Debates of May 17th, 1996

Standards Council Of Canada Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think upon brief consultations you will realize that those were occurring while others were speaking and also as the Chair was deliberating.

However, I think you would find unanimous consent that the second bill be deemed not to have been dealt with at all today. We will revert to it. We hope at that point our colleagues across will give us the usual co-operation perhaps not to have a very lengthy debate, recognizing that we have provided this gesture.

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is consent for it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House agree to give unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank all hon. members for their co-operation on this issue. It was a delicate one. I am grateful to everyone for being helpful.

It being 1.44 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 21 consideration of the motion.

Financial Administration Act

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the motion of my friend from St. Albert would have us introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act to require all departments and agencies to table in the House a specific response to the auditor general's report.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

That is a good idea.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

It is a good idea. My friend from New Westminster-Burnaby says that it is a good idea and he is right again.

I had a marvellous speech here, somewhere. It was beautifully typed, marvellously prepared but I cannot seem to find it. Let me see what I can do. I know the essence of what the member has in mind.

I am a great believer in the dictum that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We should first look at what is behind the motion. Knowing the member for St. Albert as I do, I am not suggesting there is anything nefarious or suspicious behind it. He must have had a reason. He is a member of the public accounts committee and has been for a couple of years. For most of that time he has been his party's spokesman on these matters. Before coming here my good friend was an accountant. He has a specific interest in and knowledge of these matters.

Accountants are people who, when they are sent a Christmas card, before they check the signature, they flip to the back of the card to see how much it cost. Accountants are particular people. They are very meticulous. They watch the buck. We need some accountant parliamentarians. We have one such person in the member for St. Albert, a good accountant-parliamentarian.

One would expect that there would be a good motion from him and we were not disappointed. He says that departments ought to be required to table their responses to the auditor general's report. As I said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The corollary to that is if something is broken, only fix the broken part.

I am not an accountant. I must apologize for that. The fact that I am not an accountant has gotten me into all kinds of problems over the years. I am a parliamentarian. I used to wear another hat too. In the Newfoundland House of Assembly from 1975 to 1979, I had the honour of being the chairman of the public accounts committee. After coming here, I was briefly the chairman of the public accounts committee of this House as well. I want to talk about an incident during my experience with the public accounts committee in Newfoundland.

I have to apologize to all concerned because the dentist got at me and said he wanted to stitch up the inside of both sides of my face. If I am mumbling more than usual today, it is partly because I-

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

You are on Novocain.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Exactly. Novocain can do some wonderful things to you.

There was a situation in the Newfoundland house in which the auditor was reporting every year. He reported on a particular set of events in the Department of Public Works. We on the committee kept asking enough questions, kept probing enough that we found the smoking gun. A job which the fire commissioner after a fire at the fisheries college estimated to cost $35,000 to fix wound up costing $576,000.

The interesting coincidence was that despite the fact the Tory government at the time had made much of its new public tender legislation in which no amount over $10,000 would be awarded without tender, the government had found a way to give out $576,000 without tender. It was simple the way the government did it. There were some accountants on staff. They always awarded an amount less than $10,000. They got around the act with over 60

work orders. What was even more interesting was that all the work orders had gone to the same firm.

The public accounts committee and I as the chairman did enough probing that we got to the root of that one. The result was the following: a public inquiry into the spending practices of the Department of Public Works in Newfoundland; the resignation of the two ministers who had been in the portfolio during the period under investigation; and criminal charges laid in which an individual was convicted of fraud and sentenced to a prison term of three years as I remember.

I cite this example to show that if we are going to have accountability in this Chamber, it is not enough to dicker, to change, to amend, to perfect the rules. We have to fix the part that is broken. We have to see to it that the public accounts committee and the members on that committee, including my friend from St. Albert, do the necessary probing.

Before we get to that, before we begin to point fingers, we have to ask ourselves whether the public accounts committee and the House have the tools to do the job. In other words, is there something else that is broken that needs fixing. That is the allegation, the premise in the motion of my friend from St. Albert.

