Debates of March 21st, 1996

Financial Administration Act

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert. I am doubly pleased because my hon. friend from St. Albert, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, is among the members of that party who take the work they do very seriously. Every time the hon. member speaks, he is clearly trying to improve on things, he is a making a sincere effort and not joking around. I commend him for that.

Today, his motion reflects just that. I am not at all surprised to hear my government colleague comment that the motion is in order and describe it as totally admirable because it is designed to improve in things. The government member says that he agrees in principle with this proposal but that he cannot support it. It is like saying that you are all for virtue but cannot afford to be virtuous.

Through this private member's motion, he has an opportunity to make sure that the government will save money, and we are in great need of some. Since we cannot get any more money out of the taxpayers' pockets, we must take steps to save the government money that can then be put toward other programs, which are necessary to ensure the well-being of our taxpayers.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts does a fine job, and the auditor general is also doing his job. But the auditor general will not achieve the desired result in his audits unless he can count on the support of a committee of elected representatives and that is the role the public accounts committee is playing.

The auditor general mentioned on several occasions having made one recommendation after another to certain departments; yet, two or three years later, none had been acted on.

It is true that, when he carries out an audit, the auditor general questions departmental officials, those individuals who are responsible for making certain decisions.

It is also true that these people then have the opportunity to tell the auditor general what they think of the issue. In other words, the auditor general could tell department officials: "It seems to us that the books for your program should be kept in this fashion".

It may happen that officials defend their position and say: "Sorry, but we do not agree. We feel that we should continue to account for the money spent like we have been doing for three or four years".

The auditor general is an expert, but he is not infallible. Moreover, departments have competent officials and staff who can make a case for a different way of doing things. If the truth was always obvious, we would not need lawyers and courts. It may be that, in some cases, a department will not agree with the auditor general's opinion.

What better way to deal with the issue than to refer the dispute to a committee made up of elected men and women? That committee would review the issue and report to the House, which would make the final decision, since it is the supreme authority in the land.

The auditor general told us on numerous occasions that it was important for the public accounts committee to urge the House to order a department, I will not name any for the time being, to follow up on the auditor's recommendations. Under such circumstances, some departments have indeed agreed to change their attitude or their way of doing things.

This is an important measure which, we feel, should have been put in effect a long time ago. Let us not forget, as the auditor general himself pointed out, that close to 70 per cent of government programs are not subject to any assessment. Hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in a scant 30 per cent of the programs, and barely thirty programs are evaluated. The question is asked: did the program yield the expected results?

For example, there was the fishery problem-one which affected your area, Madam Speaker-the problem of the New Brunswick fisheries. At one point they were hit with disaster and the government, overnight practically, in just days, set up a relief program for the fishermen. Nobody stopped to say: "If we create a program, we must be sure to create program evaluation criteria at the same time, to be sure at the end whether the money went to the right people, if they had enough, if they had too much".

There are a whole lot of questions to be thought of ahead of time, to ensure that the money has been spent properly, has attained the desired objective. Unfortunately, nothing like that is done in 70 per

cent of the cases, something the auditor general has often mentioned. Unfortunately, however, it has not been possible to set up such a thing.

Of course, a minister can be told "Mr. Minister, the auditor general wants you to apply this or that measure". Then the minister via the departmental employees, or the deputy minister if the case involves the public accounts committee, will often respond with: "Oh yes, we agree with the auditor general's recommendations and we will take the necessary steps or do everything in our power to remedy the situation".

So when the minister said he agreed with the recommendation and that he would do everything in his power to improve the situation we are enclined to believe him and expect that, with the next report by the auditor general, everything will be in order. Unfortunately, this is not the case. If there is no mechanism in place to follow the thing through, we will never know whether recommendations have been followed or not.

I have to talk about schools from time, because I come from an educational background. The effect would be the same if, in a school, we made rules and established discipline for students but never went to see whether they were behaving or following the rules. You know where we would end up, and it would not take long: the students would realize that, when the school principal issued an order, he never checked up on it or made sure it was followed. So the students would very quickly avoid putting themselves out and would simply do what they felt like with the least amount of effort.

