Debates of Nov. 10th, 1995

Government Response To Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

Agriculture

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I am pleased to table in both official languages the government's response to the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food entitled "Dismantling the Crow: Curbing the Impacts", which was tabled in this House on June 22, 1995.

Public Accounts

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning the Atlantic Freight Assistance Program.

Government Review

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table in both official languages the first ever annual report to Parliament entitled "Strengthening Government Review". This is in keeping with the commitment made by the government in its response to the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which I will speak to shortly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present my report on strengthening government review.

This document is our way of delivering on a promise.

Specifically, it is delivering on our promise to address some of the concerns expressed about review in the sixth report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

In a larger sense this document is also part of our effort to fulfil the government's election promise to Canadians. We told them that we would make government more efficient, that we would make it more affordable. We also promised we would make it more accountable.

To get government right, we need to know what works and what does not work. Feedback in the form of reviews, evaluations and audits is the best way for the government to learn and to improve. As well, regular reviews are an excellent opportunity to remind our employees of what the public service is all about: delivering quality service to the public and doing our best with the resources that are available.

Canadians want to know how their tax money is spent. They want to be assured they are getting value for those tax dollars. As the people's elected representatives, we have a right to an accounting on those expenditures. Through the public accounts committee we have been told we need timely, relevant and useful feedback on the effects of government policies and programs.

As the auditor general pointed out in his 1993 report, the government's feedback system does not always work as it should. This is why we are implementing many initiatives for things like quality management, a better expenditure management system, a modernized financial information system, a smarter use of modern information technology and of course with this report today, a strengthening of government review of its programs and services.

The government-wide program review process is bringing many significant changes to the way we govern. It is more than just a short term tune-up. Our research shows that those changes are making a real difference to the way we manage the public service. We are working to create a new management culture, one that is results oriented and one that is client focused.

Results oriented management means defining the results the government seeks to achieve in its programs. It means giving managers the resources and guidance they need to achieve those results. It means performance measurements, measuring and demonstrating actual achievements. It means ultimately finding a way to share what we learn with each other in the government and also with the public.

This report is our way of documenting these changes. It is the product of a thorough investigation. We consulted many different groups, both internally and externally. Our valued professional auditors, our evaluators and others in the review community played a key role in the evolution of this report.

What did we learn from these consultations? Our research showed that public service employees really do understand the importance of review.

This is apparent in the extensive amount of review activity carried out in the departments.

The Treasury Board is leading the evolution of review in three key ways. First, we are linking results information with our business plan process and other forms of decision making. Second, we are improving our ability to co-ordinate government-wide reviews. Third, we are enhancing our review and performance database so that it will be a convenient source of information on key reviews as well as lessons learned and best practices.

There is still room for improvement. We are committed to do what it takes to continue down the road this report puts us on. Administrative structures will be reinforced and results commitments will be more visible. In helping to provide the information for evaluation, we also need a better financial information system. We will continue to find better ways of measuring and making performance information available to Parliament.

Finally, we are going to help departments develop better accountability or control frameworks giving the kind of training and expertise that is needed. We are going to analyse the information gaps for issues where more than one department is involved.

Review is a powerful tool for change. It is integral to delivering quality services to Canadians. It is vital to the changes under way to improve our expenditure management system. We intend to continue our actions to strengthen government review and evaluation on government programs and services.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the efficiency of the civil service depends on a close and frequent assessment of all of the government programs. Departments must ensure that their programs meet their original objectives. Also, they must ensure that the various departmental programs produce very good results, in the best possible way, and that they do no waste the taxpayers' money.

In his 1993 annual report, the auditor general made an assessment of the federal government programs which was very negative. He concluded that not only was the program assessment process seriously flawed, but also that only a quarter of federal expenditures had been reviewed between 1985-86 and 1991-92.

For over two years now, the official opposition has been calling for a comprehensive assessment of all federal programs. Also, for this assessment to be efficient, it must be transparent, which means that members of Parliament should be able to take part in it. As you know, only elected representatives are accountable to the people. The President of the Treasury Board told us today that, as elected representatives of the people, we have the right to be well informed on how the money is spent. But what have we seen since this government took office?

For example, the so-called program assessment undertaken by his colleague from Intergovernmental Affairs was done behind closed doors. At a finance committee hearing, the official opposition even asked the President of the Treasury Board to release the studies, especially those on duplication, made in connection with the program review.

At the time, the President of the Treasury Board referred us to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who refused to release them on the grounds that they were useful only to the policy makers. So much for transparency. We have to judge a government by its actions and results rather than by its rethoric.

I am afraid this new management culture that the President of the Treasury Board says he wants to put in place clashes with the policies the present government has been practising since it took office.

It is all fine and well for the President of the Treasury Board to preach and to say he wants to improve the federal program review, but the results will be disappointing as long as parliamentarians are denied access to the necessary information.

I mentioned duplication of services earlier. To be effective, every program review process must answer this very simple question: Who is doing what? Which level of government is best able to deal with various areas? The federal government said and still says that jurisdiction must be given to the level of government which is best able to deal with it. Again, we must ensure this is not only rethoric.

What is the every day reality since the present government took office? The reality is that the federal government is interfering increasingly in areas where the jurisdiction and legitimacy of Quebec and the provinces are absolutely clear. I will give you examples, passage of Bill C-76 and the issue of manpower training.

With Bill C-76, the federal government has given itself the powers to unilaterally impose national standards, particularly in the areas of post-secondary education and welfare, thus increasing useless duplication.

