Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill presented by the Liberal member for Durham. I feel in this particular instance he is definitely on the right track. As this is a private member's bill I can personalize it and strongly emphasize how much I support the general thrust and intent of the bill.
The bill will require that the estimated annual cost and the cost per capita of every new government program be published as soon as the bill that authorized it is introduced in Parliament or the regulation that implements it is issued. The auditor general's opinion on the estimate is also to be published.
When a bill would come to this House at second reading stage there would be a requirement for the government to present to us the costs and economic impact of the bill. The actual requirement is that the government would have to explain the economic impact so that all members of this House and all Canadians could understand the nature of the bill. This has to be a tremendous improvement over what we are doing now in this House of Commons. I will use two examples to illustrate areas that would be improved by this bill: the tobacco bill and the disability aspect of the Canada pension plan.
The tobacco bill is being hotly debated and hotly contested. It is a tough issue. There is a fine line between trying to impose regulations and steep taxes on this legal substance-it is legally allowed to be sold-and restricting the impact of this substance on the health and welfare of individual Canadians, especially the young people because of its highly addictive qualities.
We have debated this bill. The tobacco industry and related lobbyists have said that the advertising and sponsorship provisions in the bill and the restrictive nature of the sale of cigarettes will force them to reduce their funding.
The Minister of Health has not provided us with any numbers on the economic impact on advertising or sponsorship. He has raised the taxes by $1.50 per carton. He said that he could not go any higher, that the committee had advised him a greater tax increase would encourage the smuggling trade. Some of these numbers should have been given to us, for example the extra revenue the tax increase will generate.
Why is it that cigarettes can be sold in B.C. for $44 a carton with a high taxation level, which encourages east to west smuggling? When people are in Toronto they go to the huge warehouses and buy cartons of cigarettes for $19 each whereas in B.C. they pay $44. They will spend $500 to save $500. It pays for the air fare. If they bring $1,000 they can really save money.
When bills are presented, these things are not being explained to us as members of Parliament. If this type of explanation were given, a bill like the tobacco bill would not be debated just on the basis of emotion, the emotion of addiction, the emotion of what it is doing to youth, the emotion of something that supposedly is bad but nevertheless is legal. The bill could be discussed with some balance; the emotional arguments would be balanced with the economic arguments.
The government has been trying to introduce the tobacco legislation for 14 months but has not been able to. People have been dying from smoking cigarettes. But when the health minister suddenly introduces the legislation, it has to be passed now, before Christmas. It has to be fast tracked because people are dying and that is all we are concentrating on.
If a bill were presented along with its economic impact it would have to have a more thorough review at the departmental and ministerial levels before it even got to cabinet. If cabinet were to approve the bill with its financial ramifications, it would then be presented to us on that basis. That would make a big difference for all parliamentarians. Then we could make a proper balanced decision on these bills.
I read the member for Durham's opening speech on this bill. He said that many members of Parliament end up voting just to go along with their party line, but they do not really understand what they are really voting for and why they are voting the way they are.
I am currently a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We just finished reviewing chapter 17 on CPP disability. In his report the auditor general indicated that management is a problem in the civil service. I am not saying nor is he saying that it is mismanagement. The problem is undermanagement.
There is not enough leadership, not enough guidance. There are not enough rules for the people in management to carry out effective control of the programs they are in charge of. There are not enough effective controls to say yea or nay to certain people on disability. The rules are archaic. They have been added on since 1970. It is an abomination.
(1335)
Some of these people in the bureaucracy need help. As legislators, we are the ones who are standing in the way. We have now given them the tools to work with so all they have to do is say no or yes to people and there are a lot of complaints. This type of bill would enable the presenter to make the proper changes and talk about the financial impact.
An overall review is necessary in our CPP, which we are doing, but it is also needed specifically in the disability area. Since 1993 the department has done 24,000 reassessments of long term disability claimants and found that 34 per cent of them no longer qualified but were still receiving benefits. Fortunately, over half of that money will be recoverable and the government will get some money back.
It is a serious matter. There has to be a mechanism in the rules which states that we must present a cost benefit analysis of a bill or changes to a bill so that everybody understands not just the kind of society we are trying to create or the caring we want to show the people in Canada but also the economic impact along with the emotional impact.
