Mr. Chairman, with regard to our standing committee on public accounts report, before I get into the contents of the report, the chairman of the standing committee has just been moved over to the other side of the House. That new Member knows the contents of this particular report, and I would just like to convey to him that he knows exactly what the committee heard and how the committee acted to the number of presenters that appeared before the committee. So he has a good understanding as to what the committee expects of its civil servants.

I hope the now Executive Member can convey to his other colleagues on that side of the House what our committee really wants the government to do. Hopefully they would take our advice. Our committee is quite serious, as stated in the report.

The committee has 18 specific recommendations with regard to the Auditor General's report for the year ending 1990-91. As I indicated, the Auditor General's report was divided into six chapters: the financial issues, compliance issues, legal aid, government travel, assets management and items reported in previous years.

A number of witnesses were called to appear before us, and the committee gave a general observation about the hearing as a whole. Maybe to stress that, again, the committee this year during its hearings knew that the government was in a serious deficit situation, and we conveyed that to the managers that appeared before us. The committee also commented that we want to signal loudly and clearly that our committee has to be taken seriously, and we indicated to the public that it will meet more frequently and also will follow up on commitments made by witnesses. The committee also stated that it will insist upon co-operation and co-ordination among government departments and agencies. Our committee, Mr. Chairman, suggested that it will work more closely with our other committees here in the Legislature. Those comments from our committee have to be taken seriously.

Mr. Chairman, the first item that was reported is the Auditor General's reservation on audit opinion, I guess. The Auditor General stated the reason for the reservation. He said, and I quote: "As an independent auditor for the Auditor General of Canada cannot take sides, but has to weigh carefully all the evidence to reach an opinion, we do not disagree with the calculation of the government's claimed amount, but there is not enough audit evidence for us to conclude whether all this money will be recovered. The government has not provided for any possible loss, as it also does not know the future outcome of its claims. This is the reason for the reservation in our audit report."

Mr. Chairman, after hearing out the Auditor General's staff, we called in the deputy minister of Health and the deputy minister of Finance, and asked them to explain the reasons for the dispute. The committee understood that the issue at hand was indeed very complex. The committee had two concerns, Mr. Chairman. First, the large amount of money involved and the impact the potential loss of these funds will have on the government's overall financial situation. The committee considers the reservation to be an extremely serious matter. it reflects negatively on the accountability that government owes to the Legislative Assembly and to our territorial residents. The particular issue, the disputed amount of $32 million in health care billings, can have serious consequences for the government's whole financial position.

Motion To Accept Recommendation 1, Carried

Mr. Chairman, the second area that the committee had concerns about was the overexpenditures. of departmental budgets. Two departments overexpanded their budgets: The Department of Personnel overexpended its budget by $4,234,999, and the Legislative Assembly overexpanded its budget by $436,900. In both cases, Mr. Chairman, the departments were unable to accurately forecast their actual requirements. This has been an ongoing problem for a number of years. A number of departments seem unable to accurately forecast how much money they are going to need to meet their obligations. At the end of the fiscal year, they ended up covering unpaid liabilities, money the government owes; and unrecovered revenues, money that the government is owed. Government must improve its ability to forecast what

its actual costs are going to be.

Motion To Accept Recommendation 2, Carried

Therefore, the committee makes their second recommendation. I move that government must develop and put in place procedures that will allow It to accurately predict the amount of money it is going to need in a given year. These procedures must allow It to forecast unpaid liabilities and unrecovered revenues, and these procedures must allow It to predict its financial requirements, not only at year end but on an ongoing basis throughout the year.

Do you want me to repeat my motion?

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the systems problems, there are also people problems. The committee is concerned that managers are not managing their resources properly, and they do not clearly understand their responsibilities. The Financial Administration Act stated quite clearly that managers should not spend money If they do not have the necessary money in their budgets, but every year, managers and departments continue to overexpend. The committee accepts the fact that from time to time managers may require more resources than they have been given in their annual budgets. What they cannot accept is the willingness of managers to spend money they do not have in their budgets. In such cases, there is no excuse for not coming before the Assembly with a request for supplementary appropriations.

Motion To Accept Recommendation 3, Carried

To overcome this problem, our committee recommends, and I move, Mr. Chairman, our third recommendation: Government must make sure that all managers are aware of their responsibilities for their budgets, and must ensure that all managers stay within their budgets and spend moneys property, according to approved procedures and the requirements of the Financial Administration Act. If managers lack the necessary skills in the area of financial management, they must receive appropriate training, and government must hold managers accountable for their performance matters. It must link financial management directly to merit increases for good performances, and to disciplinary action for poor performances.

Mr. Chairman, the third area that the committee looked at was the legal aid program in the justice system. The Auditor General reviewed the legal aid program and identified a number of problems. Many of these same problems have been identified by recent studies, particularly by the Strength at Two Levels review and the recent report of the Legal Services Board. Though program costs are rising rapidly, the department does not have adequate information systems to allow it to forecast requirements or monitor expenditures.

Motion To Accept Recommendation 4, Carried

The committee recommends, and I move, that the Department of Justice and the Legal Services Board develop adequate information systems at the earliest possible date. These systems must provide managers with the information they need to monitor both costs and the quality of services. Clear deadlines must be set to develop those systems and put them in place.

Mr. Chairman, our committee also found a significant problem with client eligibility and with cost recovery. The program does not seem to have a clear set of eligibility criteria that are understood by program staff and by the members. Committee Members recognized the need for some kind of means test, similar to the one used to determine eligibility for social assistance. They also suggested exploring a closer working relationship with the Department of Social Services to share information and to reduce duplication of efforts. A related problem is cost recoveries. The program seems to have no clear guidelines for assessing the client contribution, and there are significant delays in making collections.

Motion To Accept Recommendation 5, Carried

The committee recommends, and I move, that the government develop eligibility criteria to determine who can receive legal aid and under what conditions. These criteria must be made available to the public.

At this time I would like to move recommendation 6. I move that a means test be developed to help determine how much individual clients can afford to pay for legal aid services. The means test must be applied consistently.