Debates of March 21st, 1996

Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

What good news?

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

They want to know where the jobs are. The secretary of state clearly said that because of our fiscal policies there have been 600,000 jobs created. The fiscal framework has been put in place. Even the good planning by the government cannot secure every Canadian a future job. We cannot do it.

Unfortunately the jobs that are in jeopardy and which labour market surveys show are going down are jobs for Reform members of Parliament. No matter what we do, the future for that particular occupation seems to be very dismal.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

How can you keep a straight face when you say that?

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

There is one thing I need an answer to because the vast majority of the Canadian public, 58 per cent, 74 per cent in Atlantic Canada and 68 per cent in Ontario, think that the government is doing a very good job in meeting its projections and commitments in the red book.

The member for Capilano may have a degree from Yale. I do not know if its standards were lower than what I thought it was when I went through university but he clearly just does not get it.

When the government came to office my understanding was that the operating balance was about $4 billion in the hole. The government of the day was spending $4 billion more than it was

taking in. The borrowing requirement that year was almost $30 billion and $4 billion was the operating deficit.

If I read the documents that were tabled in the House correctly and if I understand the borrowing authority properly I do not think the numbers lie. I know that sometimes people in the House try to misconstrue these numbers but they seem to be clear.

I ask the secretary of state if it is true that we have reversed the operating deficit from 1993-94 of $4 billion and that the operating surplus is now $16.8 billion because of the policies of the government? It is projected-and we meet our projections, so nobody should question them-for 1997-98 that it will be a $35 billion surplus in the operating account and that the actual financial requirements will have diminished to $6 billion.

If that is true does it mean in effect that the financial requirements have been shaved by almost $24 billion in only two and a half years of managing the economy?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Chair, the numbers the hon. member gave are quite correct. When we first looked at the budget of the government, in 1993-94 the revenues were $116 billion. The program spending was $120 billion with an operating deficit of $4 billion. In our first year in office we turned that around to $4.6 billion surplus and we did it by cutting program spending. Program spending fell again in 1995-96 and there was an operating surplus of $16.8 billion.

As the hon. member said, in 1996-97 the projection is a $26 billion operating surplus and in 1997-98 a $35 billion operating surplus. The financial requirements for the coming fiscal year are only $13.7 billion. Next year when I bring these numbers to the House the amount will drop to $6 billion. Down from $30 billion to $6 billion in that length time is a remarkable achievement.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Chairman, there is a whole pile of things I would like to ask. I will make my questions short, sit down, then get back up and ask something else. I have a couple of questions for the minister which get away from the things that we have talked about.

By the way, the government is talking about job creation. If spending would create jobs the security guard would have two more jobs to go to when he finished here. Everybody would have two or three jobs if spending would create them.

A year ago the official language commissioner said that bonuses were not needed and recommended they be scrapped. The amount spent last year on official language bonuses was $86.6 million. He said: "Don't do that. It is not necessary. It is considered a waste by most".

Under the prison perks I find it amazing that cablevision cost us $1 million. There were all kinds of lawsuits involving $60,000 in claims by prisoners. Most of all, $180,000 was spent on condoms by our prisons. Those are just a few items. The list of that kind of waste and idiotic spending is quite long.

I want to ask the minister, can we look forward to that kind of waste stopping or is the government planning to spend more money for condoms to buy the votes from the convicts who are now allowed to vote thanks to this government?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Chairman, I know how interested the hon. member and the Reform Party are in the prison population. They did not quite make it to Singapore to check out caning. However, instead of condoms they would probably bring back the paddle from there.

This is Neanderthal talk. The items the hon. member brings up are very interesting. I am sure he will bring them up in the appropriate committee but this is not the appropriate committee.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Chairman, there was absolutely no answer to the question. We are talking about the budget. We are talking about public accounts. We are talking about spending. We never talk about the $600 billion debt. I have not even heard that mentioned over there. We hear 6 per cent of GDP down to 5 per cent of GDP down to 4 per cent of GDP, next year 3 per cent and then 2 per cent of GDP. We never hear that we started at $400 billion, went to $500 billion, are now up to $600 billion and soon will be on our way to $700 billion in debt. We do not hear any talk about that.

When I ask a simple question I do not even get an answer. Are the bonuses which cost us $86 million going to be scrapped as was advised? Are we going to stop spending foolishly? The waste is enormous and it is still going on. Do not give me a bunch of baloney that they will decide at different committees. This is the finance minister. This is the budget that is supposed to address these things. This is the borrowing bill. Are we going to borrow more money to meet this kind of waste or is the waste going to continue? That is the question. I would like a straight answer.