It is important for us as legislators to give those in the civil service the tools to work with so they can do a proper job in effectively controlling the public purse strings. It is becoming far too easy for politicians to stand up and say that they just blew it. If that is what we say, then we are not assuming our responsibilities to pass good and effective legislation that will make spending more visible, that will make the cost of government more apparent that will be in the best interests of every single political party in the House and all Canadians whose tax dollars we suck out of their pocketbooks. We must know who spends it, who is accountable for it and how wisely the money is being spent, which is what Bill C-214 does.
We could amend the bill a little by adding a sunset clause where it would be compulsory at the end of the fifth year to check out the viability of each of the programs to see if they are successful in achieving their desired ends.
On the auditor general's opinion on the estimates, which is also to be published, I disagree a little bit with my colleague from Durham in this area. The job of the auditor general is to audit after the fact and not predict before the fact.
The auditor general's job in auditing is to match the intent of government legislation and the intent of programs with the success or failure of achieving the objectives, which is what he is doing now. I believe that is something he can still do. He would be doing the value for money audits but for example, it would have been so much easier had the Minister of Health presented all the financial implications of the Tobacco Act.
There is also the Endangered Species Act. How much is that going to cost? What is the impact of that act? There is hardly a member of Parliament here who knows what the impact of that bill will be. Why has that not been presented to us by the minister?
We have a right to know how the money is going to be spent and who is going to have to pay for it. Things like that are very important, very critical and very crucial. I commend the member for Durham for bringing forward a private member's bill like this one.
This is what is going to happen with this. The President of the Treasury Board has said: ``We must equip ourselves with better systems for evaluating the actions of government so that we can genuinely answer for actions first and foremost to our fellow citizens who are both clients and taxpayers''. He is not showing his support for this bill. He is staying neutral because he says it is a private member's bill. He says it is the job of the standing committees to ask those questions about what a bill costs and what money is going to be spent.
My colleague from Lloydminster in a prior speech has pointed out how effective standing committees are in getting that kind of information. The minister says: ``A cost analysis is given to cabinet confirming the financial impacts in a confidential memorandum''. If it is already being done, then share it with the Canadian public
and the House of Commons. It should not be any big deal for the minister to support this.
I would just like to conclude with one comment by the member for Durham. I like this quote and will give him credit for it: ``The forces that would turn government back on the road to fiscal irresponsibility are at work today'', and they are still out there. ``They ponder how to spend annualized surpluses, even though the debt stands at over $600 billion. This legislation will serve as a check on these forces''.
(1340)
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to express my views to the House during the debate on Bill C-214.
The bill proposes that the government make a declaration to Parliament of the estimated annual cost of every new program which it intends to implement. I welcome the opportunity the member for Durham has given me to remind the House of the progress the government has made in recent years and is continuing to pursue in this very important area.
As an example, I would cite the improved reporting to Parliament project. This initiative responds to the need for better accountability. It entails working with Parliament to provide good, meaningful information not only on the costs of government programs but on the results we achieve in relation to the goals and objectives we set for ourselves.
We would all agree on the importance of the initiative, given that these programs and the results are funded by the dollars which the taxpayers have entrusted to us to manage well and to deliver the services they expect and need from federal departments and agencies.
In the improved reporting to Parliament project, the government is endeavouring to draw on the expertise of all stakeholders, parliamentarians, public servants, interested professionals and the clients and constituents whom we serve.
Improved information to Parliament is also a key component of two other recent government initiatives, program review and getting government right.
Program review is now in its second phase. We have been scrutinizing all federal activities to ask the questions that are important to us all, questions such as: What activity should the federal government continue to be engaged in? How should these activities be delivered? By what level of government? If federal, by which department or agency and at what cost and for which level of service?
The results of the program review have been significant in a number of ways. We have clarified the roles, responsibilities and the priorities of federal departments and agencies. We have begun a thought process with respect to options for alternative organizational forums and mechanisms for program delivery.
The bottom line is that program review means that by 1998-99, annual spending on federal government programs are projected to fall by about $9 billion and will be delivered by a smaller, more effective and less costly public service.
Getting government right is a complementary initiative which involves the modernization of federal programs and services to meet our obligations as a government and the expectations of our clients today and in the years to come.