The same thing happens when the auditor general makes recommendations and a department says: "Oh yes, oh yes, we will follow them". There is, however, no follow up if no agency is assigned to ensure action has been taken. Things will never change.

If, as proposed by my colleague for St. Albert, each department identified by the auditor general-and not every department is identified every year, there is not time to examine them all; some departments may be examined only every two, three or four years-would know the next day, if this legislation were passed, that it had to prepare a response to the questions raised by the auditor general and, as well, a plan to remedy the situation. These plans would be tabled in the House so that the ultimate authority would know that action had been taken.

You know this is the only way we will improve things. This is not to add to the paper burden. We are not asking for 75-page reports; we are asking the department to respond to the allegations of the auditor general in a report that would be determined ahead of time to be a certain length-not too long-and would be concise and clear so that taxpayers could understand it. This way we could save money that would no doubt be very welcome in other areas.

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary for public works.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to have a quick clarification. Does the rotation not go back to the Reform Party if it is our motion?

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

We are trying to ensure that all opposition parties to the motion have an opportunity to put forward their views. The mover of the motion had 20 minutes to put forward his views. We will hear a government member and then we will hear a Reform member.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order. There are three hours of debate on the motion. It is a votable item. There are rules in the standing orders with respect to the rotation we should be following.

I will live by your decision. However, if there are rules I think we should follow them. I believe the Reform Party is the next to speak. It is our motion.

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

Effectively it is your motion and you had the first 20 minutes to put forward your point of view. I will now give the floor to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering if you could quote the standing order which allows the rotation to go from the Reform Party to the Liberal Party to the official opposition and then back to the Liberal Party.

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

There is no standing order. It is the Chair who decides who will speak next.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for St. Albert for his motion to introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act, an act that will require all departments and agencies to table in the House their responses to the auditor general's reports on their activities.

I am pleased because there is no question that accountability is very important. It is so important that the Government of Canada has been working hard to make the public service more open, more responsive and more accountable.

The member will know that the Liberal red book committed the government to measure program results over time and to measure how well a government delivers its programs and services to

Canadians. As a result, accountability is now one of the cornerstones of a government-wide review process.

Before I explain how accountability to Canadian taxpayers fits into this review process, let me first give some historical background. I would like to take this opportunity to reacquaint my colleagues with all the hard work that has been done in the pursuit of accountability. Sometimes we forget to mention our achievements. They get lost in the blizzard of issues and papers we must deal with every day.

In 1993 the auditor general referred to program evaluation as "an essential part of government". He called for government wide evaluations to be strengthened. As a taxpayer myself, I fully support the auditor general in his push for increased performance and accountability information. I recognize the need for sensible and good control frameworks in federal departments and agencies. That is what makes for good government, one that is responsive to taxpayers, that does not tolerate waste and mismanagement, a government that is affordable.

In response to the auditor general's call for more reporting information, the public accounts committee called many witnesses to its hearings. We should commend the committee in its work. It did a thorough investigation and its report was unequivocal. It demanded more performance information. It supported the auditor general in recommending that departments and agencies step up their evaluation efforts. In essence, it called for greater accountability.

In the meantime, also in response to the 1993 auditor general's call for strengthening government review, the treasury board secretariat released its review policy. In this policy, the secretariat asked that all federal departments and agencies conduct reviews. It asked that they use performance information in their business planning processes and that they make this performance information accessible to the public. In short, the treasury board secretariat was calling for greater accountability.

In 1995 treasury board issued a revised expenditure management system. This revised policy required departments to articulate goals, targets and measures in key expenditure areas. It also asked each department to identify the reviews it would carry out over the coming year.

Beginning this year, 1996, this expenditure management system asks that departmental performance reports tie into the annual business plan process.

Put simply, departments and agencies must show Parliament and all Canadians whether the goals set in their business plans have been met and if not, why not. That, if I am not mistaken, is called accountability. All this is in response to the 1993 report of the auditor general.

It is clear to me that Parliament and the public service are very respectful of the auditor general's recommendations, that they have responded to his call for more reporting information in very concrete ways.