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Chairman, the hon. member has discovered we have a borrowing bill before us. He should also discover what a remarkable job the government has done in reducing its borrowing requirements. If he looks at those numbers he will see the projections are down from $30 billion to $6 billion in borrowing requirements which is a remarkable achievement. We have cut government spending. We have removed the waste.

The hon. member should bring forward those items at the appropriate committee level. He can go through it in committee line by line. Those are the things they should be doing in their appropriate committees. That is what the hon. member is there for,

to be part of a committee and look at those expenditures line by line.

This is a borrowing bill. Look at the larger picture.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Chairman, it is really hard to understand why the government in power cannot say: "No, we are not going to give any more bonuses to bilingualism". Would that not be a great thing to say? The government would be applauded. Or it could say: "No, we are not going to spend any more money in our prisons to buy condoms. Canadians do not like us doing that, so we will stop".

Why do government members not have the guts to stand up and say some of these things? They have the opportunity to do some of these things and they do not. That is what I absolutely cannot understand and neither can anybody across this land. They can sit over there an brag all they want.

Why did the minister not talk about the 80,000 bankruptcies last year? They all blame the government of the day. I would like the minister to tell me where the savings are. I did not go to Yale nor did I go wherever he went. When the government pays $30 billion interest and then somewhere down the road it is paying $50 billion interest, that is a $20 billion increase. That is what it represents. Interest debt servicing has become the largest expense this government has. I think that is correct and if not, the minister can set me straight. It is the largest expenditure we now have.

When we have a $30 billion deficit, then we go to a $17 billion deficit we have just saved $13 billion, but the interest has gone up by $17 billion. I would like to know where the savings are? Are there any savings? I do not think so.

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

The hon. member suggested that I do not have the guts. I certainly do not have his anyway.

I will try to raise the level of discussion and ask the hon. member if he is in favour of paying interest on borrowed funds. Is he really telling us that we should not be paying interest? Is there some problem in his mind about paying interest to people who have loaned the Government of Canada money? Is the hon. member old enough to remember Alberta was a province that reneged on its debts and paid the penalty for years?

We do not do that in this government. We are trying to work our way through the deficit reduction program to get at our level of debt. We do not think it is an impossible situation to handle it the way we have been. In fact, the financial markets have said again and again that it is the right way to do it. The government is doing it in the correct manner. It is handling its finances in the right way, better than anyone.

The finance minister has met every target which he has set. Is there another party in the House which can say that it set a deficit target and met it? There is not a party in the House that can say that. Until there is, I would say this is the party that is believable, not them.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Chairman, it is too bad that he referred to my anatomy. Yes, I have a lot of guts. In fact, I have a lot more than he will ever have.

He also referred to my age. Guess what? I am old enough to remember when Mr. Trudeau came into this building and his government started this whole mess. That was the start and it went right up to $160 billion. I am old enough to remember that. Some members probably were not born then, but I was.

I also know that Mr. Mulroney was going to heal it and he did not.

[An hon. member]

You were an American citizen then.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

I was an American citizen long before that.

When I came to this country in 1967, Mr. Trudeau took power and started this whole mess. The debt was created by a Liberal government. I am old enough not to forget it. I will not forget that this government is continuing-

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

It being 5.27 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, March 19, 1996, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of all stages of the bill now before the House.

(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.)

(Clause 1 agreed to.)

(Title agreed to.)

(Bill passed.)

(Bill reported.)

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-10 be concurred in.

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, March 19, 1996, a recorded division on the motion is deemed to have been requested.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is the following: the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake- international trade.

Financial Administration Act

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

moved:

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on another motion the Reform Party has put forward on the issue of good government. Good government because I think it is more than time that Parliament started to exercise its due and rightful authority to ensure that the government, this government or any other government for that matter, be held accountable.

The public accounts committee is the committee of opposition which is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the government is held accountable for the work it does. The deficiencies in the government are investigated and the government is held accountable for them. It is impossible for us to do all the work ourselves. That is why the Auditor General of Canada does a great deal of important work on behalf of all Canadians, on behalf of Parliament, to ensure that the workings of government are investigated and reported upon.

I cannot overemphasize the need for Parliament to have confidence in the Auditor General of Canada. I am pleased to say that this country and this Parliament are extremely well served by today's incumbent and his staff. This country owes a great deal of gratitude to the work that is done by that office and the reports that are filed and tabled in the House for the benefit of the public accounts, for the benefit of parliamentarians and in essence for the benefit of all Canadians.

The reason for my motion today is that the public accounts committee cannot deal with every point raised by the auditor general. The auditor general is an officer appointed by Parliament. He is not a civil servant. He does not work for the government. He tables his reports in the House. He tells us as parliamentarians what he has found as he has investigated the workings of the government.

