Mr. Speaker, as you know, as a political Party, the Bloc Quebecois, has committed itself to defend the interests of Quebec and, as the Official Opposition, it has committed itself to responsibly and effectively assume this role.
In this context, I want you to be assured, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to make constant, accurate and regular efforts to see that this government abides by the commitments made in its famous red book.
With regard to this debate on the creation of a special committee with a mandate to evaluate the various programs, I would like to highlight some deficiencies of the Canadian federal system which are at the root of the poor management of this country and of its financial crisis. I refer in particular to the shortcomings of the evaluation process as applied to government programs.
Given the weakness of this mecanism which allows to systematically verify in each department the efficiency and the viability of government programs-the legacy of the Trudeau and the Mulroney eras-the Bloc Quebecois wants to proceed to a detailed evaluation of the government spending programs.
In our view, program evaluation must meet three basic needs of any administration which has self-respect and knows how to efficiently defend itself. First, the information collected through such evaluation measures is used for clarifying the decision making process regarding the allocation of ressources, making it more efficient. Second, these measures help Quebecers and Canadians to decide on the return from tax revenues. Finally, such measures make civil servants responsible not only for the implementation of the procedures, but also for the results achieved.
At present, the Treasury Board policy on evaluation consists of two elements. A self-evaluation made by the departments and a process directed by a central authority which has the mandate to establish priorities, provide technical assistance and monitor the evaluations made by departments. Therefore, evaluations are already being made by some departments but the monitoring part is far from brilliant.
There are two main problems related to program evaluation in Canada. First, the resources allotted to a department to make such evaluations and thus increase the return on public investments are clearly insufficient.
Let me give some examples which speak for themselves. Between 1989-90 and 1991-92, the expenditures related to program evaluations went down 28 per cent which, as a result, has led to a reduction in the number of program evaluations since 1987-88. Indeed, 99 program evaluation reports were produced in 1987-88 compared to only 80 in 1991-92. Most importantly, during the latter period, government expenditures for 16 programs totalled $124.5 billion. Only two of those programs were examined thoroughly. By the way, the Trudeau and Mulroney administrations never gave any special attention to major programs. Evaluations do not focus on programs with the greatest expenditures. It is estimated that programs with expenditures of less than $250 million were evaluated twice as much compared to those spending more than that amount.
I must underline that according to 1991-92 figures, evaluations done on a seven-year period focused on 24 per cent of program spending. If we take into account the cost of debt service, evaluations were on only 18 per cent of expenditures over a seven-year period. Also, starting with 1991-92 figures, evaluations done over that period focused on only 24 per cent of program spending.
A second problem with governmental program evaluation has to do with the quality of controls regarding the evolution of those programs. By placing evaluation services within departments, we have given the immediate needs of managers precedence over those of the government and the public. How? They neglect the basic role of program evaluation which is to ascertain program effectiveness and question them if necessary, for the sole purpose of allowing for optimal allocation of resources.
In fact, the evaluations cover operational aspects only and in no way determine the programs' relevance or cost-effectiveness. The Canadian public service, as well as any Western bureaucracy, is rather self-sufficient and very resistant political interference in its methods of operation. There is no systematic evaluation of programs involving more than one department. The House of Commons could establish a system to that effect as a symbol of the involvement of the population in the political
life of the state of Quebec and of Canada, at least if one believes in democratic representation.
With such a huge deficit and a rather anemic economic recovery, it is essential that the existing resources be allocated and used as efficiently as possible. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that in such a context, program evaluation becomes essential. Without effective program evaluation, the government is just not able to best allocate its resources. In fact, parliamentarians are asked to work in the dark, and to allocate resources without knowing what the situation really is.
The Auditor General said in his report that "In the 1990s, program evaluation should be seen as crucial to the management of government expenditures, because it can help to arrive at informed decisions aimed at controlling growth of the public debt". Therein lies our problem.
By comparison, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States have adopted an external evaluation system for government programs. For example, in the United States all evaluation reports are made public and they are often presented directly to Congress. In addition, Congress can request evaluation reports on programs that it wishes to review. Which means that the legislature has control over the evaluation process.
Again in the United States the general accounting office handles requests for and submits evaluation reports to Congress.
In the United Kingdom managers are responsible for meeting performance objectives, while in Australia, evaluations are used in the budget-making process.
In 1978 the public accounts committee recommended that evaluation results be tabled in the House within 60 days after the evaluations were completed. In 1983-listen to this, Mr. Speaker-only one single study was tabled.
Is this the mark of a conscientious, efficient government administration? Is it not, rather, the trademark of the Liberal Party of Canada? Will the newly announced national infrastructure program, which is being touted as the saviour of the Canadian economy, be subject to an evaluation? Will it be based on effective management criteria? I doubt it. The Auditor General's report has already been forgotten and evaluation criteria will be defined later, or so we are told.
To stop this waste of public funds, the Bloc Quebecois is calling for strong action. It wants the House to press the government to strike a special parliamentary committee made up of all official parties. The committee would have a mandate to review federal government expenditures in light of the report of the Auditor General of Canada, as well as overlap between provincial and federal programs.
The opposition is making this proposal in a spirit of transparency and openness, as it would provide for the public scrutiny of official matters. The committee would have the power to call witnesses if it felt their testimony would be useful.
We are proposing that this committee, which could be called the standing committee on program evaluation, report before June 23, 1994, and that the government undertake to give a formal response to this report by tabling its response to the committee's recommendations on the first sitting day of the 1994 fall session of this House.
The Official Opposition is presenting a constructive proposal aimed at achieving the objectives put forward by the Liberal government in its red book, namely ensuring transparency, restoring the image of politicians and allowing for greater involvement of members of Parliament in the affairs of government and of the House.
This proposal constitutes a formal invitation from the Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition, to the Liberal government.
