Debates of Feb. 10th, 1994

Privilege

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I gave Your Honour a notice of question of privilege with respect to certain statements in the constituency newsletter of the member for Okanagan Centre.

However I note the hon. member in question is not in the House at this time, so I will defer raising the question of privilege on that very serious matter at this point and will pursue it at three o'clock, at which time hopefully the member will be present.

[The Speaker]

The member is totally within his rights. If he wishes to raise this later this day it will be so taken by the Chair.

Excise Act

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-11, an act to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is first reading of the bill and I will defer my comments until later.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Petitions

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here in which these electors are asking that the government examine the bail provisions currently in existence. As well they want the government to study the situation of parolees from serious crimes. Finally, they want an in-depth examination of youth violence.

They understand that the government has already undertaken these initiatives. They want it to speed them up because they feel there are deficiencies in the criminal justice system and there is insufficient protection for certain groups of people, particularly women, children and disabled persons.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding of Fraser Valley West who feel that the Government of Canada should hold a referendum binding upon Parliament on the subject of official bilingualism. They ask for a national referendum involving all electors in the provinces and territories.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, the document has been certified correct as to form and content. I present this petition to Parliament for its due consideration.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, although in some cases it does not reflect the opinion of this member.

I present this petition to the House dated November 1993 on behalf of 37 constituents concerning a review of legislation providing for two official languages in Canada.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

moved:

That this House urge the Government to strike a Special Committee of the House, composed of representatives of all the official parties, with a mandate to examine public expenditures by the federal government, in light of the Report of the Auditor General of Canada, concerning overlap between federal and provincial government programs and in accordance with the following guidelines:

(1) the Committee's deliberations would be an open and transparent process allowing for the public examination of official matters;

(2) the Committee would have the power to subpoena any witnesses whose testimony would be considered helpful;

(3) the Committee would be required to report to the House by June 23, 1994;

and that this House urge the government to promise to provide an official reaction to this Committee's Report by tabling in the House its response to the recommendations on the first sitting day after September 1, 1994.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie on a point of order.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 43(2), I wish to bring to your attention that the Official Opposition members will share their time and make ten-minute speeches followed by five-minute periods for comments.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition is using the first business day of which it is controlling the agenda to deal with the issue of federal government expenditures. In doing so, we are responding to an expectation that was repeatedly expressed by the people during the election campaign. The urgency of the situation speaks for itself. The deficit is reaching a record high and is out of control to such an extent that, as a percentage of the gross national product, it is 63 per cent higher in Canada than the average in the G-7 countries.

Half of this deficit is due to structural problems. Canada's structural problems are legion and most of them are related to the very structure of our federalism. For instance, interference of the federal government in the areas of provincial jurisdiction as well as a loose definition of the jurisdictions of each of those levels of government lead to numerous duplications, a waste of energy and conflicting policies. Other structural problems simply reflect bad government managemnent or policies.

For instance, Canada invests very little in research and development which is a major sector if we are going to try and meet the challenges of foreign competition. Furthermore, at the international level, Canada has a poor record on public debt management. In fact, since 1989, government expenditures in Canada have increased more rapidly than those of all G-7 countries.

According to the review of The Report of the Auditor General of Canada made by Mr. Yves Séguin, bad public expenditures management has resulted in a $5 billion loss each year for the past three years.

Add to that the cost of overlappings. Sixty-seven per cent of the federal programs overlap provincial programs to a certain extent. They account for 65 per cent of all government expenditures, besides payments made for the public debt and unemployment insurance. For example, if Quebec took over the present federal programs and offered the same services, the savings would amount to $233 million for transportation and communication, $289 million for expenses related to collection of custom duties, income taxes and other taxes, and $250 million in salaries, all that for one year and for Quebec alone.

It can be reasonably estimated that just by eliminating duplication of services we would save two to three billion dollars. These figures are the financial result of duplications in the services provided by both governments, plus the increased need for co-ordination created by the claims of each government. The overlaps reduce the efficiency of government measures due to the competitive, if not conflicting, nature of federal-provincial relations. Witness the flag wars that have been waged by the two sides for the last 20 years.