Let us take a look at some of his responsibilities. Section 7(2) of the Auditor General Act states that each report of the auditor general shall call attention to anything that he considers to be of significance and of a nature that should be brought to the attention of the House of Commons. It sounds fairly important to me.

It further states that he has to report on accounts that have not been faithfully and properly maintained or public money that has not been fully accounted for or paid where so required by law.

It continues that where essential records have not been maintained or rules and procedures applied have been insufficient to safeguard and control public property it is his duty to advise us. He is to report on money that has been expended for other than purposes for which it was appropriated by Parliament. He is to advise us on money that has been expended without due regard to economy or efficiency.

Each and every point is a very significant point that Canadians and Parliament would want to know if the Auditor General of Canada finds these types of things going on when he investigates various departments of government.

As we know, he tables his report in the House three times a year. The report is automatically referred to the public accounts committee and from there we take a look at the more serious issues in public accounts. We investigate them. We call in witnesses. We call in senior officials from various departments. We ask for accountability. We ask for an explanation. We want to find out why these things happen. We want to find out why there has been loss of management control. We want to know the reasons.

The public accounts committee makes serious and definitive recommendations to government to ensure that government gets the message that things must change because the auditor general has said things must change.

The public accounts committee tables a report after its investigation and the House requires the government to respond to that report so we know the government has heard the report of the public accounts committee and we know the position of the government and what it intends to do.

As I said, we cannot look at everything the auditor general tables. That is the intent of my motion. My motion would require that the government respond anyway to the House and tell parliamentarians and tell Canadians what it will do about the deficiencies, the mismanagement, the errors, the defalcations and the other irregularities the auditor general has found and reports to parliamentarians in his report.

I do not think that is much of an issue. It is what I call completing the circle of accountability. The auditor general investigates, he advises us of his findings. The public accounts committee looks at some issues and asks the government for a report. This motion asks the government to table a report on the issues not investigated by the public accounts committee.

Therefore we as parliamentarians, the various standings committees of the House of Commons, may take these reports and if they find them wanting may on their own continue an investigation and ask for an accounting by the various civil servants involved.

That is what the motion calls for. The role of the auditor general is paramount to maintaining integrity and confidence in the management of the Government of Canada.

As members know, 45,000 civil servants have been laid off or are in the process of being laid off. We also have a very severe debt problem. We have a deficit that we in the Reform Party would like to see eliminated at a much greater speed than the Minister of Finance is prepared to do. Because he is not doing very much, in our opinion, to reduce the deficit, the debt continues to mount and our credit is being eroded.

These are dangerous subjects and dangerous issues at this point. We need to have integrity in government. That is why we are really fortunate to have the office of the auditor general whose reports are credible, lucid and concise but at the same time they are specific in pointing out serious deficiencies in the management of the affairs of the country by the government.

We need this motion because we want to close the loop of accountability and have the government table in the House a response to an officer of the House that it has heard what he has to say, that it has looked at the deficiencies he has brought to its attention and that it is prepared to table in the House its response: what it will do and when, and how can we be assured it will not happen again. That is the simple test of accountability.

Take for example what we have missed in the past in public accounts. In "Information and Technology: Managing the Risks", chapter eight of his report, the main recommendation was that information technology was risky, that the government must take concerted action and have the vision and the authority to successfully manage these risks.

We found out in a subsequent report that these risks were not well managed and they reappeared a year later in the auditor general's 1995 report in a chapter on systems development.

Just because the public accounts committee was not able to table the report and call witnesses and say this must change now, the government carried on in the same old way and ignored the recommendations of the auditor general. The $50 million budget that we as Canadians paid to have the auditor general report on these things was money wasted because the report was not heard.

What about the federal management and the food safety system? From chapter 13: "The members of the interdepartmental committee on food regulations are collectively responsible for ensuring that federal food safety programs are evaluated periodically".

Money had been wasted and Health Canada could not ensure that health and safety standards were applied in all cases. What happened? We now have the Minister of Finance announcing in the budget that we are to privatize and consolidate all the food inspection programs in the country. What are the implications to all that? We do not know. Honestly, as parliamentarians we do not know.

The auditor general said Health Canada could not ensure that health and safety standards were applied and now we find that the government is to slough the whole thing off into some crown corporation managed by the provinces and the federal government. We have lost control and we do not know what has happened with the previous problem. No doubt it will get rolled into the new crown corporation envisaged by the Minister of Finance. What about the health and safety of Canadians?

The government has not spoken. It has not said the auditor general has raised a concern on behalf of all Canadians. Mum is the word from that side; not one word.

