I want to focus on page 146, on the points the Auditor General pointed out that she thought were connected to lack of performance. I want to quickly go over some of those key features.
One is lack of coordination. I feel that in all lines of life, if you've got good coordination and good planning, you save money and you get better results.
Another is lack of sustained management. That seems to me to address the issue of quality management, or the lack of it. Again, in life good management means saving money and getting better results.
There is also consulting with people before you do things. That again, it seems to me, saves money and gets better results.
Another point relates to having first nations people involved in the consultation and the delivery of the programs. Again, that sort of thing would save money and get better results.
Another is a solid, well-planned legislative framework for getting things done. A good plan to start with will save money and get better results.
I think what the Auditor General is describing here is an overall system that needs some real focus and direction. There's a lot of room for improvement here. The bottom line is that I don't read the issues being addressed here as issues that require big piles of money to be poured into the system. Mr. Drucker and Mr. Deming, probably the foremost experts on management and administration who ever lived, said that pouring more money into a bad system is not going to get better results. I think we have a lot of things here that aren't really monetary issues, but they should be addressed.
I'm just wondering, Madam Fraser, am I wrong on this? Are these monetary issues that you pointed out here, or are they just poor management and poor administration, or something akin to that?