In June 1988, Quebec and Ottawa signed an agreement on regional economic development which was to result in an investment of $820 million over five years, divided as follows: Ottawa, $440 million, and Quebec, $380 million. Now, believe it or not, it took a little over two years for Ottawa and Quebec to agree on the programs and on their respective roles. Five years after this agreement was signed, the two governments had spent only $281 million, that is to say a mere 34 per cent of the $820 million agreed to. This is a far cry from what was expected as the result of this allocation of funds.

The overlapping of services also increases the burden on individuals and companies seeking access to the programs and services offered. A lot of energy is wasted just to find one's way through this regulatory and administrative maze. I think that since we have been elected, everybody realized that, because it took us a few months just to learn to know all the existing programs. As I said, we are wasting a lot of energy just to make our way through this administrative maze.

When a firm wants to make a plan for the development of its human resources, for example, it has to convince both the

professional employees from the federal government and the people from the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre in order for its employee placement plan or employment assistance committees to be implemented. Small businesses often have to pass on to consumers the costs of the redundant representations they make to both governments. Without realizing it, consumers end up paying for the cost of federalism through an intermediary.

Keeping up with programs and services is in itself an important additional cost for individual businesses. Furthermore, the few sessions held by the industry committee allowed me to realize that it was a problem felt throughout Canada.

An ENAP study found that out of a sample of 221 federal programs and 244 Quebec programs, 197 overlapped to various degrees and were seriously jeopardizing the efforts to enhance the management of government policies.

For example, the following sectors, among the most depressed in the Canadian economy, accounted for more than 75 p. 100 of all the program overlaps between the federal government and the Quebec government: fisheries, housing, education, secondary industries, financial markets, territorial management, labour and employment, and of course regional development.

These overlappings also reduce the control citizens have on their government. As a result of this competition between governments, no government alone has the ability to carry out projects that have been undertaken, while allowing each governement to throw the ball back into the other's court.

Citizens do not directly pay for the programs available to them and cannot avoid paying for a program which they feel is less satisfactory. What is ultimately questioned is the principle that a person who pays taxes has the right to be represented. Under the Canadian system, taxes paid to one government are often spent by another government, whose criteria do not necessarily coincide with the other's criteria. This may explain the lack of confidence voters have shown in the Canadian electoral system and their elected representatives.

Competition between governments seldom improves the quality of the services they offer, because governments do not operate in the same way as the private sector. The constraints are not the same.

The government's other objective is to deal with the poor management practices observed and criticized annually by the Auditor General of Canada. Horror stories aside, we should pay particular attention to the substantive recommendations made by the Auditor General. To ensure that the situation is corrected, we suggest a careful follow-up of these recommendations in order to return control over the budgetary process to Parliament. Members can then be heard before decisions are finalized and can influence those decisions, with the help of adequate information on the use of public funds by departments and Crown corporations.

This year again, the Auditor General's report criticized departments for their lack of emphasis on program evaluation. In 1991-92, expenditures for 16 programs totalled $124.5 billion, and only two of these programs were given a thorough evaluation.

We cannot tolerate taxpayers' money being spent without an evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities involved. It is necessary to do the right thing and to do it right. One must be able to evaluate what is being done. On the basis of the information for 1991-92, the Auditor General observed that over a seven-year period, only 18 per cent of the programs had been evaluated.

Considering the urgency and seriousness of the situation, the Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to strike a multiparty committee of the House of Commons with a mandate to examine all the government's operating budgets. The government must guarantee this review of government spending will be an open and transparent process.

To ensure that the instruments required to provide for sound management of public spending are put in place, the government should undertake to react officially and promptly to the committee's recommendations.

There are many avenues to explore, but for this exercise to be successful, parliamentarians must lead the way. Ministers, members, senior officials and all other players in the administrative apparatus must realize there is an urgent need for a change in attitude, from "it does not matter, the government is paying" to "this is everybody's money and I must ensure it is used effectively".

By carefully examining operating budgets, we should be able to eliminate a number of obsolete programs that have continued to exist by sheer force of habit.

The most striking example is military expenditures. We approved the cancellation of the helicopter contract, but we believe the government is engaging in the same kind of non-productive expenditures by not transferring the high-technology jobs involved into a really comprehensive project and by letting them go instead, thereby increasing unemployment insurance costs.

