from the provincial government services in French in the Ottawa region and in 21 other French-speaking regions in Ontario.

I want to congratulate all the francophones outside Quebec who have been fighting for their culture. I admire the tenacity and courage with which they are trying to slow down the ever increasing threat of assimilation.

Unfortunately, reality is different. In spite of the continuous fight put up by francophones in Ottawa and elsewhere, Ottawa, the nation's capital, is far from bilingual. Journalist Michel Vastel wrote an article for L'Actualité entitled ``The capital, bilingual? Only the walls speak French there''.

He described, among other things, the situation of the movie industry in Ottawa, saying that in Vanier, a small francophone municipality of 18,000 people living in the very heart of the capital, there were eight theatres of the Cineplex Odeon chain and they all presented movies in English most of the time. In Gloucester, where one third of the population is French speaking, Famous Players made a commitment to present French movies in order to obtain its licence, but in its six theatres, movies are in English all the time.

Madam Speaker, since you are saying I must conclude, I will just say that clearly the national capital is not bilingual, in spite of what members of the federal government and the Reform Party claim. The Bloc Quebecois wants to counter the growing assimilation of Acadians and francophones outside Quebec. The motion by my colleague, the member for Québec-Est, depicts reality as it is and must be agreed to.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. member who is from a party who wants to divide the country, a party with a philosophy, an ideology. I am neutral in this debate because, even though I sit on the government side, I remain a pure product of Canadian bilingualism.

The hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois do not like the fact that some French speaking people become English speaking people and vice versa. The hon. member quotes statistics and tries to show that the fate of francophones outside Quebec is very serious. I must say this question to the hon. member: If you did separate from Canada, you would be backing off and you would abandon the francophones outside Quebec like me. I find a bit disgraceful for you to claim to be there to protect and defend the interests of the

francophones outside Quebec when your agenda goes totally in the opposite direction. So, I ask this of the hon. member: When will you finally change your policy, whose result would be to leave the francophones outside Quebec to fend for themselves, into one that would help them?

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer the member's question, especially since I lived in Montreal in the years 1935-1940. I lived in the western part of Montreal, where it was impossible then to be served in French.

If Quebec does not achieve sovereignty, it may very well meet with the same fate as Louisiana did. I am sorry that minorities are in difficulty. But the fate that awaits minorities outside Quebec is the same fate that awaits Quebec.

I think premier Lévesque, at one time, talked about a reciprocal agreement if Quebec ever became independent, saying that if the rest of Canada protected francophone minorities, Quebec would do the same for the anglophone minority. That is why I do not think Quebec sovereignty will jeopardize minorities in the rest of Canada.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have another chance to speak. Although the member spoke of things that took place in the thirties, the members across the way and I are members for the nineties. It would be very dangerous to have a form of blackmail. To my way of thinking, making threats about not protecting anglophones in Quebec if the same protection is not given to francophones outside Quebec really illustrates the crazy thinking of the Bloc Quebecois.

I would like to ask a question somewhat different from the first one I put. It is simply this: Given that, in the Toronto area, more and more people can be seen speaking French to each other, and given that the political, and perhaps even the economic, pendulum is in the process of swinging the other way in that same area, and that it is now the in thing to speak two languages, does the member not recognize the importance of French, not just in Quebec, but elsewhere in the country?

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will simply say to the member that the reason I spoke about the period from 1930 to 1940 was because the situation seems to be going back to what it was during those years. This is because of the many immigrants arriving in Montreal, who usually tend to adopt the English language and culture. I think that is how I could answer him, given that you are telling me my time is up.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 17, 1996, consideration of the motion: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act requiring all departments and agencies to table in the House of Commons a specific response to the auditor general's report on their activities, including time frames within which corrective action will be taken regarding any shortcomings or failures of administration identified by the auditor general; and such reports should be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and any other relevant standing committees.

Financial Administration Act

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion tabled by the hon. member for St. Albert. We know he has been a member of the public accounts committee since the opening of the 35th Parliament. In fact, he is the only member of the committee who has been there since the start.

The hon. member for St. Albert has then had the opportunity to see how the public accounts committee works and how the different chapters of the annual report and the periodic reports of the auditor general are examined. In tabling this motion, the member for St. Albert seeks to maximize the impact of the report of the auditor general in terms of accountability.

