Madam Speaker, I support the amendment of the hon. member for La Prairie to Bill C-207, under which clause 1 of the bill would be amended to enable the Auditor General to make at least three supplementary reports a year.
By allowing the Auditor General to report more than once a year we would be giving him greater latitude, and that is something we heartily support. The wording of the amendment sets a minimum.
It is not restrictive. It says the Auditor General will be able to present at least three supplementary reports. He could present more than that, but there will be a floor. I do not think it would be wise to introduce this kind of change and set a limit on the number of supplementary reports.
The Auditor General's strength is his credibility. Giving him latitude is also giving him the room to carry out his mandate fully.
Changing from one report a year to several is a response to a long felt need. The proposed amendment to section 7 of the Auditor General Act has been recommended four times by the public accounts committee and once by the Senate finance committee. The Auditor General would like to see this change.
With reports at regular intervals, information will be split up and will reach us in a shorter time, which will obviously result in savings.
The Auditor General will be able to report to the House of Commons as soon as he has finished an in-depth audit of a department or a federal body, instead of waiting until he tables his annual report. Parliamentarians will thus be able to have access to information faster, and act more promptly.
The amendment gives plenty of leeway, and the necessary flexibility, to the Auditor General. Why opt for a ceiling? Where does this distrust come from? Why give with the right hand and take away with the left?
If it is felt that the Auditor General needs to produce more than one annual report a year, which seems to be an accepted fact, why restrict him to producing no more than three additional reports?
Moreover, the idea of regular reports reflects a trend that we can see in other countries: Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand. They have all adopted the idea. We are not abandoning a sacrosanct standard and striking out on our own.
The Auditor General's 1993 annual report has over 700 pages. If he reported at regular intervals all the information would be brought out over the course of a year and not just at the end of the year. That would be more efficient, more effective and more transparent. His auditing activities show how public money is being used, which meets a vital need. There can be no half measures in transparency.
Everyone is in favour of virtue, but when the time comes to act they get lukewarm and propose to limit the number of supplementary reports. This is backing and filling. Since 1980 there have been many attempts to amend the Auditor General Act but none of them has succeeded.
It seems to be difficult to go from words to action and give the Auditor General the latitude he needs. We are clearly running into resistance here. Apparent supporters of the idea say one thing but make a point of setting limits to what they call transparency. There is no room here for petty politicking. The Auditor General is the government's watchdog, and he must not be muzzled.
The Bloc Québécois defines the Auditor General's role positively. There is no question of imposing limits on him: we want to give him the manoeuvring room he needs to carry on his activities.
The bill tabled by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier originally provided in its clause 1 that the Auditor General could table at least one report, whereas the text we now have before us stipulates that he can prepare not more than three supplementary reports a year. Limits are being introduced, things are being restricted. After they make their resounding statements of principle, put the Grits through the mangle and their real intentions gush out.
The Auditor General ensures probity in the management of public moneys. He is apolitical. In today's context, participating in the passage of measures that might make it possible to save money is not something to dismiss lightly.
The Office of the Auditor General does audits, and we would benefit from having the findings in a shorter time. The wording of the amendment is designed to achieve this by providing for additional reports. The Auditor General already has the power to make special reports to the House.
Section 8(1) reads as follows:
The Auditor General may make a special report to the House of Commons on any matter of pressing importance or urgency that, in his opinion, should not be deferred until the presentation of his annual report.
However, since 1977, he has never invoked that section. The member for Ottawa-Vanier wanted to soften the original rule. In its place, he proposes the present wording which sets requirements too high, so high in fact that one wonders if they will ever be satisfied since the auditor has never used this prerogative in 17 years.
We submit that the requirements of managing a modern state call for a new way of doing things which allows for greater visibility. The auditor needs more leeway in the performance of his duties. For one or two weeks after he reports to Parliament, everyone focuses on the complexity of the task, on the visibility of his work. Then, it is back to oblivion for another year.
He must-and arguments favour more frequent reporting-be given the opportunity to make more than one yearly report. To achieve this, we will have to use general wording.