We think it would be possible to reduce defence expenditures by 25 per cent, that is an amount of $3 billion.

Another example we should look at is the natural tendency to self-justification within the bureaucratic machine. The first thing that comes to mind is the considerable amount of energy and resources spent for the preparation of perfect forms and detailed instructions, even before anyone knows who the users will be. Please let us not put the blame on those who already

have trouble enough surviving the financial crisis; they are only the victims.

On that point, tax expert Yves Séguin said that the fat in social programs was much leaner than the fat on the other side; that there were more savings to be made by curbing waste than by cutting social programs because, except in cases of gross abuse, these are not overly generous in the first place.

Why is the Bloc Quebecois putting so much energy in this fight against waste if it wants Quebec to redefine its relationship with Canada? Simply because it is the wish of everybody in this country and particularly of taxpayers who pay their income tax regularly and keep the system going. But also because Canada and Quebec cannot look ahead to any kind of future if they do not succeed in curbing that monster the federal system helped create.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his topic for today. However I would like to remind him as well that we all have great concern and have campaigned on the elimination of waste to save Canada for us all.

It was this government that campaigned on the elimination of the helicopter project. I wonder if the member's remarks are geared to the government of today or the government of yesterday.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in reply, I will say that the elimination of waste was part of our platform too. Where we differ is in the sources of such waste, as was demonstrated by the way Quebecers voted. A federalist party is of course bent on trying to improve the system to make it better.

In Quebec, we have reached the conclusion that the solution was no longer to improve the system but rather to significantly alter it. In Quebec, we have lived the overlapping problem in a very different manner, because of our specific characteristics. This aspect was never dealt with in a realistic or concrete manner in this House, leaving the problem unsolved. We believe that it is because there has never been in this House members whose sole interests were those of Quebec; often, people were held back by their federalist vision, and their commitment to federalist principles.

As far as the helicopters are concerned, as we said all along during the election campaign, we were ready to cancel the contract, but, contrary to the Liberals, we wanted to avoid the loss of research and development funding, and the elimination of the high tech jobs it was providing. What was needed then was new projects to utilise this highly skilled labour force. During the weeks immediately following the election, we suggested a high speed train project. In my view, to have highly skilled and well trained people on unemployment insurance is not a sound investment for the long term. We have to put them back to work as soon as possible.

I might add that the infrastructure program, for example, will meet certain needs in that area and create jobs for a certain kind of workers. But for those to whom that really matters, who make good wages and who put money back into the economy and into the area where they live, the vision of members on this side is more forward looking than that of the government, regarding the proposed course of action.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's motion he suggests that the government strike a special committee of the House to examine public expenditures in light of the report of the Auditor General. He goes on to say that the deliberations should be open and transparent and that the committee should have the power to subpoena any witness.

Is not the hon. member aware that we already have and have had for many years the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which does that very thing? As a matter of fact that committee is chaired by an opposition member to assure that the examinations carried out are thorough and far reaching and to do all the things already in his motion.

If I understand correctly the hon. member is concerned with overlapping. It seems to me if the government set up this committee we would have much more overlapping and duplication than we already have. I do not really understand what this committee would be doing that the public accounts committee under an opposition chairman is not already doing or will do.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks but what I remember from suggestions made by my constituents during the election campaign is that they would certainly agree to see the House consider that problem in particular. As you said, the committee has been there for a long time but has settled nothing. The present situation is due to that committee's actions.

I think we have an obligation to take concrete action and that would be a way to prove our openness to the electorate. I would be very happy if they could see on television the efforts of members to control expenditures. We can be assured that that would seriously change the way people see politicians, at least in my own riding and I believe that would serve the interests of the whole country.

As far as overlap is concerned, by the way the committee has been presented to us, I do not believe its purpose is to duplicate the other one. We would be ready to give this committee the main role and we hope that the government would do the same and recognize the importance of controlling expenditures, in order to regain room to manoeuvre and revitalize the economy.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last campaign, the Bloc Quebecois said that, considering the circumstances and the massive debt, it would make sure that the new government struck a special committee responsible for the review of the federal government's public expenditures.