Since becoming the chair of the public accounts committee, last March, I have seen how this committee has an important role to play, since it has to ensure public funds are well spent. To achieve this goal, the committee can rely on the excellent work done by the Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels, through his reporting to Parliament on the management of public finances.

To that effect, I would like to remind the House that the public accounts committee is currently in a deadlock, because the Liberal majority refuses to examine the two cases that were criticized by the auditor general in his May 7 report, that is, the two family trusts that were able to transfer $2 billion tax free. I want to reiterate that I fully support the Auditor General of Canada, unlike the hon. member for Willowdale, who chairs the finance committee, and who mocked and ridiculed the evidence recently given in all honesty by the auditor.

That is the role of the committee. The committee must try to find solutions to improve the management of government finances. It is responsible for warning Parliament either by holding hearings or by tabling reports in the House when taxpayers' dollars are not spent in the most effective and efficient way possible.

I can say that the committee takes this role very seriously. In a little over two years, the committee, chaired by a member of the official opposition, has tabled close to 20 reports in this House. It has held meetings on a wide variety of topics, ranging from assistance programs for seniors to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

The committee recently dealt with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The auditor general recommended, among other things, that the agency make its program objectives clearer and easier to measure. Since the answers I got during the meeting were rather vague, I asked the agency's president, Norman Spector, to send us a list of the concrete actions he intends to take in response to the points raised during the meeting.

If the committee is not satisfied with the response, it can summon witnesses to appear again. The auditor said he would, as usual, follow up on this matter in two years. I asked him if our request was inconsistent with his work and his answer was: "This can only help by speeding things along".

In essence, this request made by the committee is identical to the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert. Some members will immediately see overlap in there. The fact is that, as hard as the committee tries to fully review the auditor general's report, not all chapters are reviewed. Take the 1994 report for example. Only half of the chapters were reviewed by the committee.

Less than 25 per cent of the chapters in the 1995 report were reviewed. I do not wish to give the impression that the departments act on the auditor general's recommendations only when the public accounts committee holds hearings on the subject. I am simply suggesting that, if departments were to table detailed reports, including time frames and action plans, the departments could then be asked by the committee to account on the basis of these interesting reports. They would also be useful in the follow-up audits the auditor general conducts two years after a chapter's publication.

During the first hour of debate on this motion, the Liberal member for Bruce-Grey said that each department or agency has the opportunity to respond to the comments made by the auditor general and that a response accompanies the report. It is true. However, the responses vary, both in terms of quantity and quality. In several cases, the department will say it agrees with the auditor's recommendations and that it will make efforts to implement them. However, little is said about how and when this will be done.

A compulsory response, with a specific time frame to implement necessary measures, would encourage the department to take a more serious look at the auditor general's recommendations and to take concrete action. This should not be an undue burden for departments that already provide satisfactory responses. As for the others, it could be argued that the additional resources required would be more than made up for by the savings that would result from a more in-depth review of the auditor general's recommendations.

Finally, in recent years, it has been the practice to write to the departments that did not appear before the committee and to ask them precisely what the motion of the hon. member for St. Albert proposes. Again, some members might say: "Why this motion, since the committee already does that work?" There are two reasons. First, there could be some years when the committee would not be in a position to send letters, for example because of an election, or because of an lengthy adjournment of the House. Second, technically speaking, the committee cannot force the departments to follow up on its request, even though most of them do.

For all these reasons, I would ask my colleagues of all parties in the House to support the motion of the hon. member for St. Albert. I can assure you that these responses to the auditor general's reports will improve accountability, help the auditor general carry out his duties, and compensate for the fact that the public accounts committee does not have time to examine all of the chapters in the auditor general's report.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to take part today in the debate on Motion M-166 put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert. The hon. member has much experience in this area, having sat on the Standing Committee of Public Accounts for several years. The motion would call for amendments to the Financial Administration Act.

Departments and agencies would be required to table in the House action plans including specific time frames in response to the recommendations of the auditor general.

On the surface there appears to be some merit to the proposal. We are all interested in doing whatever we can to improve the level of affordable service to all Canadians. All members of the House want to see weaknesses corrected and problems addressed, however, there are several issues that must be perforce discussed.