The hon. member wants the agencies and departments of government to bring specific responses to this House. Let us look at what the case is right now and has been the case under the Financial Administration Act for many years. The case is that when the auditor general reports, each department, each agency of government or as the act says, the government itself, is required within 150 days to give a specific response on the criticism in the auditor general's report and what that department or agency is doing about it.

There is another point. In 1994 we amended the Financial Administration Act to allow the auditor general to make more than one report to Parliament a year. Before that he made only one report a year. Since the auditor general has had the legislative authority or permission to report more often than once a year he has done so. In 1995, the year after the change in the act came in, he reported three times. In 1996 he can be expected to do likewise.

My point is that the tools are there. The auditor general reports quite frequently but his report, and I gave the example of the Newfoundland House of Assembly, in itself is not enough. We can swamp this place with paper and reports and we do.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Do you listen to them?

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

My friend from St. Albert asks if we listen to them. I am going to pass the buck right back to him. He, together with others-and I do not see any of them in the House-including his friend from Calgary Centre, are on the public accounts committee. The gentleman from Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans is the chairman, my friend from London West is on the committee and my friend from Kent is a member of the public accounts committee. I believe those are the only members of the public accounts committee in the Chamber right now. These are the people who must take the pieces of paper that come here and follow them up, as we did in the Newfoundland house.

If there is a smoking gun, if there is some lack of accountability they are the people who, having a good relationship with the auditor general, will see that these matters are ferreted out.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the arguments from the other side. I find it confusing that somebody could even question accountability to the House of Commons and Parliament.

My colleague's motion merely asks that government departments be accountable for the money they spend, particularly when the auditor general's report indicates instances in which there might be some question of whether it could have been spent in a better way. My hon. colleague's motion is only suggesting that all departments be required to table responses to the auditor general's report when it brings into question some of the activities within the departments.

The reason my hon. colleague suggests that the departments should table responses is that the public accounts committee cannot handle all the issues raised by the auditor general. If it were only the public accounts committee that would deal with these issues in an effort to bring resolution to the concerns in the auditor general's report, it would have no opportunity to do the necessary follow-up.

We spend $50 million a year for the auditor general to audit some government department accounts. All my hon. colleague is suggesting is that if we are going to invest that kind of capital for the auditor general's department to do checks on government spending, then the government departments that are found to be somewhat in question as to whether they are operating with the best value for the dollar for Canadian taxpayers should be accountable. This is something that should have the support of every single member in the House of Commons.

The House of Commons is accountable to the Canadian taxpayer and to the Canadian public. Members of the House of Commons are voted in by the Canadian taxpayers to make sure their interests are being looked after, considered and protected.

What Canadians feel, rightly or wrongly, is that government bureaucracies, the departments, tend to remove themselves from accountability to the House of Commons. Canadians think the bureaucracy is running the show. If Parliament wants to regain some control and some accountability of government departments

that administer the policies established in the House of Commons, then something like this is needed.

What is needed is a report which gives the department's explanation and what it will do about the auditor general's concerns and the time frame within which it will address the issues brought up by the auditor general. We are only asking that these departments table a report acknowledging the auditor general's comments, giving an explanation of why it occurred and giving some indication of how much time it will take the department to rectify the concerns of the auditor general.

It is almost impossible to understand how an hon. member across the way could find fault with this request. The hon. member for St. Albert is asking for the government bureaucracies and departments to be accountable and to answer to the House of Commons.

The auditor general is an officer of the House of Commons. He is acting our behalf to investigate, to audit public accounts and to make sure Parliament is aware of where the government is spending money. It makes sense to me and hopefully to everybody else here that Parliament should be holding the departments accountable for responding to the auditor general's report; not just a parliamentary committee which has not the personnel, the members, to address all of these concerns.

If I remember correctly, in 1994 the report had 34 chapters of detailed information on selected government programs in a dozen departments and agencies. Only four of these chapters received a response from the government in last year's budget. That does not indicate to me and to Canadians that government departments take seriously the concerns raised in the auditor general's report. If we are to invest the kind of money we do, if we are to invest the opportunity for somebody to audit government accounts, we should also make sure their suggestions and concerns are given serious consideration.

