Marcel Massé

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

moved:

That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, except any vote disposed of earlier today and less the amount voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

moved:

That Vote 15, in the amount of $10,000,000 under Treasury Board-Secretariat-Training assistance, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

moved:

That Vote 5, in the amount of $450,000,000 under Treasury Board-Secretariat-Government contingencies, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

moved:

That Vote 1, in the amount of $69,989,000 under Treasury Board-Secretariat-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 (less the mount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

moved:

That Vote 10, in the amount of $404,461,000 under Canadian Heritage-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

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.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

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.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

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.

[Nunavut Waters Act, June 14th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-51, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, June 14th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)