I would encourage any member who has not already done so to read the progress report on getting government right which was tabled in this House on March 7, 1996. It describes what we have accomplished in clarifying federal roles and responsibilities in making the federal government work better and in rethinking program delivery so as to adjust to today's reality and the challenges ahead.
More specifically, getting government right means ensuring that resources are devoted to the highest priorities, responding to the public demand for better and more accessible government and achieving more affordable government.
In moving forward on this agenda, the government is mindful of the need to ensure that the role of the national government is preserved to meet core responsibilities. These include: strengthening our economy and economic union to ensure a prosperous country for ourselves and our children; enhancing social solidarity in Canada; pooling our national resources to achieve common goals efficiently and effectively; defending Canada's sovereignty; and speaking for Canadians collectively on the world stage.
While I support the objective of Bill C-214, its enactment would only add to the cost of government without making any substantive improvement in the quantity and quality of information which the government is providing and plans to provide to Parliament.
Consider the changes we have already benefited from in the 1996-97 estimates documentation. In addition to part I of the estimates which provides an overview of federal spending, part II, the traditional blue book which supports the Appropriation Act, and the individual part IIIs, two important innovations were introduced.
(1345)
First, the government tabled a new document entitled ``Program Expenditure Detail: A Profile of Departmental Spending''. This document, while not formally constituting part of the estimates, represented an important step forward in that it combines federal program spending detail which was previously presented in both part I of the estimates and the budget. This provides a bridge between the budget document and other estimate documents.
``Program Expenditure Detail: A Profile of Departmental Spending'' gives Parliament both an overview of program spending within the context of part I and program review and more detailed information on program spending by sector and by federal department. Program review's principal achievement will be structural changes in the business of government, many of which are already visible to all parliamentarians and the Canadian public.
For example, in the transportation sector shifting from owner, operator or subsidizer to regulator and policy maker; and in the agricultural sector, in partnership with the provinces, moving from commodity based agricultural subsidies to a whole farm safety net, focusing on income stabilization rather than income support.
Other important restructuring initiatives include withdrawing from programs which provide direct financial support to industry and addressing overlap and duplication to consolidate activities wherever possible, thereby making program delivery more efficient and more effective.
The second phase of the program review builds on the first. Specific measures resulting from program review II which affect primarily the 1998-99 fiscal year include the rationalization of subsidies, privatization and commercialization where feasible, and further reductions in spending.
While in some cases specific measures to implement program review II decisions will be developed over the next two years, it is clear to the government that innovation in service delivery is a key factor to our success.
We want to move away from traditional hierarchical delivery structures to forms which are more cost effective and more responsive to Canadians. The creation of the three agencies announced in the speech from the throne and the budget is well under way.
Another change which we saw in the 1996-97 main estimates in addition to the document profiling departmental spending was the tabling of six pilot part III of the estimates departmental expenditure plans. These documents are pilots or tests in the government's effort to address the concern of parliamentarians who have better information on the multi-year costs of government programs and constitute a key initiative in the improved reporting to Parliament project.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out to my colleagues that the progress which we have seen today is only the beginning. The estimated costs of a program represent only one side of equation. The government is equally concerned with reporting to Parliament on the results.
The government is currently considering mechanisms for reporting to Parliament on the performance of government programs in a more timely and complete manner; for example, the introduction of performance reports which would be tabled in the fall of each year rather than as a component of the planned expenditure information which we currently receive as parts of the estimates documentation.
This government has made a concerted and ongoing effort to involve parliamentarians in shaping the form and content of the information which is presented to us not only on the cost of government programs but on their results. I believe our participation in this process is the key to improving the information for Parliament. The member for Durham shares our objective. However, I believe that the legislation being proposed presents potentially costly and ineffective alternatives to the initiatives I have just outlined.
I believe that more focused, streamlined information to Parliament will make it easier to assess government programs. Information which is better organized and more user friendly will strengthen the accountability of government to all Canadians.
I am grateful to have this opportunity to address the House on this proposal. I too wish you all a Merry Christmas and prosperous new year.
(1350)
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. speaker, it is a pleasure today to debate Bill C-214, the program cost declaration act tabled by the hon. member for Durham.
