Debates of Sept. 18th, 1996

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Papers No. 5 in the name of the hon. member from Nanaimo.

That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, reports, documents and other communications between Canada and the United States as they relate to the 1995 changes of the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the documents requested are protected from disclosure under paragraphs 13(1)(a) and 15(1)(g) of the Access to Information Act. Therefore I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.

I also ask that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan is not in the Chamber. Does the parliamentary secretary wish, in the absence of the member, to have it transferred for debate or should we put it off to a time when he is here?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Transferred for debate.

(Transferred for debate.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to consideration of the motions concerning adoption of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House will now proceed as usual to the consideration of the motion to concur in the main estimates for 1996-97 and the appropriation bill in relation thereto. In the light of recent practices, do the hon. members agree that this bill should now be distributed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

moved:

That Vote 1, in the amount of $40,713,000 under Parliament-Senate-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day. Today this House will consider the motion to concur in the main estimates for the current fiscal year.

Under the Constitution, as members know, Parliament must approve all spending from the government's consolidated revenue fund. Today, we, as members of the House of Commons of Canada, are continuing this honourable tradition as we debate the main estimates for 1996-97.

We also have before us at least two motions to oppose specific items contained within these estimates. Consequently, the government has on the table a similar number of motions to reinstate opposed items.

Since the main estimates were presented on March 8, 1996, members have had opportunities to present their views and concerns to the standing committees of the House. Today all parties have an opportunity to participate in the final review of these estimates.

Some members will recall the frustration that all parties expressed in the House when the full supply debate took place last year. This frustration resulted in all-party support for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake a comprehensive review of the business of supply.

In support of the work of committee members, I have made improved reporting to Parliament a priority for the Treasury Board Secretariat. We have initiated the improved reporting to Parliament project, or IRPP, so that we can work more closely with the committee and other parliamentarians.

We are proposing changes to split the information now provided in part III of the estimates into two distinct documents: a departmental expenditure plan which will deal with the proposed expenditures for the next three years and be tabled in the spring and a fall performance report which will account to Parliament on what has been achieved.

Why are we doing this Mr. Speaker? There are two overarching reasons. First, this government promised in the red book that it would restore public confidence in government institutions and, specifically, in the role played by Parliament.

Without the right information at the right time, Parliament cannot perform its proper function. Second, this government believes that to get government right, we must engage Parliament in a meaningful discussion of government priorities, plans and performance. The government realizes that it is not just cabinet ministers and bureaucrats who may shape the future of Canada.

Before I outline our plans and proposals for improving such information, I would like to describe how we have arrived at this point. The process we followed reflects the care we have taken to ensure that these proposals truly represent the needs of parliamentarians and other users. Before we developed our proposals, six departments and agencies presented their Part III documents in a new format.

These documents were tabled in the House in March of this year as part of a pilot project. An evaluation of the pilot documents showed broad support for replacing Part III with separate planning and performance information documents to be tabled at different times of the year.

Extensive consultations with nine House standing committees, the Senate Finance Committee, academics, the media, the auditor general and others confirmed support for this approach. I would like to thank the hon. member for St. Boniface for his continuing efforts to bring about changes to the way the House reviews estimates.

As a result of these consultations, the procedure and house affairs committee recommended that 16 departments and agencies table performance reports this fall as a pilot project. The report containing this recommendation was unanimously adopted. The pilot performance reports will provide Parliament with succinct, meaningful, results-oriented information in the fall, when Parliament can consider that information more fully.

These performance reports will allow parliamentarians to focus on the results expected from government programs and the results those programs actually achieved. This focus should in turn lead to more meaningful parliamentary discussion of longer term government plans and priorities. The pilot performance reports will be tabled in October in conjunction with my report on improving results measurement and accountability.

The 16 companion expenditure planning documents incorporating the Outlook document will be tabled as part of the estimates project in the spring. Departments not participating in this round of pilots will be able to improve their spring 1997 part III documents by incorporating many of the improvements tested last spring. The 16 pilot departments will also table in year update reports which will alert Parliament to significant changes in planned expenditures or program delivery.

The IRPP is working with departments and the House to improve electronic distribution of pilot documents which may include using the Internet. If an evaluation of the 16 fall performance reports is positive, the government may ask Parliament to require the tabling of separate spring planning and fall performance reports for all departments and agencies to begin in the following year.

If the House adopts these changes, I am optimistic that they will help the committee deal with the remaining part of its mandate which is improving the processes by which the House and its committees consider and dispose of the estimates.

I am confident that our efforts to improve the quality of expenditure and performance information will make Parliamenta-

ry debate more meaningful. This will be, I hope at least, another important contribution to a more accountable government.

Unfortunately, we are not yet at the point of changing our procedures for supply. Today, we must follow the usual process. But before this House addresses the opposed item before us, I would like to provide the overall context for the 1996-97 main estimates.

