Art Eggleton

[Public Service, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the cuts are proportional right across the country.

The first quarterly report of early departures from the public service are by and large on a voluntary basis. Some people went out under the early retirement incentive program. I do not think those numbers can be taken as any disproportion across the system. Overall the program is going quite well right across the country.

[Government Review, November 10th, 1995]

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

This document is our way of delivering on a promise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Government Review, November 10th, 1995]

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

[Infrastructure Program, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the House.

In the less than two years since we launched this program we have already allocated 95 per cent of the original $6 billion that the three levels of government put into this program. These over 11,000 projects have put more than 100,000 Canadians back to work. In the member's constituency, some 22 projects have put some 1,000 people back to work.

To answer specifically the question of the member, we are currently evaluating the program to determine where we go from here. This program has been very successful. It has been successful also in bringing three levels of government together which proves that governments can work in partnership quite successfully.

[Supplementary Estimates A, 1995-96, November 1st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5) and 81(6), I wish to introduce a motion concerning referral of the estimates.

I move:

That supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996, laid upon the table on this day, November 1, 1995, be referred to the several standing committees of the House, in accordance with the detailed allocation attached.

Madam Speaker, in accordance with our normal practice and if it is agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.

[Referendum Campaign, October 27th, 1995]

Yes, they can take it as a vacation day. They can take a vacation day if they want. They can do it today, on Monday, or any other time of the year, providing they get the permission of their manager. In each case it is a personal choice. Nobody is being forced to do anything.

A lot of people who work in the public service feel strongly about the country and want to be part of today's rally in Montreal. They are doing it all in accordance with the rules, practices and collective agreements of the federal government.

[Referendum Campaign, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is operating today. Offices are open from coast to coast. In accordance with common practice which has existed for time and is in the collective agreements, if employees want a day off, they can ask for a day off.

[Referendum Campaign, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we will be operating as a government tomorrow. Offices will be open right across the country. Our employees will operate in accordance with the collective agreement.

Whether or not our employees go to the rally in Montreal is completely a personal decision. If they want to take a day off, they can do that in accordance with vacation leave. They can take a day of vacation. However, they will have to work that out with their managers to ensure that operationally all the government services

will continue to be provided to Canadians tomorrow. That is something for the managers and the individuals to work out. However, within the collective agreement they are entitled to take days off.

[Federal Public Service, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Parti Quebecois government has promised that all federal public servants residing in Quebec would have a job in an independent Quebec. There is no job guarantee, however, because the Parti Quebecois has not concluded any agreement with the largest union representing federal public servants. Federal public servants in Quebec should be wary of empty promises by the separatists.

[Federal Public Service, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec is talking about a public service of the size of 110,000 people to serve a population of some 7 million, whereas after the current downsizing is completed at the federal level we will have 190,000 public servants serving a population of 28 million.

Those numbers do not add up. Federal public servants in Quebec should be very concerned about the ability for the separatists to meet those kinds of numbers. They are simply out of proportion. They are simply unbelievable. Federal public servants should beware of the false promises coming from the separatists.