Let me take a few minutes to outline the purpose of the act and what is behind it. The act, which is a votable item, would require departments of the government to provide a financial or cost analysis of each piece of legislation on its introduction to the House of Commons or at the time the minister or governor in council issues regulations or other instruments.
The auditor general would certify that the method used to arrive at this analysis was fair and reasonable under the circumstance. The cost would be disclosed in total as well as based on the per capita cost for each Canadian citizen.
This legislation would cause legislators and their departments to be more conscious of the financial impact their legislation would have. The PCDA, as it is called, would provide for a greater degree of disclosure and accountability for government programs and lead toward a more integrated expenditure system. It would give members of Parliament and the public more knowledge and to that extent more control and scrutiny over how government spends.
If this type of legislation had been in place years ago, I believe it is true that would not have so easily created the massive deficits and debt which the federal government is now forced to deal with.
That really is the purpose of the legislation, as stated by the member for Durham. I think it is transparent that the legislation is worthy of support. It has been supported in statements from the auditor general and the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation. The retiring president, Mr. Jason Kenney, has said that he supports the legislation. James Forrest, the executive director of the Alberta Taxpayers' Federation, has indicated that they support it. During the first hour of debate it received fairly favourable reviews from MPs representing all the recognized parties in the House.
I could also note that professional accounting organizations have also indicated their support. Marcel Latouche, president of the Charted Association of Certified Accountants has indicated support; the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario; the Society of Management Accountants of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. They endorse the principles behind the bill, and I could go on.
I guess the real question is why anybody would do it any other way. When we think about it, it is quite extraordinary that in this day and age governments would think of tabling and publicly adopting legislation without providing assessed cost information as part of the process.
I do not believe there is any chief executive officer in this country who would go to his board or his shareholders and not be prepared to give a definitive cost assessment on a project that the company had undertaken. Nor would any intelligent head of a household enter into a major purchase, any purchase other than out of pocket, without making an assessment of the real costs over time.
If anything, I think the bill probably does not go far enough. This is absolute bare bones, as some of my colleagues have pointed out. There are other things that could be done with the bill but which have not been done. There are no sunset clauses on any of these expenditures. There is actually no provision for making the targets that are assessed by the auditor general mandatory or for any amendment if the costs are out of range from the original estimate. There is no assessment required of benefits or of the present value of the cost stream. There is no requirement to indicate what the source of the income would be to cover the cost or how precisely these sources are related to the benefits and the beneficiaries of any of the projects.
This is a very small step, one that is worth pursuing and I believe ultimately worth adopting. However, it is not putting any kind of undue restrain on government, nor is it even challenging some of the basic Liberal philosophy that I think is ultimately the problem here. I may get into this later if I have time.
(1355 )
This is what the member himself is ultimately up against because $600 billion in debt was not run up in this country by accident. It may have been run up through incompetence but it really came down to the heart of the Liberal Party philosophy and the philosophy of modern liberalism which is that government exists to spend, to transfer money from some people to other people for the benefit of politicians and bureaucrats, and ultimately it is a political and not an economic question on how resources are allocated. That is the philosophy of modern liberalism, not just to serve a dependency but to create it, to nurture it and to build big government around it.
That is why we have the problems we do in this country. That is ultimately what the hon. member is up against in trying to move this bill forward not just with the philosophy of liberalism but, frankly, with a political party and a leadership that have to justify the last 30 years, justify the way things have been run. They surround themselves with the representatives of the old way of doing things. That is a problem when getting the House to look at this kind of measure.
I would point out in the few moments I have left that this is not by any means the only measure that parliamentarians of various parties have tabled in this Parliament to attempt to bring modern cost evaluation and cost control to the federal government.
I will mention a few of the private members' bills that are on the Order Paper right now, all of which relate to this kind of matter: Bill C-213 put forward by the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound to amend the Constitution Act to require balanced budgeting and spending limitations; Bill C-294 by the hon. member for St. Albert which would require the periodic evaluation of statutory programs, two-thirds of federal spending not subject to a regular review process; Bill C-342 by the hon. member for North Vancouver would require stated principles of fiscal management from the Minister of Finance consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and would require public periodic reports that deal with approaches to debt reduction, to balanced budgeting, contingency for risk and stable tax rules; Bill C-349 by the hon. member for Medicine Hat to require public disclosure and parliamentary scrutiny of federal user fees; Bill C-361 by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, the people's tax form act, which would give
voters and taxpayers a say on their tax forms in terms of what kind of federal government programs are supported and with what kind of tax dollars.
