I appreciate that, Madam Speaker, but this is a three-hour debate. We do not know whether it is more than fair. If you continue that the rest of the way we will really appreciate it.
First, I would like to point out that my speech this afternoon is intended to convince the government to recognize that we have a problem. In so doing, I will obviously be creating the need to solve that problem and offer a solution.
Since this is the first time the government has heard about the solution presented by my colleague from St. Albert I feel the government deserves some time to consider it. We would not want it to be too hasty in its position, especially in light of the first two comments we heard by its members. We would like government members to listen to the debate with an open mind.
It seems very suspicious. This is the first time we have brought this forward and suddenly the government has concluded that it would involve a bigger bureaucracy, that it would cost more money, that therefore we could not do it, that it is going along quite nicely as it is. I will get back to the bigger bureaucracy issue in a second.
The suggestion by my colleague requires all departments and agencies to table in the House of Commons a specific response to the auditor general's report on their activities, including timeframes within which corrective action would be taken regarding any shortcomings. This is the point that I want to stress. This is the point that I want to concentrate on. It is the corrective measures that will produce the efficiency gains in the system.
As my colleague from St. Albert said, we pay $50 million for an auditor general and three times a year he is reported in the newspaper for a couple of days. There are headlines about government waste here and government waste there, which is not necessarily the fault of the politicians. However, he sees this waste. What happens after? How do we know if there is a follow up? At what point will there be a follow up?
This suggestion is a way to take advantage of the $50 million investment in the auditor general and a way to allow departments and bureaucrats to respond. Heaven knows they have received a lot of flak lately. Heaven knows they have not had a raise in pay for a long time and unlike the MPs they could not give themselves an increase in their pensions. Therefore, they have to suffer at the mercy of the criticism of the auditor general. If they were given a specific opportunity to respond as to when they would have corrective measures, they could follow that timeline, and politi-
cians could come and go. It is more important that we have some production out of the criticism. This process would only occur if there were areas which needed fixing. This is what the purpose of the auditor general is.
There is an excellent suggestion in the motion. It legitimizes the auditor general's review. If there are no problems, there are no problems. If there is a problem, then let us solve it. When will we solve it? Who is responsible for solving it? These are the things that are not happening in all cases.
As my colleague said, the public accounts committee does review things. It does do a good job. It takes time. If we make a list and we have to do things one through ten, it takes 10 times longer to do it. If we had 10 departments doing it we could get it all done in the same amount of time. That is the point in terms of efficiency gains. That is the point in terms of solving problems faster, thereby saving money.
The negative impression that an auditor general's report could give of government could be eliminated sooner. The reputation and the integrity of government would also improve if this motion were adopted. It shows co-operation. It does not show a hand up like a football player trying to block somebody from tackling them.
The opportunity for departments to clarify and rectify any criticisms more quickly gives them the opportunity to take matters into their own hands and do something about the issue as fast as possible.
I would now like to spend a couple of minutes on the hypocrisy of the government. I spoke yesterday about the GST and the sanctimoniousness, the hypocrisy of how the government raises duplicity to its highest form.
Today I will try to make a constructive suggestion. Already the argument is being used that with the size of the deficit, which is going down, that bureaucracy cannot be made bigger. It is going to cost us more money and, therefore, it cannot be done.
How hypocritical is that statement? I will tell the House how hypocritical it is. The government said it wants efficiency, to retain a small bureaucracy. Then someone tell me why the government voted to add six more members of Parliament to the House of Commons? It wants to increase the numbers from 295 to 301. That is what the Liberals voted for, to approve the electoral boundaries which would increase the number of seats to 301, an additional six seats. The government is hypocritical for supporting the addition of six more MPs. It is a cost that will be far higher-