The main estimates represent the results of a number of initiatives by this government designed to put Canada on the right track-to reduce the budget deficit and to more clearly define the role of the Government of Canada. When I tabled the estimates in March, I described the process of program Review, which has contributed so strongly to "getting government right." I also stressed that "getting government right" means modernizing federal programs and services to meet the needs of Canadians, as citizens and clients, today and in the future.

The steps we have taken recognize that the effects of globalization and technological change, fiscal pressures, and the evolution of Canadian society require us to simplify and streamline. These days, it is fashionable to talk about fiscal responsibility and the need to reduce spending at all levels of government. While it is not difficult simply to cut spending without regard for the consequences, it requires great care to meet necessary fiscal targets while ensuring that government policy supports the priorities of Canadian society.

In asking the House to concur in the appropriation bill, I would like to remind members that the Estimates we are considering today reflect the care taken to reduce spending and, at the same time, to target that spending on what is most important. For example, we have reduced direct support to industry in favour of policies that will stimulate growth and jobs. We have reduced costs by transferring the air navigation System and airports to not-for-profit corporations. We have taken steps to reduce subsidies to Canada Post and to Via Rail. We have reduced defence spending by $200 million in 1997-98 and by another $600 million in 1998-99. These are just a few examples of the actions we have taken to meet our fiscal responsibilities.

The impact of these changes is significant. In 1994-95 program review yielded savings of $3.9 billion which will grow to $7.2 billion annually by 1997-98. The 1996 budget announced further annual savings of $2 billion for 1998-99.

This year's main estimates call for $157 billion in planned budgetary expenditures compared to $164 billion last year.

I believe that the record shows that we are succeeding in meeting our goals but we cannot rest on these achievements. Getting government right is an ongoing process. We will continue to use the principles of program review to seek further opportunities to improve.

In closing, I ask members of the House to support our request for full supply. These estimates reflect appropriate action to meet our fiscal targets while establishing a role for the government that is right for the times.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether we are at questions and comments on the speech of the President of the Treasury Board.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member. He is quite right. I forgot all about this during the summer. It is now time for questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the President of the Treasury Board. What he said raises many questions.

Apparently the government has established a system to control expenditures and to improve budgetary preparations and consultations, and is well on its way to providing satisfactory program evaluation. The newspapers, however, are still full of examples of poor expenditure control, and I would like to quote a few.

For instance, millions of dollars are lost annually because the system for issuing paycheques at the Department of National Defence does not work properly. Will the situation be remedied this year? Will the controls that have been put in place be able to correct this situation?

The other point I would like to make is that in many departments, especially at the senior executive level, the same structures still exist that were there before the government started reducing subsidies to industry.

The President of the Treasury Board mentioned the fact that these subsidies had been reduced, and industry, provided everyone is treated the same, is all for it. Has the government embarked on the requisite downsizing at the level of deputy ministers, consulting services and the bureaucracy, considering that, although there is no more money for subsidies, people are still being paid to run programs that no longer exist or are no longer operational? Has anything been done about this?

There is one more sector that intrigues me a great deal, and that is tax expenditures. Last year we saw a document that gave an overview of tax expenditures entitled "Tax expenditures 1995". I would like to quote a few examples from this document, where it says there is no information available on the subject. It means the government is unable to indicate the impact of these tax expenditures, which makes it look pretty silly. Here are some examples.

By the way, these are not mere details. These are important issues that are connected with tax fairness. For instance, deferred capital gains or transfers between spouses. They cannot tell us the real impact of this measure.

Non-taxation of certain non-monetary benefits. Here again, they cannot tell us a thing.

Taxation of realized capital gains. Imagine all the capital gains that have been realized, and they are unable to evaluate the impact of such a measure.

I will quote just a few more, before concluding. The non-taxation of incomes of Indians on reserves. Today, they cannot indicate the impact of this situation.

Non-taxation of donations and bequests. I will conclude with an item that will be a contentious issue in future debates, the fact that the Senate refuses to be accountable for its budget to the House of Commons. Some nerve. The members of a non-elected House who are not accountable to the public for the results of their work are actually saying they do not have to account for their budget. Will this $43 million really be used for practical purposes? Is there no duplication of the work done by members of the House of Commons? Have some practices not become obsolete?

These are the kind of questions the government should answer. Especially on this point, I would appreciate the opinion of the President of the Treasury Board who has shown a concern for genuine expenditure control. I think the government should set an example in this respect for the Canadian public.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the three points listed by my hon. colleague are important and deserve a closer look.

There are unfortunately cases in which government funds were not used properly. It is obvious that, in some departments-as the auditor general himself discovers each year-government funds could, in certain cases, be used in much better ways.