Health and food safety is vitally important. Listen to the news today about cattle in the United Kingdom and the problems it has with health and safety. We have health and safety concerns here that the auditor general has raised and there has not been one word from that side.

What is going on? We do not know. What do those members intend to do about the concerns of the auditor general? We do not know. Have they done anything so far? We do not know. Will it cost money to fix up the problems so Canadians can be assured the food and health programs are safe? We do not know.

There has not been a word from that side of the House since the auditor general tabled a report in the House saying: "I have a concern. What will you do about it?" That is why I tabled my motion.

With respect to foreign affairs and assistance to the former Soviet Union, central and eastern Europe, in chapter 21 the auditor general said: "The result of all the moneys that were being spent was unclear. There was an immediate injection into the economy but we may not realize the full potential of trade and investment opportunities we thought we could have". That is what he said last year. What did we do this year? We spent $114 million on the program.

Last year the auditor general said the benefits of the program were unclear. We have not heard a word from the government as to whether it is prepared to tell Canadians it will tighten up accountability and provide value for money. There was not a word.

In the budget there was another $114 million of hard earned taxpayer dollars shovelled down the drain. The deficit continues to mount, the debt increases and taxes increase and the government shovels $114 million down the drain with no clear accountability as to whether it is doing any good for anybody. That is the way the government has been managing its affairs for the last two and a half years.

The auditor general has tabled reports in the House which have said it has to stop, it should be changed and it should be cleaned up, but nothing has been done. It seems fairly simple to me that as parliamentarians we can expect a response from the government when the auditor general, an officer of the House, tells us in plain,

simple language that this is not good enough and it must change. What will the government do about it? We hear nothing.

Those are three instances. I could go on at great length citing chapter after chapter from the report the auditor general tabled in the House. I think of the ones the public accounts committee did investigate. There seemed to be a fairly lackadaisical attitude on behalf of the government in dealing with these things.

I remember one of the first items we investigated as the public accounts committee after the election. There was a $1 billion loss experienced by Revenue Canada. Without going into details, it dragged on through the courts. Do not worry, the government will win. Twelve years later it finally got to the Supreme Court which said: "We do not want to hear about this. The case is lost. The taxpayer wins". Revenue Canada said: "How much money is on the line, by the way?"

Twelve years after the case went to court somebody said: "How much is on the line, by the way?" They were staggered to find out that $1 billion went down the drain and they had to write a cheque. The Minister of Finance had to readjust the previous year's deficit to account for a loss of that magnitude.

We heard testimony in front of the public accounts committee. We heard from the assistant deputy minister of the Department of Finance. I said to him: "What happened here? Who is at fault when we lose $1 billion?" He said nobody is at fault, the system failed. I am concerned that attitude is endemic right through government. It must be changed. It seems fairly simple to me.

In closing, I asked the government what it thought. Is this a good idea? The response I got was: "We do not want to create another bureaucracy. This is going to cost too much to investigate. We do not even want to hear about it. We are going to vote this motion down". That is hypocrisy at its worst. It is the most lame duck excuse I have ever heard for government getting itself out of an embarrassing situation.

This government should be ashamed to even think it is going to use that type of simple lame duck excuse to wriggle its way out of responding to Canadians whose hard earned tax money has continued to go down through the holes in the floor. That money continues to go down the drain because this government is not interested in being accountable and tabling in this House a simple response to the auditor general who is an officer of this House as to what it is going to do to fix the problems that exist all through the government.

I could go on at length. I hope that when we hear from the government side, it will have changed its mind. I hope it will have realized that Canadians are entitled to a response, that Canadians expect a response and that they will get a response.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to have the opportunity to address the House on the motion to amend the Financial Administration Act. I applaud the member for St. Albert for moving this motion.

My fellow members recognize as I do the importance of the role of the auditor general having a watchful eye on how the government spends the taxpayer's dollar. In a continued effort to get government right, we should consider what can be done to ensure that Canadians receive top value from their government.

As a result, I would like to thank the member for St. Albert for raising the issue of the follow up by departments and agencies on recommendations that the auditor general makes in his reports. I am sure we all agree that when problems are identified, everything should be done to ensure that actions are taken to remedy any shortcomings the auditor general identifies in his report.

The member's proposal has some merit as it would require all departments and agencies to table in this House a specific response to the auditor general's comments. This response would include time frames for corrective action and would also be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

On the other hand, during this era of fiscal restraint and with the focus on efficiency, we want to ensure that overlap and duplication of actions does not occur.

The report of the auditor general is never taken lightly. Members of this House, the media, the public and many of us look forward to the tabling of each auditor general's report. As a consequence, the government is highly motivated to respond to the concerns raised in each of the reports.