However, the push to make our public service more efficient, more responsive and more affordable did not stop there. Last year my colleagues on both sides of the House will recall the document Strengthening Government Review. It was tabled here last November by the treasury board president. The president's 1995 report of review lays out the government's commitment to accountability very clearly. It provides readers with a snapshot of all the different review tools being used in government departments and agencies. It looks at accomplishments made over the previous two years and it provides a guide on how reporting procedures can be further strengthened. This report calls for the integration of a review into the management cycle of government. It wants the review to permeate every level of government from frontline managers right to the top, to deputy ministers. This will result in even better reporting.

The goal is to make these reports, evaluations, reviews and internal audits available to the general public in a format that we can all understand. The goal is accountability. Let me take a moment to read what the then President of the Treasury Board told the House last November. He said: "The government is accountable to the citizens of this country. Performance information should be available to Parliament, departmental managers and central agencies. Our government is committed to delivering programs that work for the Canadian taxpayer".

As a result of these initiatives, accountability is now entrenched in the public service culture. It is now an integral part of the way we do business in Ottawa. The public accounts committee will keep a vigilant eye on this commitment, we can be sure of that. The auditor general will follow up on his 1993 recommendations and we can be sure of that as well. It is very clear that we have good reporting and accountability structures in place.

It is worth spending a few minutes to examine how accountability has become a cornerstone of the federal government's review agenda. We all know that program and service evaluations have played an important role in program review. They are essential components of the Getting the Government Right initiative the President of Treasury Board spoke of in the House just a couple of weeks ago.

Evaluations, internal audits and other review management tools will help to clarify federal roles and responsibilities. They will help to ensure that resources are devoted to the highest priorities. They will respond to public demand for better and more accessible

government and these review tools will help to deliver a public service Canadians can afford. This is accountability.

These review management tools, evaluations and internal audits do not just look at what is working and what is not. Done properly, they also recommend a course of action for correcting problems or missteps. Review is a continuous learning exercise. Government is always measuring what it does. It is always looking for new, more appropriate methods of delivering programs and services. It is looking for progress, not perfection.

Let me give an example to which members can relate. The estimates tabled with the recent budget are undergoing radical change. In response to calls from parliamentarians for documents that provide information in a user friendly format, a pilot project was launched. I was personally involved in that.

Two weeks ago we received six of what are called part IIIs from this pilot. Six departments agreed to change the way they have traditionally reported their activities. I urge everyone in the House to look at the part IIIs from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture Canada, Revenue Canada and Transport Canada. They will see that although these part IIIs were produced under tight deadlines each of these departments have made an honest effort to make them more readable and more user friendly.

In the drive to provide legislators with useful information and to become even more accountable to the Canadian public, more pilots are planned. We seek feedback on these projects. We will learn from those remarks. We are committed to providing information that is meaningful, easy to follow and that supports the government's agenda of openness and accountability.

As I have said, the government recognizes the need to get information into the hands of legislators and the public. It listens to recommendations made by the auditor general, the public accounts committee and members of the House. Recommendations are acted on, changes are made. Taxpayers of Canada expect no less.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the public accounts committee. As our hon. friend can attest, it maintains a busy schedule. I think this committee issued 15 reports in 1995 and its work did not stop there. Each summer the committee asks for an activity update from all those departments and agencies which have not appeared as witnesses. It has, as it should, maintained a watchful eye. I expect it to continue this good work, to live up to the responsibility Canadians have vested in it.

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to put these facts on the record.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize for giving you a hard time earlier. I thought there were set rules and perhaps there was an oversight.

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

Just to clarify how fair the Chair is, I would like to say that half of the time for this debate has been allocated to the Reform Party, 20 minutes to the Liberal Party and 10 minutes to the Bloc members. Equity is in the system.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

I appreciate that, Madam Speaker, but this is a three-hour debate. We do not know whether it is more than fair. If you continue that the rest of the way we will really appreciate it.

First, I would like to point out that my speech this afternoon is intended to convince the government to recognize that we have a problem. In so doing, I will obviously be creating the need to solve that problem and offer a solution.