This year, of 27 chapters in the auditor general's report only 1 was addressed in the budget plan, annex I. One has to ask how seriously the government takes the concerns raised by the auditor general. How seriously does the government take those situations in which the auditor general is pointing out taxpayer money is not being well spent, or that the return on that investment of taxpayer dollars is not just justified and not enough?

I suggest all members in the House of Commons, if they believe it is the House of Commons that is in control of the country and not the government departments and not the bureaucracy, should fully support Motion No. 166 to see that control and accountability are returned through the House of Commons and not through the government departments.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. Albert for his motion to introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act, a motion that will require all departments and agencies to table in the House responses to the recommendations of the auditor general. I am honoured to have the opportunity to express my views as we resume debate on this motion.

In March, when we last debated this motion, many interesting points were raised. Several comments were made about the lack of adequate government response to both the auditor general and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. As these comments have become part of the public record, I feel it is my duty to provide some defence.

The role of the auditor general is to call attention to anything he considers to be of significance and of a nature that should be brought to the attention of the House of Commons. The auditor general is an officer appointed by Parliament. He tells parliamentarians and all Canadians what he has found as he investigates the workings of government. He has tabled three reports on government in the past year.

Each report is automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This committee is chaired by a member of the official opposition and investigates in depth many of the issues the auditor general has identified. The committee also contacts each and every department mentioned in the reports and requests a response outlining actions taken.

It was suggested on March 21 that unless the Standing Committee on Public Accounts calls witnesses and tables a report the government ignores the recommendations of the auditor general. This is not true.

The government is continually making improvements to its programs and policies based not only on the recommendations of the auditor general and the public accounts committee but on recommendations from program managers, from its own internal review groups and from its clients.

To take the second of these, I cannot think why any department would continue to employ and pay these internal audit evaluation and review shops if it were not interested in learning how effectively and efficiently it does business and how it can improve. It is part of being a good manager.

It was suggested that in cases where the Standing Committee on Public Accounts did investigate there was a lackadaisical attitude on behalf of the government in addressing these issues. I do not think I would consider, for example, that the President of the Treasury Board tabled the first annual report to Parliament on review an indication of a lackadaisical attitude

Allow me to elaborate a little to show the government's dedication to improvement. This report tabled in Parliament in November 1995 was titled "Strengthening Government Review". It was a snapshot of the state of review in the federal government and the kind of performance information available. It also included an action plan to address the opportunities for improvements identified.

This report was produced in response to concerns raised in the 1993 auditor general's government-wide audit of program evaluation and internal audit and to follow up a report by the public accounts committee. It was and continues to be by no means a small or lackadaisical effort.

In response to the 1993 auditor general's call for strengthening government evaluation and internal audit, the Treasury Board issued a new review policy. The policy encourages departments and agencies to develop better information. It asked that they use performance information in business planning processes and that they make this performance information accessible to the public. In short, the Treasury Board asked for greater accountability for the use of public funds.

In 1995 Treasury Board developed a revised expenditure management system. This system requires departments to articulate goals, targets and measures in key expenditure areas.

Over the years the auditor general has been asking government to become more accountable by providing better information on results and costs. The government has responded in no small way. Departments and agencies must demonstrate to parliament and to all Canadians whether goals set have been met and if not, why not. What better example of accountability is there?

It was also suggested the government sometimes appears to be not interested in being accountable. Sometimes in our busy day in the whirlwind of issues we forget the amount of progress that has been made. We are so busy focusing on the trees we sometimes miss the forest. It is important we consider what has been happening in the widest sense before we focus on specifics.

The auditor general notes that for over 65 per cent of of his recommendations there has been full implementation or else satisfactory progress has been demonstrated.

Specific examples cited by the auditor general include significant improvements in the layout and presentation of the government's annual financial statements that have been made in response to recommendations by the auditor general.

Another example is the significant improvements in the quality of information in crown corporation corporate plan summaries and annual reports provided to Parliament.

These responses illustrate the dedication of government to continuous improvement and reflect its emphasis on accountability.