In the motion, we added "in light of the report of the Auditor General of Canada". There is also a mention of the overlap between federal and provincial government programs. Definitely, there are a lot of questions to be asked if we are to cut expenditures equitably and efficiently, in order to come up eventually with a balanced budget.

We all know that each time the federal government goes into debt, it is forcing Quebec into debt also. Quebecers are really concerned about the way the federal government is spending. We are aware of the fact that we are getting poorer and poorer since our debt keeps on growing.

If Quebec ever gains sovereignty, which I truly hope will happen, we will have to take over our share of that debt. That is why we are anxious to see the federal government lower its expenditures, so as not to keep on growing poorer every day. Canada's debt now exceeds $500 billion. If we divide this amount by the number of Canadian citizens, we come up with a frightening figure, but when we divide it by the number of families, the figure is even more alarming.

Once again, for these reasons we need to sit down and take a serious look at the situation and come up with real answers to this terrible debt problem.

During the 1970s we listened to Mr. Trudeau tell us that we could afford to borrow. These years were considered to be somewhat less prosperous ones. We were told that once the country grew more quickly, once economic growth was stronger, then we could pay the money back.

Not only did we take out loans, we also incurred long-term debts which we are still reimbursing. How are we supposed to reduce an annual deficit when we have 30-year commitments? The federal government has incurred all sorts of 30-year debts.

Mr. Trudeau and his government made a blatant error at the time as far as long-term obligations were concerned, one that has proven extremely difficult to correct today.

Throughout these years, from 1970 to 1992 or 1993, we always heard that Canada was a wealthy country and that it ranked first among all industrialized countries in terms of its standard of living. During the referendum, we also heard that Canada ranked first among the industrialized nations of the world. However we would be deluding ourselves if we believed this.

I will give you an example that I have often used to illustrate this point. Take a 20-year old who owns his own house free and clear. The home is valued at $200 billion. He also owns a car free and clear. Year after year for a period of 20 years, this person has had to take out a mortgage on his house to survive.

Twenty years later, in 1993, his house is mortgaged at 95 per cent, because that is the maximum amount he can borrow. He has a loan for the full value of his automobile because it is rented, and he has reached the spending limit on his credit cards. All the while, he has maintained the same standard of living. That person is inclined to say: My standard of living is very good and I have maintained it for the past 20 years. However that person is in debt up to his neck and is on the verge of tumbling into the dark hole of poverty.

This example describes exactly what is happening in Canada today. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. We say we are wealthy, but it is only artificial wealth. We have lived on credit for the past 20 years. That is the legacy left to us by the Liberals and we are still being taken in today.

In 1984, I was elected along with the Conservative government and I said exactly the same thing to my constituents at the time.

In 1984, economic growth was good, around three per cent. In our caucuses we would say: "We must cut expenses. This is insane; the public debt is close to $180 billion". Ministers agreed that cuts had to be made, as long as their department was not affected. So, we kept spending more and more.

In 1985, 1986 and 1987, when economic growth was quite good, we could have cut expenses even at the cost of creating a little unemployment. When cuts are made, the government pumps less money into the economy and this results in slower growth. With a 3 or 4 per cent growth at the time, we could have sacrificed one per cent by cutting spending. But we did not. Why not? Because we did not have the kind of all-party independent committee that we are proposing this morning.

We propose that an independent committee, a committee with no political ties or partisanship, be set up. It is imperative that such a committee, made up of representatives of all official parties, be struck to made recommendations so that the government can act without fearing blame, since it would automatical-

ly have the support of the three or four parties. That is the great advantage of our proposal.

That is why it is so important. If you are the least bit familiar with how things work in politics, how politicians react, you know that there comes a time when we must set our political interests aside and take steps to help the government act without being criticized.

Basically, what we are proposing today is a way to provide support to the government so that it can make some headway and bring the debt down. We must all set partisanship aside and deal immediately with this monstrous debt that is bankrupting this country.

[Raymond Lavigne, Liberal, Verdun—Saint-Paul, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather ironic that the hon. member for Longueuil, who sat for years with the Conservatives who increased the debt by $340 billion, is now advocating, after all his years in Parliament, the creation of a special commission or committee to review spending, when there already is such a committee.