Since this is the first time the government has heard about the solution presented by my colleague from St. Albert I feel the government deserves some time to consider it. We would not want it to be too hasty in its position, especially in light of the first two comments we heard by its members. We would like government members to listen to the debate with an open mind.

It seems very suspicious. This is the first time we have brought this forward and suddenly the government has concluded that it would involve a bigger bureaucracy, that it would cost more money, that therefore we could not do it, that it is going along quite nicely as it is. I will get back to the bigger bureaucracy issue in a second.

The suggestion by my colleague requires all departments and agencies to table in the House of Commons a specific response to the auditor general's report on their activities, including timeframes within which corrective action would be taken regarding any shortcomings. This is the point that I want to stress. This is the point that I want to concentrate on. It is the corrective measures that will produce the efficiency gains in the system.

As my colleague from St. Albert said, we pay $50 million for an auditor general and three times a year he is reported in the newspaper for a couple of days. There are headlines about government waste here and government waste there, which is not necessarily the fault of the politicians. However, he sees this waste. What happens after? How do we know if there is a follow up? At what point will there be a follow up?

This suggestion is a way to take advantage of the $50 million investment in the auditor general and a way to allow departments and bureaucrats to respond. Heaven knows they have received a lot of flak lately. Heaven knows they have not had a raise in pay for a long time and unlike the MPs they could not give themselves an increase in their pensions. Therefore, they have to suffer at the mercy of the criticism of the auditor general. If they were given a specific opportunity to respond as to when they would have corrective measures, they could follow that timeline, and politi-

cians could come and go. It is more important that we have some production out of the criticism. This process would only occur if there were areas which needed fixing. This is what the purpose of the auditor general is.

There is an excellent suggestion in the motion. It legitimizes the auditor general's review. If there are no problems, there are no problems. If there is a problem, then let us solve it. When will we solve it? Who is responsible for solving it? These are the things that are not happening in all cases.

As my colleague said, the public accounts committee does review things. It does do a good job. It takes time. If we make a list and we have to do things one through ten, it takes 10 times longer to do it. If we had 10 departments doing it we could get it all done in the same amount of time. That is the point in terms of efficiency gains. That is the point in terms of solving problems faster, thereby saving money.

The negative impression that an auditor general's report could give of government could be eliminated sooner. The reputation and the integrity of government would also improve if this motion were adopted. It shows co-operation. It does not show a hand up like a football player trying to block somebody from tackling them.

The opportunity for departments to clarify and rectify any criticisms more quickly gives them the opportunity to take matters into their own hands and do something about the issue as fast as possible.

I would now like to spend a couple of minutes on the hypocrisy of the government. I spoke yesterday about the GST and the sanctimoniousness, the hypocrisy of how the government raises duplicity to its highest form.

Today I will try to make a constructive suggestion. Already the argument is being used that with the size of the deficit, which is going down, that bureaucracy cannot be made bigger. It is going to cost us more money and, therefore, it cannot be done.

How hypocritical is that statement? I will tell the House how hypocritical it is. The government said it wants efficiency, to retain a small bureaucracy. Then someone tell me why the government voted to add six more members of Parliament to the House of Commons? It wants to increase the numbers from 295 to 301. That is what the Liberals voted for, to approve the electoral boundaries which would increase the number of seats to 301, an additional six seats. The government is hypocritical for supporting the addition of six more MPs. It is a cost that will be far higher-

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. There must at least be some semblance of truth. I wonder if the hon. member can tell us when he voted on the item he claims to have voted on? The House has never voted to increase its membership.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe we are on questions or comments at this time. If the member will tell me that in the next election there will not be 301 seats, then I will take back my charge.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Did you vote for it? Nobody voted for it. It was never ruled. There has never been a vote. There was never a vote on that issue.

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

Order.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe we have addressed the issue of electoral boundaries, have we not?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

We did not vote on it.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Did we address the issue of-

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

There has never been a vote on increasing the membership. Never.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Did we have a debate on electoral boundaries?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

And did the government support the new boundaries?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

The government was against the new boundaries?