Madam Speaker, the real purpose of this private member's bill is most likely to ensure that the best possible use is made of limited government resources. I doubt that the demanding procedure for accounting to Parliament proposed in the bill would ensure such an objective is achieved.
As members know, the program review process is in its final year. The purpose of this exercise would be to rethink the role of the State. As the President of the Treasury Board announced in 1995, the new expenditure management system will ensure that the scrutiny of government spending conducted as part of program review will now be a fixed public sector management component. The program review routine will be maintained.
We all recall that, in 1994, we did not have the capacity or the resources required to maintain the status quo, let alone deal with new issues. We had to reach a point where the role of government would be more reasonably and logically in line with its financial resources and jurisdiction.
This was achieved with program review. Every program of every federal government department and agency was reviewed. The government looked at the financing of special interest groups in particular, as announced by the Minister of Finance in his 1994 budget. This review of the financing of special interest groups was conducted as part of the program review process.
The main challenge for government in reviewing programs was determining which areas of activity to focus on and what was the most efficient and effective way of providing these services or carrying out these activities, in light of its current financial situation. In some cases, the most efficient and cost-effective was of delivering a program or service was through special interests groups.
The ministers and their officials looked after reviewing the programs of their respective departments as well as evaluating their owns programs and activities. They consulted their clients and stakeholders as required and oversaw implementation.
In developing their strategic plans, the ministers and their representatives took into account six criteria concerning their organizations. These criteria are still being used and continue to be consistent with the expenditure management system.
The program or activity should meet a certain number of criteria before there can even be any question of the government, alone or in partnership with others, such as special interest groups, becoming involved.
There is the public interest: does the sector or program activity still serve the public interest?
There is the question of the need for government participation: is the government's role in this sector or program activity essential and legitimate?
There is the question of appropriateness: is the federal government's current role appropriate, or should the program or activity be harmonized with provincial programs or activities?
There is the partnership aspect: what activities or program elements should or could be dropped completely or partially by the private or volunteer sector?
There is the criterion of increasing efficiency: if the program or activity is maintained, how could it be made more efficient?
And there is funding ability: can the government afford to maintain all the resulting programs and activities with its reduced financial resources? If not, which programs or activities will be dropped?
As part of program review, the government looked at the funding of special interest groups with a view to reducing the overall level of funding and encouraging greater reliance on funding from other sources.
The government realized that it was becoming increasingly difficult to justify funding certain special interest groups, particularly at a time when many federal programs were being dropped or curtailed.
We could not afford to keep on funding all the special interest group activities we were then funding. Under program review, special principles were developed to help departments establish an order of priority for the funding of interest groups. Departments were asked to make a distinction between interest groups offering important services to the Canadian public and those who primary purpose was defending their members' interests.
The feeling was that sizeable reductions in the funding for interest groups providing services to a broad range of Canadians would not be desirable, since these interest groups represent the most efficient way of delivering public services. Departmental representatives were asked to scrutinize the funding of interest groups that did not provide any essential service to a broad segment of the population.
When the funding of interest groups was being examined, departmental representatives and ministers were asked to keep in mind the following four principles: first, how much the interest group membership itself or the general public benefit from the group's activities; second, how capable the group is of finding other sources of funding; third, the intended purpose of the group's activities, and fourth, how much the groups' activities fit in with government priorities.
The government has attached great importance to program review and to a review of the funding of interest groups. The six criteria for program review still apply today, and are taken into consideration when designing new programs.
The four principles drawn up in 1994 for examining the funding of special interest groups have now become the general criteria used for determining the funding of interest groups.
The government acknowledges the significant role played by the volunteer sector and other interest groups in Canadian society. These groups may play an important and cost-effective role in the implementation of programs and services. Often interest groups perform other important functions: they bring Canadians together, they speak for those who would not otherwise have a voice, and they carry out research.
I am convinced that our process of re-examining the role of the State comprised a proper examination of the funding of special interest groups. Treasury Board has issued policies on grants and contributions, as well as statements of principle on loans and loan guarantees. These are part of an appropriate regime of accountability.
There are already proper mechanisms in place for reporting to Parliament through the estimates, departmental planning and priorities reports, performance reports and public accounts.
Implementation of the reporting structure proposed by Bill C-310 would cut across the lines of already established mechanisms by which ministers report to Parliament on their programs. In conclusion, I do not support this bill.