That these criticisms were uttered suggests a disturbing misperception that government does not listen to the auditor general. Even more disturbing is the misperception that the government does not care to listen. It is important to hear these comments. It seems the government has been too quiet about its success stories. In our drive to improve we sometimes forget to celebrate our accomplishments.

Believing these misperception might very well lead one to suggest departments and agencies should table in the House of Commons action plans in response to the auditor general's findings.

If it were true that nothing happened in response to the auditor general's reports, it would make sense. However, this is clearly not true. As we have seen and heard both today and on March 21, quite a lot happens to remedy shortcomings noted by the auditor general.

Not only does the government address the specific items noted by the auditor general, it has been working diligently government-wide to address the underlying themes present in the auditor general's reports. This diligence is visible in a concerted effort to improve the quality of its programs and services to make them effective, efficient, affordable, accessible and fair.

How has the government been achieving this? On March 7 we all saw the progress report on getting government right. Perhaps we should remind ourselves of the efforts in using information technology better, being more responsive and flexible, changing the way government makes decisions, and focusing on results based management to achieve our goals.

For example, the government has been harnessing information technology innovatively to make services more accessible and affordable for Canadians. Canadians can now receive at a single location a range of government services from several departments and levels of government. Some of this is possible from home or through an automated kiosk.

New approaches provide new solutions to old problems. The government is exploring new ways to deliver programs and services that offer the best value for taxpayer dollars. Some of these ideas include partnerships, integration of departmental responsibilities and employee takeovers.

I think these changes reflect a fundamental shift in the way government manages itself. For example, the move to accrual

accounting allows government to report more accurately the cost of its activities on an annual basis. This increases public and parliamentary accountability. Better information means better decisions.

This shift is also reflected in the government emphasis on results. The quality service initiative is designed to provide accessible, affordable, relevant and responsive services to Canadians. Most departments have published performance objectives for the delivery of government products and services. These standards act as benchmarks against which Canadians can measure the timeliness, accessibility, reliability and accuracy of services to which they are entitled.

I could go on at length. However, I think these examples more than adequately show the dedication of the government to getting government right by improving and becoming more accountable.

I certainly hope I have begun to remedy the misperceptions that government does not want to change. The government is committed to improvement. The government has recognized a deep and enduring public demand for better governance. In response, the government launched major reviews of its overall policy frameworks, co-operated with the provinces and territories to make all levels of government work better, initiated program review which examined all federal programs and activities to rethink not only what the federal government does but how it does it. This includes reducing areas where costly overlap and duplication had previously occurred.

I call it progress. It is undeniable. Progress in reducing spending levels is also progress in restoring financial health. Progress in making government work better is progress in restoring public faith in government.

If the government were not listening to the auditor general, to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, to the citizens of Canada, this motion would be a welcome initiative to get us back on track. However, we must consider the facts. When the auditor general thinks change is occurring to a large extent in a timely and satisfactory manner, we must stop and think. I do not think members can disagree. It is becoming increasingly clear that if we were to implement the motion suggested by my fellow member we would be to a large extent duplicating much of the effort that currently exists.

I am sure none of us would want to ask the citizens of Canada to pay more for something that is already provided. I am sure fellow members would not want to show the Canadian public an attempt to create a larger and more expensive bureaucracy, flying in the face of all we have been trying to accomplish.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sit here in utter amazement listening to the hon. member, particular his last statement that he would not expect that anyone would want the government to spend money for something that is already provided.

This party would because the extra money this may cost, which has not been verified yet, would save the government untold millions of dollars by increasing the efficiency of its departments. We would be prepared to see this motion passed.

I am pleased to support the motion put forward by my colleague from St. Albert. The member for Burin-St. George's mentioned a couple of times in his speech that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Let me assure the House it is broke, contrary to his opinion.

Let me give an example of how broke it is. It is interesting that no Bloc members are in the House today speaking on this bill. After all, why would they? They could only speak in opposition to this bill because they have not demonstrated in one instance since they have been in the House that they have any intention of bringing the government to accountability. They have no desire to see accountability in any of the spending departments because it does not work with their agenda.