The party opposite favours eliminating overlap and repatriating all powers to Quebec, so I find it ironic that they are advocating the creation of a special committee to review Canadian government finances and support this government. Yet, we are giving our support to the governments of Quebec and of the other provinces.

I find it difficult to understand how the hon. member for Longueuil can defend the committee he wants to set up to study government expenditures when these expenditures were not made by us. We already have a committee. If, in four years, the hon. member for Longueuil wants to create a special committee to study government spending because of extra or excessive expenditures, we will then be able to establish a special committee. But I do not see how we can set up this committee to review government spending when our government is not even responsible for all this spending.

I would ask the hon. member for Longueuil to tell me what this special committee could do that the existing committee cannot?

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see, thanks to the Liberal member, that the government's intent is not to cut spending. Indeed, we heard the finance minister say earlier this week that he would probably increase corporate and other taxes when we know very well that Canadians and Quebecers are already overtaxed.

I find such statements from the government quite troubling and I am pessimistic and concerned as it is well known that we are in debt up to our necks, and I am unhappy to see that my children will probably have trouble keeping their heads above water in the coming years. This government is taking things far too lightly.

We are proposing a common review to give this government some political freedom of expression and allow it to take concrete action with the support of the Official Opposition. That is why we are proposing today the creation of a special committee. We are not talking about the existing standing committee but about a special committee with a mandate to turn around the country's economic situation. I wonder why the party in office, the government, is against us giving it a hand.

The hon. member was talking about my political experience. Indeed, I have been sitting in this House for nine years and, during these nine years, I have learned that government decisions are often made for electoral reasons, to win or rather not to lose votes. The government always makes short-term decisions in order to stay in power; it is a power play. What we are now proposing is this: We will give you a hand to help you make an apolitical decision. It is something new.

We in the Bloc Quebecois do not want to come to power here in Ottawa. So take advantage of this situation! We are not the usual opposition, like the Liberals were under the Conservative government I was a member of. So take advantage of the fact that we are neutral because we do not want to come to power here in Ottawa, far from it. We want to give you a hand and help Canada to reduce its debt, because every time Canada increases its debt it also increases Quebec's and we do not like it.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on issues arising from the Auditor General's report and to respond to comments made by hon. members opposite on Mr. Desautels' report highlighting many of the significant matters that require our attention. Of course these are matters that are relevant to the last Parliament and the last government. They require immediate attention by all of us to ensure the most efficient and effective use of the taxpayers' dollar.

I am pleased that we have already acted on a number of the points raised by the Auditor General. We have opened up the budget process. We cancelled a flawed airport deal relevant to Pearson International Airport; we put the airbus up for sale; we tightened up the regulations on the use of government aircraft; we have streamlined the decision making process of cabinet; and we restructured departments to make sure they can work together more effectively.

The new decision making structure of cabinet consists of full cabinet and only four cabinet committees: economic development policy, social development policy, Treasury Board and a special committee of council. This is in marked contrast to the very expensive, cumbersome structure that existed previously with 11 cabinet committees in operation.

Moreover, we have reduced the privileges of members of Parliament in terms of the costs we can save there. We have cut the political staff of ministers; we have reduced the budgets for ministers by some $10 million a year. As will be heard later today from my colleague the minister responsible for federal-provincial relations we are moving in the areas of cutting the waste, the duplication and the overlap between the federal and provincial governments. This is a strong start but more has to be done to address the issues raised by the Auditor General.

At this point I would like to acknowledge the contribution Mr. Desautels and his staff have made to a better understanding of many of the important and complex issues faced by government. Many of his concerns parallel our own. When we met to discuss his report I learned that we shared a belief in the importance of improving information to Parliament and in reviewing existing programs and policies to ensure they continue to meet the needs of Canadians.

The Auditor General has outlined his view that parliamentarians need to be more involved in the budget process. That has been raised here this morning. We agree and my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance has been making great strides in opening the budget process through various pre-budget consultations in the cities of Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and Calgary. He has met hundreds of Canadians and has heard directly from them what they feel must be done to turn the economy around, to create jobs and restore the faith of Canadians in the future. In many of the debates we have had in this House hon. members have had the opportunity to address issues relevant to the upcoming budget.