What is important in a business with total expenditures of $157 billion is that we must be able to implement controls at two levels.

First, at the macroeconomic level, where members can control the policies themselves and ensure that the money allocated by Parliament to implement certain policies is used to attain the real objectives of these policies. Most of the time, Parliament exercises control primarily by allocating the money needed to implement certain policies and, as I pointed out in my speech, this process is now undergoing extensive reforms.

Treasury Board also has a responsibility to ensure that departments follow the proper procedures in specific cases so that money is spent in accordance with regulations and with the provisions of the Financial Administration Act.

We must remain vigilant in these areas because each year every department develops new ways of doing things and some of their new procedures are not suitable and therefore result in inappropriate expenditures.

This role of reviewing examples in every government department, which is shared by the auditor general and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, must have the full support of Treasury Board, and it does. Whenever new procedures or ways of doing things to reduce the misappropriation of funds are brought to our attention, we implement them.

The second point mentioned by the hon. member is that certain departments still have not made in-depth changes and there is a possibility that, while some subsidy programs may have been considerably reduced or even abolished, the person-years required to deliver these programs have not been subject to the same kind of cuts.

This is why we have a system whereby every department must, each year, submit to Treasury Board a plan for delivering their plan of action. This means that, each year, Treasury Board's five deputy ministers review how the various departments intend to bring changes to their structure, to the way they use their person years, to their programs and to the implementation of these programs, so as to better reach their objectives.

Today, in my speech, I indicated that we also intend to conduct a performance analysis and that we have already conducted a number of pilot projects in this regard. The idea is to review the budget, not the way we currently do it when we allocate funds, but by obliging departments to submit a report on their use of funds and on the extent to which their objectives are met, with, where possible, some quantitative measurement of departmental performance. My colleague was very clear in making that point and we are trying to improve service delivery and evaluation measures.

The third point mentioned concerns the impacts of tax expenditures which are not measured sometimes. Obviously, evaluation issues are always very difficult. They are difficult because there are a lot of results that cannot be examined or that cannot be quantified.

For example, the impact of certain expenditures on the health and general welfare of Canadians is impossible to measure sometimes. We can measure the impact of certain specific actions, but it is sometimes difficult to measure the impact of preventive measures, for example, because we have altered a situation and it then becomes extremely difficult to measure exactly what the results would have been without these preventive measures.

There are methodological problems. Each year we try to have quantitative measures that are more accurate, but it is obvious that we still have work to do in some areas. I can assure my colleague that the Treasury Board understands perfectly well that there are

still a lot of improvements to be made and is working towards making these improvements.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board, since he is the one to handle the cabinet's big budget, if he does not sometimes have to act like a bad government to be able to distribute the money. I would like to give the example of the commercial investment credit.

A number of farmers from the vast Eastern Townships region have complained to my office-justifiably, I think-that, two or three years later, the revenue department wants to recover, with heavy interest charges, the 10 per cent, the credit to which they were entitled and which ended on January 1, 1994, which they used in good faith for purchases prior to that date.

As the President of Treasury Board, how could he explain that these directives have gone solely to the Sherbrooke regional office?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that it is not easy for me to have a detailed knowledge of all the applications of all the Treasury Board directives in the 24 or so federal government departments. With respect to this question, I shall look into the example given by my hon. colleague and see whether it is possible to solve the difficulties he refers to.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the third report of the finance committee.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Committees Of The House

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the third report of the finance committee, dealing with taxable Canadian property.

I would be very remiss if I did not pay credit to members from all parties on our finance committee who worked so hard to do this report, and particularly to the staff of the House of Commons who under very great difficulties have made today's report possible.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that the official opposition has tabled a dissenting report recommending that the government take steps to prevent trust funds from transferring money abroad, like the $2 billion funds that recently left the country tax-free. Instead, the Liberal majority attacked the auditor general's credibility and, instead of closing the door, threw it wide open so more funds could leave the country.

The House resumed consideration of the motions for concurrence in the Main Estimates.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to oppose the motion to concur in the main estimates. The Reform Party has argued that, since the Senate refused to defend its budget before the committee on government operations, we should not approve its budget. I think this position is quite defensible. The members of the Senate were not elected but appointed for partisan reasons.

Let us look at the latest appointments to the Senate: a former executive of the Liberal Party of Canada and a former minister of agriculture.

For the past three years, the Liberals have been looking for a way to regain control of the upper House because they were dealt a devastating blow last June, when a bill aimed at preventing the privatization of Pearson airport died in the Senate, voted down by people who were not elected. Now I have seen it all! In this day and age, in a democracy that brags about being one of the most active, the most efficient in the world, the unelected House of Parliament killed a bill in which hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. This will cost money to taxpayers, regardless of the solution. All of us, elected members of this House, could only watch the other place make the decision instead of us. These non-elected people made the decision.