As members are aware, one of the main tasks of the public accounts committee is to review on behalf on Parliament the reports of the auditor general. This is done by examining in detail with departmental and auditor general officials the issues and recommendations raised.

At that point, the committee, based on its hearings, submits reports outlining its conclusions and recommendations to Parliament. The government is expected to table within 150 days formal responses to the committee's recommendations. As quite often happens, the public accounts committee asks the auditor general to do further follow up work on the responses provided by the government. The committee wants to know just how far departments and agencies have gone in meeting the original recommen-

dations. If it is judged the progress is unsatisfactory the committee can hold further hearings.

This process is an important part of the accountability process between government and Parliament. I must admit that in the past it has worked well.

Successive governments have taken the reports of the auditor general seriously. A review of the supplementary activities on which the auditor general reports every year in his annual report shows that departments and agencies have, on the whole, reacted positively to the auditor general's recommendations.

Will the amendments suggested in Motion M-166 add any value to this accountability process?

Will the departments and agencies improve their performance by settling the problems raised by the auditor general? Or would it be simply introducing an additional, and often useless, stage in a process that is already working well?

We must also consider what impact this proposal may have on the workload of the auditor general. In recent years there have been important changes to the Auditor General Act, significantly impacting on his office.

In 1994, as a result of a private member's bill, this act was amended to allow the auditor general to report to the House more frequently. It was a fairly substantial change. In previous years he was limited to reporting, except in emergency situations, only once a year.

The auditor general is now authorized to publish, in addition to his annual report, up to three other reports each year. In 1995, he tabled three reports in the House. I suppose he will take a similar approach in 1996.

Because of this change, the House now receives information from the auditor general in a much more timely fashion. The public accounts committee is able to examine problems as soon as they are identified and departments and agencies are able to respond more quickly with the necessary corrective action.

In December 1995 the Auditor General Act was again amended. A new position was created within the Office of the Auditor General entitled the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Substantial new responsibilities relating to environmental issues were given, obviously, to this new position.

As a result, the auditor general must now report to Parliament on the degree to which departments are meeting the goals and targets set out in their approved sustainable development strategies. These strategies must be tabled in the House by individual ministers beginning in 1997. This will be a tremendous task.

These amendments will provide real challenges for the auditor general as he seeks to effectively allocate his resources to his many responsibilities.

The motion before us today may well lead to even more demands on the auditor general, not only from a public accounts committee point of view but also from other committees.

I must ask again whether this additional work will be of great value or whether it will simply prevent the auditor general from exercising his other responsibilities. Canadians want the auditor general to use his meagre resources as efficiently as possible, like all the other government agencies.

Some said this motion will increase the transparency of government and improve the accountability of the government to Parliament. Again, this is an objective that we find admirable, on the whole.

I would like to take a few minutes, however, to remind the members of the many other important sources of information and of analysis already at their disposal. We often forget, in debates such as this one, that the auditor general is not the only source of information on government operations.

The sources of information are in addition to those provided by the auditor general. They provide us with the substantial tools by which the government is held accountable for all of its actions. The findings of the auditor general are important but they are only a part of the story. We need much more to truly understand and hold this government and all governments to account.

First, other parliamentary officers and organizations table important reports in this House. These include those from the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners.

Second, many reports are submitted to us by departments, organizations and crown corporations. These report concern their activities, their achievements and their plans. I would mention, among others, the annual reports, the economic outlook and part III of the Estimates.

The government has undertaken many initiatives to improve the quality of its tools.

Third, the reports prepared within the departments by internal program evaluation and audit groups. These reports, which can provide good explanations on matters hon. members are concerned with, are not well known.

A major step in promoting the use of these reports was taken in November 1995 when the President of the Treasury Board tabled in the House the first annual report on strengthening government review.

This report provided detailed listings of the many important reviews undertaken by government departments. These reports are available to parliamentarians.

It is important when assessing the success of government operations that we consider all of the information available to us. We must not spend too much of our time focusing on one source, the auditor general.

There is no doubt the government has demonstrated its seriousness about following up on issues raised by the auditor general. The record speaks for itself. I was pleased to note that in February 1996 the Minister of Finance included as an annex the government response to the auditor general's report. The annex addressed the government's actions on selected important issues raised by the auditor general.