There are various other propositions. I think all the ones I mentioned are reform propositions but there are others from Liberal members which deal with not just reforming spending directly but making government more accountable, whether it is through giving people more say on their tax form or through referendums or through reforms of the House of Commons. There are endless numbers of propositions. None of these has been addressed so far in this Parliament or seriously entertained.
I would like to review some of the objections that have been raised to this type of legislation if I have time. Let me say before I get to that in summary that what all of these objections have in common, and I am sure we will hear this from the parliamentary secretary later, is somehow the theme that we are doing it right now. Everything is just fine the way it is. Cost control is really terrific. We now have only a $30 billion deficit this year. Therefore what are we really worried about when it comes to taxpayer dollars? The other objection is how can we afford to spend this money to control federal spending and to control the federal budget.
These people never have any problem with spending money at the front end. They always find it very expensive to monitor. They can always afford to spend the money. They can never afford to have the accountant to keep the records. That is an amazing philosophy but it will come out in all the objections.
As I say, there is really no valid reason for opposing this type of bill. It is standard practice in every other institution. The auditor general knows this is consistent with modern accounting practices and would like to see his office handle this sort of role.
(1400)
I commend this bill to the House. I know that many Liberal members support it. They reject the old philosophy. I ask them to vote in favour of this legislation.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the bill of the hon. member for Durham. Essentially the bill calls for a full disclosure of costs for any legislation brought before the House, any regulations that are enacted or any other instruments that are implemented by the government.
This bill should be applauded. Canadians are demanding more accountability from their parliamentarians. I salute the hon. member for Durham for bringing this bill forward.
In the spirit of the bill, I am sure the member looked at the costs of implementing this particular bill. I would say that the costs of implementing this bill would be very limited. I am sure the member will bring forward those costs at a later date.
Most departments and most ministers do some kind of accounting or cost estimating of what the implementation of proposed measures will cost. I am sure those numbers are reasonably available. What the member is saying in this bill is that those costs should be brought before the House.
Too often in the past legislation has come before the House and has been passed without members knowing fully what the costs and the impacts of the legislation will be. In my view, there are different kinds of legislation. Some legislation costs a lot of money to implement and some costs very little. However, if the costs are not known, it is very difficult to make any kind of judgment.
Another element can creep into legislation and that is the problem of incremental costs. A small piece of legislation on its own may not be that costly to implement, but given other legislation and other initiatives, the cumulative costs can be quite significant. The bill would provide a very transparent process. It would ensure that members of the House would know what the implementation costs of the legislation would be.
This bill calls for that information to be prospective, not retrospective. What good does it do if the auditor general comes along later and says that a program cost X dollars and the benefits were less than the cost? At that point it is too late. This bill demands accountability up front in terms of disclosure. It is a much more appropriate way to deal with the issue.
I echo what other members have said before me. The bill is a start. It is certainly not the full solution. It is a first step in a very important process.
Other questions need to be answered when legislation is introduced and when regulations are implemented. For example, what would be the impact of legislation on other stakeholders? Other stakeholders could include other orders of government. It could mean the business community. It could mean a whole host of things. While the bill deals with the cost of implementing legislation within the federal government, we also have an obligation to analyse what legislation will do to other orders of government and to the business community.
For example, a tool has been developed by treasury board and Industry Canada which is called the business impact test. It is used to assist legislators and departments to assess the impact of proposed legislation on business. The business impact test is affectionately referred to as the BIT. It is an important tool which parliamentarians should encourage. There is nothing to stop that information from being presented in the House when other legislation and costs are presented.
When we look at the impact of legislation we should also be looking at alternatives. What alternatives were looked at before the department brought in the legislation? Are there market instru-
ments that could be used as effectively? Are there voluntary means that could be implemented to achieve the same goals?
(1405)
We have a habit of bringing in laws and legislation telling business how to run and operate its business instead of putting in legislation which sets certain standards and criteria that are required and allowing the business community to develop the processes by which it could meet those standards. When that is not done, it adds another cost to the burdens of government. It also makes business more inefficient.