Quebecers and Canadians are tired of this situation. The senators added insult to injury by not appearing before the Standing Committee on Government Operations to justify the need for such funds. This alone is sufficient reason for opposing at least the allocation of these funds.

However, we must go further in our review of the situation. In Quebec, the legislative council was abolished 30 years ago, after it was realized that non-elected houses no longer reflected the current reality.

We went to the public. I personally tabled a motion in the House which is supported by all Bloc members and by other members of the opposition. Our petition on this issue is receiving strong support, certainly in Quebec, whether people are staunch or soft federalists, or whether they are sovereignists or independentists.

Everyone is fed up with the Senate. We get this support because, ultimately, people want two things from us: that we focus on jobs and that we put an end to all this useless spending. The Senate is a political example; it is an important symbol, which we must absolutely target. We must abolish a house that is no longer representative of Canada.

Let us not forget that the Senate was originally established to represent the regions. Senators were appointed to represent regions. I invite you to visit your constituents and systematically ask them this question: Which senator represents you in the Senate? What is his name. I am not asking you to have them tell you that person's responsibilities, just their name. The response rate will be shocking, because the senators have never assumed this responsibility of regional representation. Not at all.

Nowadays, senators are appointed in the following manner: the Prime Minister chooses someone he has decided to reward politically. He calls them up and says: "You should buy yourself a piece of property; you need something worth $4,000 in such and such an area. This is the condition you have to meet to become a senator". Often, the only time people hear about their senator is when he goes to the registry office to check that the property he has just bought has in fact been registered. The rest of the time, he is not often seen.

I also heard this criticism of the Senate from all those I met last year during the protest over employment insurance reform. They said to us: "If it were at least equal, if everyone at least had to contribute equally". But it was during these same months, if you recall, we saw the senators asleep on television. They are paid, just as we are, but they were seen sleeping on television during the throne speech.

If the claim is that their role is one of decorum, let them at least perform this role, but even that is beyond them.

I therefore think it important that the government be given a very clear message, that citizens from throughout Quebec and from Canada, whatever their province or territory, tell their MP that they think the senators have outlived their usefulness, that they are not representative. We think that the Canada of today must look closely at all government programs, as the President of the Treasury Board was saying. And the first target should be the Senate, because its budget, the direct expenditure budget-I am not talking about all the incidental expenditures, for example, the expenses assumed by the House of Commons, which in fact are incurred by the senators, but the direct budget-is around $43 million.

A figure of $43 million a year out of the overall budget does not seem astronomical, but it means that our system can still afford today to pay out expenses amounting to half a million dollars, per riding, per senator, for a useless role.

The other function of a senator was to see to better laws. When the Senate was created it was said that the members of the House of Commons would need people with more education, who would be able to put the finishing touch to pieces of legislation, to finalize them. It might have been true 125 years ago. Today with the kind of members we have, the research departments, the assistants, legislative or otherwise, it is not necessary any more. We have everything we need and, in this respect, the senator no longer has a role.

Since nature abhors a vacuum, the Senate has developed a new role for itself. It has become the representative of all organized lobbies in Canada. In this sense, it is highly detrimental to democracy.

It seems to me that the study of this year's estimates provides the perfect opportunity to give a clear message to the government, to give a clear message to Canadians, to give a clear message to Quebecers, to the effect that yes, indeed, we are really going to deal with useless expenditures, we are committed to tackling useless symbols.

We could also talk about lieutenant governors in Canada. They cost money. They cost eight million dollars a year. People see them about twice a year.

It has been said that in our system, in our beautiful country as the federalists call Canada, there are still many things that are unacceptable. These are only two symbols, but the one I would like to draw your attention to is the whole issue of the Senate.

I find it interesting that so many members want to speak to this motion. All speakers of the official opposition will split their time to make sure as many members as possible have the opportunity to speak and convey the message they received from their constituents. During the summer, a period we consider to be quiet, we have seen people sign thousands of petitions asking for the abolition of the Senate.

I have visited many corner stores and met people sharing my political opinion and some with a different opinion, but they all agreed on this point. Members of senior citizens' clubs, employees in companies, representatives from chambers of commerce and community workers all agreed that we should send a clear message to the government saying that the Senate must be abolished.

In short, we have an institution which is outdated and too expensive, which has an inflated opinion of its lobbying function and which is a patronage haven. For all those reasons, it seems to me we absolutely must oppose this specific item if the Senate's expenditures are included in the government's overall expenditures. It is like a first step, a first signal, but I think that before long, when we reach the point where we have to deal with the substance of this issue and vote on the motion I tabled asking the government to abolish the Senate, then each member of the House will have to see if his constituents think, and if he feels in his heart and soul,

that the Senate is an institution that must go on or if it is one we can no longer afford, one that no longer contributes to democracy.