Even though all of Quebec's social and economic stakeholders agree that the Government of Quebec is the level of government which is in the best position and which is the most effective to deal with manpower training, the federal government refuses to withdraw from this sector with compensation.

A government is judged by its actions. The federal government's profoundly centralist philosophy prevents it from improving effectiveness in the public service. Instead of eliminating duplication and the waste by making a strict assessment-through an open and transparent process-of all of the federal programs, the federal

government has once again decided to send the bill to the provinces and limits its action to tabling yet another report.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Reform Party to the minister's first report on strengthening government review.

It is interesting to note that the first review, which the minister has said he takes great pride in tabling, is the result of the work done by the public accounts committee. It tabled a report last year calling for this review. There were eight specific, strong recommendations to help the government do its job better. We know the government is trying. Quite often we give them a failing grade but at least we see that they are trying.

Looking at the report I noted this. He said: "What did we learn? First of all our research showed that public service employees really do understand the importance of review". I hope so because it meant that 30,000 of them were out the door.

During the last election, the Liberals said that they were going to create jobs, that they were going to create an infrastructure program and spend $6 billion of borrowed money.

The President of the Treasury Board admitted before the committee that $6 billion only created 8,000 full time jobs. We have now found that the government is spending another several billion dollars to move 30,000 civil servants on to the street and on to the rolls of UI.

Canadians are going to be out $10 billion and we are also down about 20,000 jobs at the same time. We need program evaluation to do things properly. Unfortunately, by looking at the report that was just tabled-we have not had the opportunity to examine it in detail-it seems to me that this is the same old review rather than a proper evaluation of the programs of government, reviews that the auditor general has said focus primarily on efficiency and tinkering with the system rather than a full blown evaluation to save money.

Take an example. I am not going to give the government the credit because it was actually started under the previous government, when the department of transportation decided to do a review of the Atlantic freight rates assistance program. This program had been started around the turn of the century and codified around the 1920s. This was to subsidize freight being moved from Atlantic Canada westward into Quebec and Ontario.

By 1993 it was costing us $100 million a year in subsidies. When an evaluation was done it was found the subsidy was going into the hands of these poor people called Irvings and McCains and so on in Atlantic Canada. It was all set up by trucking firms owned by these large companies inflating the cost and the subsidy they were collecting. We found out the subsidy was providing no public policy benefits to the people of Canada, yet we were paying $100 million.

Program evaluation reviews can do the job properly if they are focused and done well. However, the auditor general tells us that the government is cutting back on its commitment to reduce $11.8 million, in I think it was in the 1992-93 contracting to look at evaluation of programs. It cut back $8.5 million, a decline of 28 per cent while we listened to these wonderful words of the President of the Treasury Board telling us how reviews are doing a great job.

Page 26 of the report is about UI. The minister says: "Studies include over 20 projects, assessing many aspects of the UI program", which continues to keep people unemployed while we wait for the Minister of Human Resources Development to bring down the big review to find out how we can save billions in the program.

[An hon. member]

And it is coming in this lifetime.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Program evaluation can do very great wonders to the deficits of the country if it looks at four fundamental elements. First, is the program still relevant? Has the focus changed over the years or should the focus be changed? Second, does the program meet the relevant need which has been identified in society? Third, is it being delivered efficiently? The fourth element is as important as any of them. Is there a better way of spending our money to achieve the same results more efficiently and ensuring that the need is served?

I am glad to see that the President of the Treasury Board has tabled his first report. Perhaps it is a new beginning. It is certainly a small beginning. I have to compliment him on starting down the road. I only hope he is going to move aggressively and sincerely to save taxpayers a great deal of money.

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 98th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which will allow our national anthem to be heard every Wednesday in the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 99th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92. This report is deemed adopted on presentation.

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present the 100th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding Standing Order 107, which permits associate members for the liaison committee.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this 100th report later this day.

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent that the following motion be put to the House without debate or amendment. I move that the 98th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

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

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St.Paul's, that the 100th report of the Standing Committe on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled in the House earlier today, be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by a group of Canadians with respect to the harmful effects of tobacco.

The petitioners point out that tobacco use is clearly linked to many illnesses and should therefore, according to them, rightly be termed a hazardous product.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present some 600 signatures on a number of petitions dealing with the Keep Mining in Canada campaign. One of the most important issues in Canada is the one of mining. It is a cornerstone for the betterment of Canada.

The petitioners ask the government to look at overlapping regulations and the investment climate. They hope that in reducing the overlap they can get the mining industry back to the number one position it held in the past.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos 210 and 230.

Question No. 210-

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

In 1994 and 1995, did the government provide any funding or financial support for any festivals or events which included the names "Du Maurier", "Players", "Craven A", "Export", "Matinee", "Benson and Hedges", "Rothmans", and if so, what was the location and amount of funding or support for each such event?

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

To the best knowledge of the government, the following departments and agency have provided funding to events which included the name of a cigarette company:

To the best of their knowledge, seventeen other departments, agencies and crown corporations had no information on this subject.

Question No. 230-

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

What has been the total cost of developing, operating and marketing AECL's slowpoke energy system project from its inception until the present time?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

The total cost of developing, operating and marketing AECL's slowpoke energy system project from its inception until the present time is $45.1 million.

Question Passed As Order For Return

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

Mr. Speaker, if Question No 101 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I ask that the remaining questions stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall the remaining questions stand?