I refer to the minister's address to the comments raised by the auditor general in the 1995 report on the need for better information about the public debt. The minister provided an update on the actions taken and the results achieved to date.

To conclude, let me reiterate how much the government's accountability to Parliament means to me and how important a role the auditor general and his reports play in this process. However, as I said, this debate cannot come to an end before we examine all these issues.

Taxpayers want their government to be effective and affordable. To help achieve this goal we must always look at what works and what does not. We must put our time and energies into those areas where improvements can be made.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I commend both previous speakers for recognizing the word accountability. It is really what this is all about.

That there is a function of auditor general suggests there is a need to occasionally review what has happened. I think we need to know how the money is spent, was it spent in the manner indicated in the budget and did people get value for their money. These are exactly the kinds of questions an auditor general is supposed to address.

The auditor general's report identifies areas where changes should be made, and the departments so affected are expected to respond. That in effect is the thrust of this motion.

However, it goes beyond the auditor general. Both previous speakers indicated the auditor general would be saddled with all of the responsibility. I draw the attention of the House to the last part of the motion: "Such reports should be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and any other relevant standing committees". That becomes very critical in this regard.

There are standing committees on industry, agriculture and health, et cetera. These are the committees that really have a working knowledge of what happens in the department and what the auditor general is referring to when the auditor says something out to be changed.

Each of those department should respond in three major areas: yes, the recommendations are useful; no, the recommendations are impractical, do not work and therefore will not be implemented; or the recommendations will be implemented in part and state the timeframe in which it will take place and provide a detailed plan of exactly what is to be done.

I will address this from two perspectives. I will use the science and technology experience and I will to refer briefly to the regional economic development programs.

First is science and technology. In this area the auditor general made some rather interesting observations. He suggests there was a lot of money spent. We agree. It was some $6 billion in 1995. Who is spending that money? It is the granting councils like NSERC, SSHRC and several others and scientific departments and agencies.

How are they spending it? They are spending it to some degree through government labs. There are 150 of these. I will not take time to read them all.

There are the Agri-food Diversification Research Centre in Borden, Manitoba; the Air Traffic Services Research and Experimentation in Gloucester, Ontario; the Canadian Centre for Geomatics in Sherbrooke; the Centre for Information Technology Innovation in Laval; Chalk River Laboratories in Chalk River; the Defence Research Establishment; the Lacombe Research Centre in Lacombe; the Lethbridge Research Centre in Lethbridge; the NRC Centre for Surface Transportation Technology in Ottawa; the Pacific Geoscience Centre in Sydney, British Columbia; the Sum-

merland Research Centre in Summerland, British Columbia; the West Coast Vancouver Laboratory in West Vancouver, British Columbia; the Winnipeg Research Centre in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

There are 150 of those labs. They are not the ones involved in NSERC situation. What we recognize is there is great variance on the kinds of labs just going through the labs I have given.

We need to look at some of the categories of labs. It is a little easier to do if we follow by provinces. In Newfoundland there is the St. John's Research Centre. I do not have a clue what that centre is all about but on the left hand side of my document it suggests it is in agriculture. That is fine.

There are natural resources, for example the Canadian Forestry Services in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are a number in agriculture.

It is interesting that a lot of the agricultural labs would not be recognized as agricultural labs because they are identified by the name of the place where they are centred. It goes on through the various centres. These are the labs that do the various work and in which the research is done.

Ontario has 13 different labs that deal with environment. There are the Canadian Wildlife Service, the water and wetlands branch; Atmospheric Environment Service, Ontario region; Environmental Conservation Service; the National Water Research Institute; the National Laboratory for Environmental Testing; the Waste Water Technology Centre; Dry Deposition Research Centre; King Radar Research Facility; the Centre for Atmospheric Research Experiments; Atmospheric Environment Service, Downsview; the Environmental Technology Centre, and so on. The list goes on.

The purpose of reading these lists is to show the auditor's observation of the subject of science and technology in Canada and how research dollars were being spent is accurate or at least not surprising when we go through that list.

He said science and technology go beyond contributing to economic growth; they contribute to our quality of life. I think we all agree this is so. He shows that the government has demonstrated that it obviously believes science is a major contributor to our economic well-being and to our standard of living. It spends 11 per cent of its annual budget in this area.