I remind hon. members that we believe the efforts to bring the federal debt and deficit under control are most important and are going to be addressed in the budget of the Minister of Finance. It is important that we bring them under control, but it is also important that the measures taken are compatible with getting Canadians back to work.

The federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program is a key to stimulating economic activity. Bearing in mind what hon. members opposite have raised this morning, it is a good example of attempting to cut down on duplication, overlap and competition among the different levels of government. This program is unique in bringing three orders of government together to ensure the most efficient and effective spending of taxpayers' dollars.

As we have said in "Creating Opportunity" and as the Prime Minister has confirmed, we will allow individual members of Parliament more involvement in these consultations. Committees of the House will be given greater influence over government expenditures than previously. This government has announced that changes will be proposed to the rules of the House of Commons to provide members of Parliament with a greater opportunity to contribute to the development of public policy and to contribute to the development of legislation.

The Official Opposition motion mentions that a special committee be struck to examine public expenditures by the federal government in light of the Auditor General's report. However there already is such a committee. As was raised this morning by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce that is the public accounts committee.

We look forward to working with members of the public accounts committee as they study the Auditor General's report in detail. The public accounts committee is chaired by a member of the Official Opposition. That gives them enormous opportunity to raise these issues and to have them dealt with by the public accounts committee. I look forward to those deliberations.

I do not see the need for creating still another committee. I said a few moments ago that we have streamlined the process of cabinet, going from 11 committees down to 4 committees. We do not see the necessity in adding still further committees.

The committee on public accounts will want to examine how government departments and agencies are responding to the need for improved administration and management. It will want to call senior officials before it and when its work is complete the government will have the benefit of its findings.

The Auditor General has consistently advocated the need for better reporting of financial information for Parliament. This year was no exception in his report. This year Mr. Desautels devoted an entire chapter of his report to his view that better information is required on the deficit and the debt. Once again I am pleased to report the government is acting to address this need.

Recently the finance department issued two publications that will help increase understanding of the debt and the deficit. A short booklet entitled "Basic Facts on Federal Spending" will help Canadians better understand the federal government's budgetary spending. It summarizes spending as it is presented in the federal budget and in the public accounts. In addition, a longer background document called "Federal Spending" provides even more detail.

Members will be happy to see that the public accounts recently tabled in the House were accepted without reservation by the Auditor General. The fundamental purpose of the public accounts is to provide information to Parliament and through Parliament to all Canadians. Their purpose is to facilitate understanding of the full nature and extent of the financial affairs and resources for which this government is responsible.

Last year the Auditor General said that in his view: "The government's financial statements would be more understandable if they were presented in a comprehensive but succinct annual financial report". What Mr. Desautels was calling for was a financial report similar to the annual reports published by corporations in the private sector. We have done just that.

To make the financial statements of the Government of Canada more understandable to the public we have added a new section to the 1993 public accounts. For the first time we have presented a summary of economic developments during the year, a financial review and a set of condensed financial statements. New graphs and charts portray complex financial data in an understandable format for the first time. This clear and concise overview of the state of the government's financial affairs was added at the suggestion of the Auditor General.

Another ongoing concern of his has been the need for more information on the results of government programs. We agree. To have a country that works we need to measure whether specific government programs actually deliver results over time. We recognize the need for strengthened audits, strengthened internal audits, strengthened evaluation. In fact that was a cornerstone of the recommendations in the red book.

This year the Auditor General looked at several aspects of regulations. Regulations can help improve the quality of life of Canadians by setting standards for things which affect their daily lives. Canadians should be able to put their children in car seats knowing they meet certain safety standards. They should know how much fat the ground beef they buy contains. Yet regulations can also place an undue cost or administrative burden on businesses and individuals.

This government is committed to reducing the regulatory burden on Canada's economy. One example of the innovative ways we are finding to do this is the new business impact test which was jointly developed with the Canadian Manufacturers Association. I had the pleasure of unveiling it with that association just a week ago.