Each department or agency has the opportunity to respond to the comments made by the auditor general and a response is published with the report. This public statement allows the affected party to indicate what actions will be taken in response to the auditor general's concerns and findings.

The report of the auditor general provides ample fodder for questions and lively discussions during question period in this House. Canadians can see ministers being called on to account for activities within their departments. Canadians see and hear through their representatives important questions raised and responded to about activities of the government.

I do not need to remind my fellow members that the auditor general himself follows up every two years on the progress and recommendations. I am positive that all members would agree that the Office of the Auditor General must be diligent in reporting on

the efficiency of the Canadian government operations. Do we want to undermine the efforts of his office by attempting to duplicate this work?

As my fellow members will know and must agree, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is already very involved with the follow up recommendations of the auditor general. The member for St. Albert, a long time member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, could assure you that this involvement occurs.

Each year the Standing Committee on Public Accounts calls on a number of departments to demonstrate what actions they have taken to rectify shortcomings noted by the auditor general. The public accounts committee has asked for detailed workplans on the status of various activities. It has further asked that updates on projects and their status be provided every six months. Follow up that is as careful and precise as this ensures that the affected department or agency works hard to remedy problems noted by the auditor general.

I am sure we would not want the Canadian citizenry to perceive a duplication of activity in a time when we are trying to streamline and provide the best possible service for each tax dollar.

Not only does the Standing Committee on Public Accounts follow up in depth with selected departments or agencies, but it also contacts all departments and agencies that are mentioned in each report. In doing so, it requests an update on the actions taken in light of the auditor general's comments. This diligence, as the member for St. Albert a committee member himself must agree, should not be underestimated.

I fully support the will behind the member's motion. We all want to ensure that government improves and uses the advice of the auditor general to its fullest extent. We are all aware of our strained fiscal situation and the ongoing questions of where government should put its limited resources.

However, when one considers the current mechanisms which are in place, they certainly seem to provide more than adequate monitoring of activities in response to the recommendations of the auditor general. We must ensure that we continue to create a culture in which the measurement of success will not be the amount of paper we produce but the level of service we provide for Canadians.

In light of this we should seriously consider how much added value for our dollar the proposed motion will provide. In our eagerness to ensure that government does strive to improve on any shortcomings, we must be wary of the tendency to produce a bigger and more expensive bureaucracy.

While the spirit of my fellow member's motion truly is admirable and timely, I question whether the Canadian taxpayer would be able, much less willing, to foot the bill the motion entails. Additional reporting of each detail to the House will be costly. We should consider the Canadian citizen to whom we are all accountable as we debate this motion to amend the Financial Administration Act. We should consider that while the will is to ensure cost effective government, is the result cost effective?

By way of conclusion, allow me to summarize. There can be no debate as to the level of gravity with which the auditor general's reports are received. It is a document which is widely available in various mediums to the Canadian public.

The proposed motion to amend the Financial Administration Act does raise an important issue of formal reporting of activities in response to recommendations of the auditor general. We should consider the level of reporting and follow up on the auditor general's report that currently exists whilst debating this motion.

Departments and agencies are provided the opportunity to publicly state their response and intended actions within the report itself.

Question period is a venue where one may ask the minister what he or she intends to do about concerns raised by the auditor general.

The auditor general himself follows up on the actions of the affected departments and agencies every two years.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts contacts each and every department and agency mentioned in each report. The committee asks them to report on their progress on the recommendations of the auditor general. The public accounts committee also issues frequent reports on government activity to which the government must respond.

In further asking departments and agencies to table detailed responses in this House, are we thereby undermining the important roles of both the auditor general and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts?

Currently, departments and agencies respond to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the auditor general, the media and the public at large. In asking departments and agencies additionally to table formal reports in this House, are we asking the Canadian public to pay for a larger and more expensive bureaucracy?

During this time of fiscal restraint, while we are trying to achieve maximum efficiency with a modicum of resources, we should consider as we debate this motion whether it will be cost effective.

I believe that all of us here have the same goal. We all want to ensure that the government continues to improve. We all want to ensure that Canadians receive value for their tax dollars. The spirit of this motion is clearly there and I applaud it. However the spirit may not end up being reflected in the result.

It does not matter whether it is the government, a business, a municipal government or any organization that handles funds, it is the way in which one does business. It is the efficient way in which one does business and not the amount of paper and the reporting that makes the business function or makes it efficient.

We are here to clarify and to reduce government burden, not to extend the bureaucracy. We feel there are enough mechanisms in the reporting of this document that this House should be satisfied.