However, when it comes to answering the question about value for money spent or whether the money is being spent in those areas that are strategic to advancing Canada's international competitiveness, he concludes: "The present allocation of funds among various fields of science and technology is more incidental than the result of a well formulated strategy". That is not much of a commendation for spending $6 billion.

The auditor general then goes on to suggest there ought to be a framework. He suggests four questions: what are the greatest needs and opportunities; where must the government be involved and why; where should and could the government be involved and why; what should and could the government's involvements be.

The Department of Industry began to answer these questions. It produced a booklet earlier this year "Science and Technology for the New Century". It was promised to the House 12 months earlier. It was delayed one year and then another year. Following that document came another document "Highlights of Department S & T Action Plans in Response to Science and Technology for the New Century". The motivation for that came from the auditor's statement saying the allocation of funds was more incidental that the result of strategy.

What are these action plans? The action plans resulted in a further booklet "A Framework for the Human Resources Management of the Federal Science and Technology Community Science and Technology for the New Century". There are five projects in that framework: training and development, rewards and recognition, workforce and mobility, classification compression, and recruitment and rejuvenation.

Not a single one of those task forces in those five areas has anything whatsoever to do with science and technology but with personnel, its reclassification and how to look after the people who are to be involved in the research department.

Where is the science strategy for Canada in all of this? There is not one. That was the thrust of the auditor general's concern. If we do not come to grips with these kinds of things we will lose the competitive advantage we want.

I have had time to deal with one illustration of how significant the auditor general's observations are and how they can direct a whole department to what it ought to do so that the people can get the places identified where the money ought to be spent and then spent in an efficient manner so they can say that money was well spent.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert and to continue the debate on this issue.

By now, in this third hour of debate, we all know the essence of the motion which calls for an amendment to the Financial Administration Act. The pursuit of good governance and accountability is crucial for government reform. We all agree.

Where we disagree is on how this will be carried out. In light of this I will take a few minutes to remind the House of certain

elements of our current system, specifically the accountability loop and program review, and to re-emphasize their importance.

The accountability loop is strong and should not be tinkered with. Let me explain why I think voting yea to this motion would result essentially in a duplication of services already provided. As I remind the House how the accountability system works, I am sure members will agree that the level of reporting and follow-up on the auditor general's report is quite extensive.

The auditor general's main purpose is to cast a watchful eye on how money is collected from Canadians and how it is spent. In carrying out this role the auditor general submits reports several times a year tabled in the House. The accountability system begins with these reports.

Even before the reports are tabled in the House departments and agencies are provided with the opportunity within the reports to state publicly their response and intended follow-up actions to the auditor general's recommendations.

Since 1994, in addition to his main report the auditor general has the authorization to publish up to three more reports each year. For example, in 1995 the auditor general tabled three reports in the House of Commons. Most likely he will present as many this year.

The second key element in the accountability loop is question period. This provides the opportunity for members to question ministers about what they intend to do about concerns raised by the auditor general and about the operations of government. Question period often proves to be an important forum for challenging the government on points raised in the auditor general's report.

Third, the auditor general follows up on the actions of the affected departments and agencies every two years. I am positive, as all members of the House must be, that the auditor general and his office are extremely diligent in carrying out their duties. It is obvious from the last two hours of debate on this motion that we all agree the auditor general provides an invaluable service that is highly respected and legitimate.

Although the auditor general is not a civil servant, he does report to this House. This independence from the bureaucracy gives him the freedom to criticize and to form independent assessments of how things are working. Thus, his follow-up recommendations are key to the accountability process.

The government is highly motivated to respond to the concerns raised in each of the reports; we can be sure of that. For the most part, departments and agencies will address, and quickly, the issues raised by the auditor general in his report.

The fourth element of the accountability chain is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The hon. member for St. Albert can attest to the fact that this is an influential and involved body. This committee contains each and every department and agency mentioned in each report tabled by the auditor general. That is rigorously followed up. The committee asks them to report on their progress and on the recommendations mentioned in the report. The public accounts committee has been known to ask for detailed work plans on the status of various activities in addition to project updates provided every six months.