This new software package is designed to help governments understand and evaluate the potential impact of proposed regulations on the private sector. It looks at the direct costs of proposed regulations as well as the effect the proposals may have on the way firms operate, organize and innovate. It allows companies to give their views early in the process, as a regulation is being developed. It can even help business and government determine other ways to serve the public interest that may not involve regulation at all. Therefore we are trying to streamline regulations to help Canadian businesses compete in this current economy.

In closing, I would like to stress the importance of the contribution of the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General has made an important contribution to the better understanding of the issues faced by governments. At the same time there is no doubt the Auditor General's work is an important stimulus to constructive action.

We look forward to consulting with the Auditor General. We look forward to hearing the deliberations of the public accounts committee, chaired by a member of the Official Opposition. Together we can pursue the goals of restoring the confidence of Canadians in their government and the efficient and effective spending of tax dollars.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the committee that is being suggested certainly falls under the terms of reference of the public accounts committee. I too do not see the need for an additional committee in the House for that reason.

The hon. member has suggested some improvements which have already been made with the Auditor General's report. However no mention was made under the aboriginal economic development strategy. I would like his comments on this point.

The throne speech addressed three major programs with the aboriginal affairs department that would be undertaken. I noted in chapter 11 of the Auditor General's report there were significant observations made on previous programs by the previous government. I would not like the hon. member to respond by saying it was the previous government's fault. It is actually the administrative problems within those programs which are of concern to me.

I want to make one reference. For instance, the administration and the government could not demonstrate that after spending at least $900 million from the beginning of its implementation in 1989 to early 1993 the strategy's objectives were being met.

The essence of the Auditor General's report on aboriginal programs, in particular the aboriginal economic development strategy, is that a lot of money is put into these programs but we really do not know what the outcomes of these programs are. They are poorly co-ordinated. In fact many Canadians think we are throwing out too much money without outcomes.

What is this government going to do when it introduces these new programs as announced in the throne speech? How are we going to have outcomes to these programs unlike the problem the Auditor General came up with in a previous report?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. It does relate to something of considerable importance to me and the government. That is to understand what the

outcomes are of our programs and what we have gained for the taxpayers' dollar that has been spent and what the results are.

Internal audit and evaluation processes become a very key part of trying to determine that. A greater emphasis has to be placed on that than has been done in the past. That is certainly the case on the infrastructure program for which I have some immediate responsibility for implementing. That is one of the areas where I have made it quite clear we have to be able to get a handle on it so we will understand what those outcomes are. I think my colleagues share that.

Whether it is in native affairs, native economic development strategies or whatever other area, we will attempt to apply that general principle of getting an understanding of the outcomes and providing the appropriate internal audit and evaluation processes to do that.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost amused by what the previous speaker said. One would think that he is a Conservative defending the Conservatives' record. Basically, he is defending the status quo, when it has been proven that the status quo does not work. They tell us about the Public Accounts Committee. The proof that it does not work is the situation we are in.

How can one claim that this committee, which does indeed exist, will be effective, when it was not effective in the past?

Furthermore, according to the Auditor General of Canada, only 18 per cent of programs are evaluated, as the hon. member for Rivière-du-Loup reminded us just now. So how can you defend the status quo if you do not even take the trouble to evaluate what is being done?

I have the impression that the Auditor General's report and role may have more to do with discovering mismanagement and horrors and not so much to do with the effectiveness of programs; the proof is that they are not evaluated.

I am very surprised and I would like the previous speaker to explain to me why, at the very beginning of a new mandate and a new government, they are defending the previous government's policies so much.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am amused by that because it was exactly the opposite of what my remarks were all about. My remarks were about the changes that are being made. I am certainly not going to stand here and defend what the previous government has done which is now being talked about in the Auditor General's report.

I find it amazing that they overlook the value of the existing public accounts committee as a means of dealing with a great many of these issues. Hon. members opposite get the opportunity to chair that committee. That gives them a much greater opportunity than perhaps many other committees. They talk today about cutting down and overlapping, yet they want to establish another committee that is clearly going to overlap what an existing committee is already empowered to do.

Let us stop wasting our time and the taxpayers' money by setting up alternative overlapping committees when one exists, one they have an opportunity to chair.