Madam Speaker, over the years considerable study and discussion have taken place on the subject of accountability for parliament. It remains a timeless subject of interest not only for us as members of parliament but for the bureaucrats and academics who study parliament.
Much of the past debate has been focused on accountability to parliament when program delivery is through an intermediary or third party rather than directly by public servants or under contract.
The practice of third party delivery is most evident in the area of grants and contributions and other types of transfer payments. I am aware that concerns are sometimes raised that current trends in management reform and alternative program delivery run the risk of significantly weakening the accountability chain, leaving parliament with no one to hold responsible.
Bill C-310 is not necessary. There is already an accountability regime in place and information in this area has already been tabled in parliament.
Each year parliament approves through the estimates funds for the payments of grants, contributions and other transfer payments. Significant information on grants and contributions is disclosed annually in both the estimates and public accounts. Grants normally require the authority of parliament before they can be paid. Parliament is normally informed about planned contributions within a program through the identification of such contributions in the tables of transfer payments included in part II of the main estimates or in supplementary estimates.
Departments should further ensure that parliament is fully informed about the nature of the program, its objectives, target groups and expected results. This is normally done through supplementary descriptive material in individual departments and agency reports on plans and priorities. After the year is finished information is made available in departmental performance reports as well as in the public accounts. If this is not enough, detailed actual spending information on specific transfer payments of over $100,000 is also publicly available upon request from Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Contributions are conditional transfer payments. They are for a specified purpose subject to accountability and are audited pursuant to a contribution agreement. Listing of contributions in the transfer payments table found in the estimates while not a legislative requirement is considered necessary for proper disclosure to parliament. The payment of a contribution is conditional on the performance and achievement of a program, and contribution agreements are subject to audit to satisfy the donor department that all conditions both financial and non-financial have been met.
Grants are different. They are unconditional transfer payments. The main criterion that distinguishes a grant from a contribution in practical terms is that once again contributions are subject to accountability and are audited pursuant to a contribution agreement. Unfortunately the unconditional nature of grants gives the impression that the government does not require them to be spent in furtherance of specific program objectives.
The opposite is in fact true. While grants are not subject to being accounted for or audited, eligibility and entitlement may be verified. Eligibility or entitlement criteria must be specifically approved by Treasury Board for all class grant programs. Furthermore, departments have established verification procedures. Most class grant programs are subject to management review and/or in some cases formal program evaluations on a periodic basis.
Grants are usually paid out in instalments as required by Treasury Board policy. In many cases procedures are such that departments generally verify continued entitlement prior to making further payments. Many organizations maintain close relationships with the recipients. When problems arise it is possible for them to act quickly in order to stop the payment of the next instalment.
The government conducted a review of funding for special interest groups in 1994. We know the hon. member from Hamilton had a lot of influence in the process. The Minister of Finance announced in the February 1994 budget that the government would review its policy with respect to funding for special interest groups with a view to reducing the overall level of funding and encouraging further reliance on funding from other sources.
The government's review looked specifically at funding for interest groups, that is non-governmental, non-commercial groups pursuing an interest using federal government funding primarily through grants and contributions.
This definition included what is often referred to as the voluntary sector as well as groups such as sports administration bodies, research institutes, industry associations and professional associations.
The government recognizes the important role of the voluntary sector and other interest groups in Canadian society. These groups can play an important and cost effective role in program and service delivery.
Interest groups often perform other important functions such as bringing Canadians together, providing a voice for people who would not otherwise be heard and conducting research. Despite this the government's relationship with interest groups has evolved and has had to change over the years to accommodate new needs in a program review environment of fiscal restraint.
The government's review demonstrated that it had become increasingly more difficult to justify some special interest group funding when many government programs were being downsized or discontinued.
The government could not afford to continue funding all the interest group activities that it was funding at that time since the review principles were developed and provided to government departments to assist in priorizing funding for interest groups as part of the program review exercise. These principles remain valid today.
First and foremost, departments were and are now to consider the extent to which the interest groups members or the larger public benefit from its activities. The larger the benefit to the public from the group's activities, the more likely that group should receive funding from the federal government.
Second, the group's ability to obtain alternative sources of funding has to be considered. The higher the ability of the group to access alternate sources of funding, the lower the priority of that group for government funding.
The third consideration was the focus of the group's activities. Interest groups that confine their activities to support their own members should in most instances receive lower priority for government funding than groups that deliver important services to the public on behalf of the government.
Departments are to consider the consistency of the activities of groups with government priorities. The guidelines were designed to be flexible so that they could be applied by each minister to the interest groups funded by his or her department. Departments co-ordinate their funding activities with those of other ministers to ensure that a particular interest group does not obtain similar funding from more than one department of the federal government.
Loans and loan guarantees are handled differently. They are made for a variety of purposes and in accordance with a variety of different terms and conditions. The Treasury Board has policy statements for loans and loan guarantees.
Loans must be authorized through specific legislation or appropriation acts while loan guarantees require parliamentary authority and loan guarantee programs such as the Canada student loans program must be supported by separate program legislation.
I should also highlight that information on loans is available in the public accounts, volumes l and 2, part I, as well as policy statements for loans and loan guarantees.
I have a note on the administration of the reporting regime proposed by Bill C-310. It would be an onerous task when one considers the number of grants, contributions, loans and loan guarantees made by the government each year.
The task of such administration would also duplicate work since considerable information of this type is already tabled in parliament each year both in estimates and public accounts.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that departments and agencies—