The way that laws and regulations are brought forward, developed and implemented are very complex. A number of processes are in place. Sometimes legislation is driven by the bureaucracy. Sometimes legislation is driven at the political level. Sometimes it is driven by stakeholder groups that create a demand.
We need to be very cautious that we do not fall into the trap of building empires, whether it is building empires for bureaucrats, special interest groups or politicians. This legislation really provides a vehicle for a full debate, full disclosure and full accountability at the start of any proposed initiative.
Often we debate legislation and the issues of public policy and law in this House. That is very important but too often we do not debate the fiscal impact of some of the initiatives that are brought forward.
Perhaps if we had done more of this in the past, we would not be facing the fiscal challenges we face today. Now is the time to start on a new program, on a new footing. This bill allows us to do that.
The effect of this bill, in my view, is that it will have a large deterrent effect that would be positive. In other words, private members or the government of the day will be reluctant to bring forward bills that have a heavy cost associated with them, and where the benefits are not clearly defined.
Government is not like business. It cannot always put legislation in the context of cost and benefit in the same kind of quantifiable way that can be done in business. However, it does not preclude governments from adopting some of that rigour and applying it in any way it can.
I applaud the member for bringing this forward. Legislation and regulations have a huge impact on the competitiveness of our industries. The market does not solve everything. We know that, and governments have a role to play.
We need to really examine carefully the impact that regulations and legislation have on businesses because the capacity and the ability of businesses to develop jobs and economic activity will be partly a function of the regulatory environment and the legislative environment in which they work and how that compares with those environments in the countries where competitors are domiciled.
If we do not really look at those elements on an incremental basis or on another basis, we can put businesses on a footing where they are not competitive to deal internationally or even within our own domestic markets.
This bill is a giant step forward. I applaud the member again for bringing it forward. I certainly will support it. I hope other members will.
I too would like to take this opportunity to wish everybody a very happy and safe holiday and a prosperous new year.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak in support of this bill, the Program Cost Declaration Act, Bill C-214.
It is said that the Canadian public is becoming cynical about the political process. I believe it was the American humorist Mark Twain who said that a cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but knows the value of nothing.
(1410)
What the hon. member for Durham is trying to do with this bill is to put two concepts together. If we know the price of something and we know we are getting a good buy for the price then we are quite willing to pay for it. This bill is about how to determine the price and whether value for money is being given.
I will give an example. If one was to go down to one of the luxury car lots not far from Parliament Hill, no doubt a car could be found that was worth $75,000. That is a lot of money. However, if I take the car out and test drive it, I may begin to feel that with all the bells and whistles and all the good things that are included, $75,000 is not a lot of money to pay for the vehicle. In my opinion, $75,000 is a lot of money for a car but if someone can afford it and it is good value, they will pay for it because it is not a problem.
As legislators, we often get into programs that cost money but, at the same time, are good value. I am not quite as cynical as some of the earlier speakers from the Reform who only talked about the price and did not want to talk about the value. They were only interested in the cost because it is a personal lifestyle issue to them as opposed to what it means to us as Canadians or to the country as a whole.
At the same time, as individuals, collectively we are entitled to know what the large picture cost is of this and what the individual or per capita cost is of the particular program.
As an example, a couple of years ago in the province of British Columbia, the then minister of the environment in that province wanted to introduce environmental legislation that sounded great. It was reformulated gasoline. It was a wonderful idea which would
have wonderful effects on the environment. People thought it was just what they needed and that the government should proceed with it.
However, when the people of British Columbia found out that it was going to cost them eight cents a litre more to buy reformulated gasoline, they had very severe reservations and told the minister of the environment to back off because they wanted to think about it. Once the price had been leaked to them, they started to realize that maybe under those circumstances they were not getting good value.
There is another side to this. As Canadians we know that health care costs a lot of money. Despite the fact that health care, no matter what country one lives in, has a large price tag attached to it, Canadians know that they are getting good value. If we compare ourselves to what I heard earlier from the Reform members, they are only interested in the price. They would prefer to adopt the American model which suggests that as an individual it does not matter what the price is as long as it is affordable. It does not matter if it is good value or not.