The motion our member has brought forward would strengthen the role of the auditor general and provide much more accountability with respect to taxpayer dollars by the government. Where have we heard that phrase before? Have we ever heard it by the government? No. Have we ever heard it by the Bloc? No. Have we heard it from Reformers over here? Yes. We have heard it for years from Reformers that governments have to become accountable to the taxpayers. Governments must begin to regard taxpayer money as a sacred trust. That is what we are trying to get to.

It would also ensure all departments and agencies would table a response to the auditor general's report. That is not rocket science. That means reporting to the House of Commons, to Parliament, on what someone is doing since the last report which said they were doing a pretty lousy job. When going through the auditor general's reports, at least the ones I have seen since I have been in the House, he has not exactly given a glowing report to any government department.

This motion would ensure that timeframes would be laid out by departments with respect to taking corrective actions as a result of the findings of the auditor general. Timeframes is a foreign word to this Liberal government. This word is used in private business all the time. There is a timeframe for getting this done and there is a timeframe for getting that done. That is why business operates so efficiently. Businesses operate on their own money. The government is operating on taxpayers' money. The money does not belong to the government, so why be efficient?

Last, it would ensure that the public accounts committee and any other relevant standing committee would be involved in the

process. That is not rocket science. Why not? Why would the government be opposed to that?

As the House knows, the auditor general and his department provide an invaluable service. The department is charged with the responsibility of overseeing how government operates. It makes criticisms and gives praise where it is due, although praise has been absent in the last number of years.

The auditor general reports annually to the House on improper money management, improper records maintenance, non-approved expenditures and program efficiency. These are matters with which all of us should be concerned. All Canadians are concerned. The government should be concerned.

The auditor general receives about $50 million annually to fulfil his mandate but many of his findings and recommendations go unanswered. That goes right to the heart of accountability within government and contributes to the cynicism with which the public views how the government is using their money. If we asked the average taxpayer what is the one thing government could do to make him or her happy, I bet that nine times out of ten the answer would be: Spend my money a little more wisely. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about implementing a mechanism which will force departments to spend the taxpayers' money more wisely.

The attitude within departments appears to be that it is taxpayers' money and there is a lot more where that came from. The auditor general's follow-up findings to past recommendations would seem to confirm this type of attitude within the departments.

If we watch the Letterman show on late night television, every night he has a top 10 list of something or other. The auditor general has a top four list. I would like to read them to the House. Here is today's top four list. As a matter of fact, these items have probably been the top four for as long as the auditor general has been reporting.

Number four: varied, though mostly limited response to our recommendations.

Number three: lack of action on many recommendations.

Number two: measures undertaken are not sufficient.

Number one: progress is slow.

These types of statements are common in the follow-up findings of the auditor general. We can find them year after year. Why? Because there is no demand for the departments to become accountable.

These are the complaints which the auditor general has of the corrective actions which are supposed to have been taking place. Obviously many of the departments are not concerned with responding quickly and effectively to the concerns of the auditor general.

On March 21 the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board stated that Motion No. 166 was not necessary since the government is highly motivated to respond to the concerns raised in each of the reports.

While the government may be highly motivated to respond, this does not mean that it is actually responding or going to respond, but only that it is highly motivated. As an example, I might be highly motivated to go swimming in the Rideau Canal but I do not think I will be diving in just yet because I might be a bit afraid of what I am going to find. By comparison the government departments, although they may be highly motivated into digging into the auditor general's recommendations, are not responding. They are not quite ready to go in there. They may be afraid themselves of what they will find in their own departments. Being highly motivated does not automatically translate into taking action.

Motion 166 goes a long way to addressing this concern. Quite frankly, any member of the House who is concerned about how the government spends taxpayers' money should be supporting this motion. By comparison I would imagine that any member who is not concerned with the way the government spends the money is going to oppose this motion. That is very clear. We have had two Liberal members today oppose the motion. Obviously they do not have any concern about how the taxpayers' money is spent. They are not concerned about accountability.

Two speakers from the Reform Party today spoke in favour of this motion. Obviously they are concerned about how the government spends taxpayers' money. It is as simple as that.

