Does the committee agree?

Would the Minister like to make his opening comments?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed with my opening remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss the main estimates for the Department of Resources Wildlife and Economic Development.

Excuse me, Mr. Handley. Point of order, Mr. Dent.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the Minister was embarking on the Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development budget. I think our intention is to have general comments on the budget itself first, then get into the departmental reviews after we have gone through the general comments.

I do not have any opening comments on the budget in total. Thank you.

The direction of the Committee is that we deal with Bill 1, Appropriations Act, 2000-2001, with general comments regarding the bill. Mr. Dent, general comments.

Mr. Chairman, I will not embark on general comments right now but in committee reports yesterday, we presented the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight Report for the 2000-2003 business plan and the 2000-2001 main estimates. In that report, we had a number of recommendations.

What I propose to do now, Mr. Chairman, is to present those recommendations in the form of motions for the committee to consider, since they are on government-wide issues and not just on departmental issues. This is something we should get into before we get into the departments.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee recommends that each department review its goals, strategies, outcomes and outcome measures for presentation of the 2001-2004 business plans to ensure that there are substantive benchmarks and measurable outcomes included. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. We do not have a copy of the motion, so we will have to take five minutes to make copies. We will take a short break and come back with the motion.

-- Break

I would like to call the committee back to order. We are dealing with a motion. Mr. Dent, I believe that we all have copies now. Could you read the motion for the record?

I move that this committee recommends that each department review its goals, strategies, outcomes, and outcome measures for presentation in the 2001-2004 business plans to ensure that there are substantive benchmarks and measurable outcomes included.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize the clock is running down, so I will keep these comments brief. What this motion says is that the benchmarks, measurable goals and outcomes in this budget are inadequate and unacceptable for almost every department without exception.

I think there is no way to clearly measure how this government intends to spend eight hundred and some million dollars, and when they come back next year we will be in the same situation of how well did things go. If we did not have any clear goals and measurable outcomes, you will just have to take our word for it and we will get on with it.

Mr. Speaker, this is my fifth budget. And this has been an issue in almost every budget that I can recollect. I hope we do not have to be sitting here again in a year with the same concern.

Mr. Speaker, in the social program side, we have almost 60 percent of the budget under the social programs envelope, and they plan to do a lot of good work. They have many good intentions, but we are talking about spending government money and being able to measure the outcome of programs, and to measure the decisions and plans that the departments have brought forward.

Mr. Chairman, this is a motion with some substance, because while we are talking about business plans for 2001-2004, the message is, and it is reflected in every committee report in every department, that the goals and outcomes in there are inadequate.

It is somewhat of a puzzlement for me. The fifth time around we are still beating on this particular issue. Money is increasingly tight. We will have to be able to justify, and determine if we are spending money the right way. If we are not, then why not? How do we change it?

You can only do that if you measure it. You cannot get by on anecdotal information or gut feelings, perceptions, or what you heard at the coffee shop. You have to be able to demonstrate as a corporation what decisions are being made and which decisions did not in fact hold water.

If this was a business plan going to the banks and you had to justify for more money the next year, I would suggest, as it has been mentioned already, that the business plans and the budget be returned because they lack detail. I also suggest that the government and the departments would reject business plans put forward by non-government organizations and agencies if they said they would spend the money they receive in the same vague way that the government outlines how they are going to spend their money.

I am in support of this motion. It is a very important one. It is a fundamental one. It cuts across all government departments and agencies, and one that, for me, I look for all the time. It has been recognized by the AOC as a significant issue. Thank you.

To the motion. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be even shorter than my colleague, and that is very difficult. Open and accountable government requires a clear statement of what a department is trying to achieve. It requires a clear definition of how we will mark its progress towards those goals. Too often we do not see that when we are reviewing the business plans and budgets for departments. This has been something that has been noted in this Legislature, the 12th Legislature, the 13th Legislature, as far as I am aware.

I agree with Mr. Miltenberger that it is time we finally dealt with this issue. I think not only would banks reject the approach we have seen from some of the departments, but this government itself expects more from a non-government organization when they apply for funding in terms of a clear definition of what the goals are for that organization and what the measures for success will be.

I would say that we need to demonstrate the same level of responsibility that we expect from those that we fund. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is indeed time that we move towards a clear statement of goals and a clear statement of how we will measure progress towards those goals. I hope that the government will respond positively to this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. To the motion? Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Abstentions? The motion is carried. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another committee motion. I move that this committee recommends that this government develop more detailed categories for other expenses to justify the request for funds, and further that these categories be consistent across government, and furthermore that one of the categories should cover items on the controllable asset inventory list that are now under the new tangible asset accounting system considered as an operations expense.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Often times when departments would present their business plans or budgets to us, we would often see the category "other expenses", and there would often be significant amounts of funds in there. Only under questioning would we be advised as to what those amounts represented and what the purpose of the funds was.

It was surprising to us the number of different items that could get lumped together under "other expenses". We would hope that in terms ensuring open and transparent government, we could have a much easier time of understanding what the government is spending its money on. We think it is absolutely essential that there be a better definition of what can be included in other expenses, and that it becomes much easier for everybody to understand what it is we are asked to approve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the motion. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Dent made reference to the "other expenses" category, if we look under Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, other expenses totals $35 million. It does provide a breakdown, but it always leaves a large amount, and that is one of the questions that came up routinely. Hopefully the government as a whole will review this and provide clearer detail. Thank you.

Recognizing the clock and that time has expired, we will rise to report progress.

The House will come back to order. Item 21, report of committee of the whole. Mr. Krutko.