In the United States we know they are spending at least 2 per cent to 3 per cent more of GDP on a per capita basis for health care, whereas we know in Canada it is expensive but collectively we get a better deal and it is better value. That is where we differ from the Reform Party in the role of government.
However, that does not detract from what the hon. member for Durham is saying. I can recall in Ontario a number of years ago when government was growing that it was introducing all kinds of programs and would say: ``This is a great program and it will only cost you 15 cents a week or 15 cents a month''. That was one little department of the government keeping 15 cents here and 15 cents there. It all adds up at the end of the year when somebody has to pay for it. We know that the somebody at the end of the year is you, me and everyone else who was involved in the taxation system.
I want to point out one other thing. We have also heard from the Reform members. They know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
(1415)
I would like to point out a strange twist in their philosophy. They stand in their places here and talk about getting tough with criminals: ``Let us lock them up, do not give anyone the benefit of the doubt, do not consider the value of rehabilitation. Let us not say to a person: You have served your time, we will give you a second chance. I am a Reformer and I want to lock you up''.
Maybe we should start costing what their criminal law amendments would add up to. Maybe we should sit down and ask: What is the price that the Reform Party is putting on the criminal justice system? To you, Mr. Canadian Taxpayer, is it good value? Does it mean a whole lot to you that a person will be locked up forever? What does it mean to you as a taxpayer when we do the collective routine?
I am not a cynic in the sense of the Reform philosophy that there is a price. I am saying to tie the two of them together. Let us look at the price and let us look at the value we will get from it. What is the overall cost and is it good value? Is it something Canadians want? Canadians will have to know what they are paying for.
I realize a number of groups have endorsed this. The present auditor general has said that he shares the view that the cost of government programs and operations should be made more visible to Parliament and to taxpayers.
Today I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour talk about program review and that programs are being made more cost efficient. That is the right thing to do and as a member of the government I applaud that. We must do that. We have no choice. And we are doing that.
But this is not a question of making programs more efficient. It is a question of telling people up front, right then when we introduce a law what it is going to cost the country and what it will mean to every man, woman and child in the country. Legislation has many yardsticks which can be applied to it. We put legislation to all kinds of tests, but this is the one test that has obviously been missing.
I realize that this may impose an onerous burden on certain departments. After having heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour speak, I think it is like a scene out of ``My Fair Lady'' where Eliza Doolittle was being taught English and she did not want to continue any more. She said that she was tired, fed up and could not carry on. In this case I would suggest that the department has no reason to be tired. It can carry on and it ought to carry on in the vein and with the intent, purpose and thrust of what the hon. member for Durham has proposed in the bill.
It is ironic that the Alberta Taxpayers' Association has said that the bill is a good first kick at the can and deserves the consideration of members of Parliament. This is what the member has succeeded in doing by getting this bill to the floor of this Chamber.
I know there are others who will speak to the bill today and in the future. At the same time I believe it is incumbent upon us to thoroughly examine the bill. In the end I believe we on this side of the House at least will conclude that we are not cynics but we do want to know the price and then we as legislators can determine whether this is good value for the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to congratulate our colleague from Durham, for taking the initiative to introduce a bill to improve information on the cost of programs proposed by the government.
(1420)
Our fellow countrymen, administrators, a list of accountants, which we have seen, and even the office of the auditor general have said that this initiative would be welcome. When we look at the enormous expenditures of the government, it is clear that we need mechanisms to ensure program costs are made public at least in general terms, given that it is impossible to have precise information and figures for a five-year period.
But the primary initiative of this bill will be to help bureaucrats realize that Parliament, which has the last word on programs, requires information that is as precise information as possible, because we are aware of the impact, the ramifications, of program expenditures and do not like to find out, a year or two down the road, that certain programs have ended up doubling or tripling the original estimates.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. This is an initiative I like very much. There is no doubt that many mechanisms do exist, as our hon. colleague from Prince Edward Island has said. There are mechanisms in place to control, if you will, or to give some idea of the costs of programs.
However, I think that this proposal by the member for Durham would put our bureaucrats and, of course, ministers and deputy ministers, who are responsible for the various departments, on the alert, forcing them to make sure that the information provided is as accurate as possible, otherwise we are the ones who are going to incur the wrath of our fellow Canadians if they realize that expenditures were higher than anticipated.