The last key element of the accountability system again falls under the public accounts committee. It also issues frequent reports on government activity to which the government must respond.

I want to emphasize that the public accounts committee is actually contributing actively. It is doing something. It is not just reporting. It is quite a different approach from what is proposed in this motion which focuses more on reporting and controlling and less on doing.

It seems that these five key elements of the accountability system combine together to provide a careful chain with explicit steps in keeping our government accountable and we all want our government to be kept accountable. Not only is there a formal external review process led by the auditor general and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, but there also exists an internal review process which is alive and effective.

Moreover the internal review process for the government is continually being improved. This internal review function consists of internal audits, program evaluations and manager led reviews. This strengthened internal review process has led to the improvements in programs and policies that are based not only on recommendations from program managers but also from clients and other internal review groups.

Members may recall a progress report entitled "Getting Government Right", tabled in the House of Commons on March 7 of this year. It discussed another form of program review. The program review exercise is an ongoing initiative of this government to examine all federal programs and activities. It is seen as the most important review work since the early 1950s. It differs from previous review exercises in that each department and agency conducted a review of all its programs and activities based on a set of guidelines. It was by no means a small effort. These guidelines took the form of a series of questions or tests which were led by experts in each area. There were six tests in all.

The first test, the public interest test, asked: Does the program area or activity continue to serve a public interest? The second test, the role of government test, asked: Is there a legitimate and necessary role for government in this program area or activity? The third test, the federalism test, asked: Is the current role of the federal government appropriate, or is the program a candidate for realignment with the provinces? The fourth test, the partnership

test, asked: What activities or programs should or could be transferred in whole or in part to the private or voluntary sector? The fifth test, the efficiency test, asked: If the program or activity continues, could this efficiency be improved? Finally the sixth test, the affordability test, asked: Is the resultant package of programs and activities affordable within the fiscal constraint? If not, what program or activities should be abandoned?

These are crucial questions. They are being asked internally within departments. Getting the right programs and services delivered the right way for the right cost is the basis of this initiative. So far the program review has resulted in an end to some programs, the transfer of others to a different service delivery method and a greater efficiency in those that remain within the federal responsibility.

This is a continuous process that is being carried out in phases. As a result of the program review in 1996-97, there is expected to be a drop in costs of close to $5 billion compared with the last fiscal year. I think it shows just how much the government cares about taxpayers' dollars.

Madam Speaker, my time is almost gone and you can see I have a full speech here to keep on going. It is important to remember who we are and what our role is. As representatives for Canadians, we must weigh the costs against perceived benefits and consequences on all issues, especially during this time of fiscal restraint.

Message From The Senate

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-8, an Act respecting Queen's University at Kingston, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

This bill is deemed to have been read the first time and will be read the second time at the next sitting of the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Financial Administration Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

There are three minutes left for debate.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, in three minutes I would like to address some of the comments made by the previous speakers.

Reference was made that this motion actually may create more work for the auditor general. I do not read that into the motion. I am reading from that motion that the committee is saying it cannot address all the issues the auditor general is raising and therefore some of these issues are getting lost.

Mention was made in relation to accountability. We are talking about one of the basic management principles which is that in any management program there is an evaluation of what is done. A plan is put together and implemented and the results are evaluated. It is my understanding that the evaluation of those results is the role of the auditor general.

To get to the outcome part of it, one needs to have the mandate, the responsibility and also the authority to carry it out, to make the plans and implement them. The accountability component has a big play in the evaluation of that. To say that the auditor general is now reporting three times versus one time is not necessarily a method of establishing accountability. It is certainly enhancing the process to achieve accountability because the reports are more frequent, but we still have to address those reports and try to improve what the management process has been, if improvement is necessary.

Reference was made that there are alternative resources for information to the auditor general. My reading of this motion does not find that a problem. What it is asking for is that the department or program which is being evaluated by the auditor general make a response and if they are taking action based on alternative resources that would be a response that would come forward. That in itself could be looked at or be evaluated for accountability purposes.

Another comment-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It being 6.11 p.m., the period allowed for the debate has expired. Pursuant to the order made earlier, the motion is deemed to have been put to the House and the recorded division on the motion is deemed to have been deferred to Tuesday, June 18, 1996, at 5.30 p.m.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen: