Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate in the debate from the perspective of a member of the House who is here to represent the constituents of Calgary Southeast.
I know why I came to Parliament. I came here to look for accountability. I came here to look for responsibility. I came here to make a difference. Those elements of my life are extremely important to me.
As I listened to my colleagues tonight I was absolutely astounded and amazed to realize how very little a part I can play in actually touching the heartbeat of government when I will not be able to make a difference in 71 per cent of its program spending.
This was a tremendous surprise to me and I guess I would have to say a major disappointment. In everything I do as I represent constituents of Calgary Southeast I look at the questions that were asked by my colleague from St. Albert. Is what I am doing relevant? That would apply to anything I would be reviewing here. Certainly when I look at applications that come from the human resources department for grants and applications to help employment opportunities, I always ask a question of the submission: Is it relevant?
What kind of effect will that relevance have not only on the constituents I represent but on all Canadians? I get all kinds of letters as do all members from constituents who are extremely frustrated with the spending practices not only of the government but governments of the past. If it does not pass the test of relevancy then I have to ask the question: Why not? What can we do to make it better? What can we do to fix it?
When looking at effectiveness and meeting its objectives I have to ask: Are the objectives even established? I cannot say the number of times I have looked at projects or proposals and there has been no long range planning.
The minister of defence has been challenged many times in the last month on looking at meeting objectives and having objectives for spending. They have been missing. I was absolutely amazed and appalled that although short term goals were
laid out in the budget that were to be met, the long range goal must have been missing. All kinds of changes to the budget came after the fact.
The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage has been challenged a number of times on changes made to budget statements and to program estimates. If we are not effective in establishing objectives, how can we possibly hope to meet them if they are missing from the documentation?
I came here to vote on absolutely everything. On any piece of legislation that came before the House I wanted to give expression to what I felt was important. It disturbs me when 71 per cent of the decisions we make in the House of Commons are non-votable items. Canadians must be absolutely appalled to be hearing that tonight. I certainly am stunned to hear of that kind of spending without any accountability to anybody.
Where is the openness? Where is the effectiveness of the money I am giving to the government through my tax dollars? Where is the accountability?
Another question I often put when I receive requests for assistance is: Is the delivery efficient? If it is not, how can we continue to go through the process over and over again of giving money to the same kinds of programs without even looking at the efficiencies?
Once again we come back to objectives. Are their objectives in place? Are those objectives being met? In the corporate sector everybody always evaluates what they do. Business would not survive if it did not have that part of the expenditure process at the end of every year where an evaluation based on delivery is actually done.
My husband works in the corporate sector. Believe me, he is accountable to his managers and they in turn are accountable to their superiors to look at efficient and effective delivery of product. If that does not happen, they are out of business.
Then we come to the final question: Is there a better way? My colleagues from St. Albert in all good faith brought forward a non-votable bill. This is the place for rational and reasoned debate. This is where we should be able to talk about the issues of the day, to have a broad discussion with everyone participating.
What do we have? We have a handful of people standing in the House tonight talking about a major concern for Canadians: accountability in terms of how we spend money. It is disappointing to hear that we are doing well enough and that we can defend the status quo because we truly are into new times that demand a different point of view, a different way of doing business. If we undertake to look at it honestly and directly from a different point of view, we will be able to hold government accountable. We as parliamentarians will be able to stand in front of our constituents and say that we made a difference in the 35th Parliament.