In the short time I had, I just wanted to draw the attention of my colleagues to this aspect of the bill. Such legislation deserves a lot of attention and certainly deserves to be debated. I hope it will help those responsible for program analysis to realize that we have the last word and that we need information that is as accurate as possible.
[English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will start by wishing happy holidays to everybody, to all Canadians including my constituents, and of course a very Happy New Year.
[Translation]
I wish a Happy New Year and a good holiday to all Canadians and to my colleagues. I also say to all my Italian friends: Buon anno a tutti miei amici italiani.
I congratulate the hon. member for tabling a rather important bill. We need to have details when we vote as members of Parliament, and we also need to be convinced that the legislation is an important one for our communities.
My only concern relates to the auditor general's involvement, since it could delay the passage of an act that can be extremely important for the country.
[English]
Private members' bills are extremely important for the backbenchers who speak to their constituents and know what their problems are. There seem to be a lot of constraints on private members' bills. A private member's bill is the only tool a backbencher has. From my own experience I have introduced three private members' bills. They were intended to address injustices in the electoral act.
Some people may not know that a private member's bill first has to be introduced. Then the member's name has to be drawn and eventually the votability of the bill has to be established. I do not think that the votability should have to be established. We should be able to present and discuss the bill and then if the debate collapses, it collapses.
My first bill related to an injustice regarding political parties losing their party status. They had to decertify because they did not have 50 candidates. In British Columbia if we were to create a party, it would never become national because there are only 34 seats, whereas in Quebec for instance, a provincial party could be made national because there are 75 seats. That is something which should have been addressed but unfortunately the debate collapsed.
(1425)
I would like to support this bill. It is important that there be more accountability in what is presented to the House and I am prepared to support that idea. It is a good idea that we all know what we are voting on and we know from the beginning what the costs are going to be.
Again, a very happy holiday to everybody and particularly to you, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I shall speak just a few minutes on the bill tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Durham.
First of all, I will congratulate my colleague for having presented a truly worthwhile initiative, one worthy of the House of Common's attention. I personally have had the opportunity to examine it and to ask a few questions, particularly of Treasury Board employees, in order to determine just what they do at the present time with regard to the information they provide about the House of Commons.
I am pleased to inform you that the main thrust of my colleague's proposal has already been implemented. The Department, and the President of Treasury Board, have undertaken to facilitate, and to provide far more information to members of Parliament than they did in the past. For example, in collaboration with the other political parties, they are starting to make it easier to obtain information and to provide far more reports, not only on the new government programs, but also on existing ones.
The government has also taken very aggressive initiatives to ensure that Canadians have access to affordable programs which are appropriate to the population's needs.
At the present time, the government is holding discussions with representatives of the provinces and territories with a view to saving money, while ensuring that the programs established to serve Canadians are appropriate and transparent.
My problem with this initiative is that it will be redundant. Each year the auditor general makes recommendations on the government's operations, and then makes his report public. Historically, more than 65 per cent of his recommendations have been implemented, whereas the government and the ministers take action every time the auditor general makes recommendations.
I think that it will bring in another type of bureaucracy one that will be more costly, especially when the government is already involved in implementing all manner of measures to ensure government transparency and the availability of information to the House and its members.
I just wish to say that the 1996-97 estimates have demonstrated the government's serious intent, since it has taken tangible steps. It has not only talked about taking steps, it has taken them. I therefore wish to congratulate the administrators and the ministers for their initiative.
Let me wish everyone a Merry Christmas, and as my colleague has said, buon anno a tutti e grazie signor.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words.
[Translation]
On behalf of all of the occupants of the Chair, to my colleagues in the House and to everyone, I would like to wish a good holiday season.
[English]
I want to say how much the Chair and the other occupants of the chair-I say this on the part of all of us-appreciate the co-operation of all hon. members, of the clerks at the table, of our pages and of all those who make this Chamber work. Without the help of hundreds of people, we could not function here.
[Translation]
To everyone, I would like to express holiday greetings from all of the hon. members of this House.
[English]
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We hope we will not be back next week.
It being 2.30 o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 3, 1997 at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)