4. Reiterates the need for simplification and flexibility of rules and procedures at both EU and national level in order to facilitate access to EU funds for project organisers and to promote sound management of those funds by the administrative services, without creating major difficulties for the beneficiaries; believes that simplification will contribute to the speedy allocation of funds, higher absorption rates, increased efficiency and transparency, fewer implementation errors and reduced payment periods; considers that a balance needs to be struck between simplification and the stability of rules, procedures and controls; notes ...[+++]that, in any case, providing potential applicants and beneficiaries with sufficient information is a necessary precondition for successful implementation;

12. Would prefer cohesion policy and its delivery system to be more result-oriented and aim at increased efficiency and effectiveness, establishing an optimal balance between quality of performance and financial control; points out that this requires significant improvements in monitoring and evaluation systems, increased efficiency in administrative capacity and error reduction levels as well as the identification of objective and measurable indicators that are comparable across the EU;

12. Would prefer cohesion policy and its delivery system to be more result-oriented and aim at increased efficiency and effectiveness, establishing an optimal balance between quality of performance and financial control; points out that this requires significant improvements in monitoring and evaluation systems, increased efficiency in administrative capacity and error reduction levels as well as the identification of objective and measurable indicators that are comparable across the EU;

We are trying to evaluate strategies to reduce errors and adverse events.

Given a $12 billion surplus for the fiscal year ending on March 31, and given an anticipated surplus of $20 billion for next year—not the surpluses as they appear in the budget documents where, once again, the finance minister's figures are zero and zero, but the real figures which the Bloc Quebecois makes a habit of providing and which are accurate to within 5%, which is normal, unlike the finance minister's figures, which are off by 150%—one would have expected middle income families to enjoy meaningful tax reductions. After all, these are the people who have had to pay most of the $19 billion in new taxes imposed by the Minister of Fi ...[+++]nance since 1994, not to mention the GST increase, which brought in $5 billion in revenues.

The member from Regina then made a fatal mistake when he talked about half the surplus going to spending, half going to debt reduction and half going to tax reduction.