The red ink book, the document of promises, promises, promises which have been broken, broken, broken states that committees are to be given greater influence over government expenditures. That is what the red book says. The infamous red book of the Liberal Party promises openness, transparency, accountability and every other nice thing that one could ever imagine which has never come true actually says that government has to be more accountable.

Here is the opportunity for the government. Instead of breaking red book promises, it could live up to one of them: accountability.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House as we resume debate on Motion 166.

This motion was introduced by the member for St. Albert. As the House will recall the proposed motion calls for an amendment to the Financial Administration Act. This amendment would require all departments and agencies to present to the House action plans.

These action plans would set out planned activities and timeframes for acting on corrective actions required by the auditor general's reports.

We have had time since the debate began in March to consider what was said. Today it is important that we recognize that the member for St. Albert, the mover of this motion, put it forward in the pursuit of good governance. It is the spirit of this motion which I applaud. It is something on which we all agree.

The pursuit of good governance and accountability were substantive themes. They are the reasons why we have to make certain that all dollars are spent properly. I say substantively because it is easy to sidetrack certain things, look at debates in the House, finger point and so on. However, when I see an honest and open debate on issues as important as getting government right it makes me proud as a Canadian to serve this House, proud to serve people.

Today we have the opportunity to continue the debate and refocus our thoughts on this motion. I would like to pick up on some of the points that were raised on March 21 when it was last discussed and refocus the discussion on what we are really talking about: accountability and good government.

Sometimes it is easy to forget all of the key checkpoints in our loop as we currently have it existing. I will try to revisit some of the elements of this circle while we consider this motion.

The auditor general is an officer of Parliament. He is not a civil servant. He does not work for the government. The auditor general's job is to call attention to anything that he considers to be of significance about the workings of the government. He provides us with an independent assessment of how things are working. He takes his job very seriously. The auditor general is committed to making a difference for the Canadian people by promoting in all his work for Parliament, answerable, honest and productive government.

As members will recall, the auditor general has tabled three reports this year. In total, he audits about 200 organizations each year. In his part III of the estimates, he points out that he audits departments and agencies, crown corporations and other organizations from large ones such as the Governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to small organizations such as the Army Benevolent Fund. Canadian taxpayers collectively pay about $50 million each year for this service.

With each report, members of this House, the media and citizens alike focus their attention on the performance of the government. They listen to the auditor general. They question the government and, as a consequence, the government is highly motivated to respond to the concerns raised in each of the reports. There exists, as a fellow member aptly described it, a circle of accountability.

Each department and agency has the opportunity to respond to the comments made by the auditor general directly in the published report. This is the first opportunity the government has to indicate what it will do to respond to the auditor general's concerns and findings.

Daily question period provides an opportunity for members to question ministers further about the operations of government. As members will have noted from May 7 when the auditor general tabled his latest report, question period can become an important forum for challenging the government on the points raised through the auditor general's reports. Canadians, through their representatives, call government to account for its activities and can and do ask what will be done to remedy any shortcomings.

The auditor general follows up every two years on his recommendations. He measures the progress that the government has made in responding to his concerns. He reports his findings in his annual report. This reflects the diligence of his office.

During our debate of March 21, one of the members suggested that Motion 166 would legitimize the auditor general's work. The work of the auditor general is valuable in every respect and is very much respected in this House. I cannot imagine why a member felt that the reports of the auditor general somehow needed to be legitimized. I am sure that the member was not suggesting that we collectively pay $50 million for something that requires a motion like this to legitimize its existence. The auditor general has the full confidence of Canadians. His reports do not need to be legitimized.

In his part III of the estimates, the auditor general noted that he had followed up 572 of his 786 recommendations made between 1989 and 1993. His review indicated that 23 per cent of his recommendations had been fully implemented, and that satisfactory progress was being made on an additional 41 per cent of the cases. Keeping in mind that a number of recommendations were rendered no longer relevant, these findings mean that a significant percentage of the auditor general's work is acted on in a significant, timely, satisfactory manner.

As a member said, it is important that we have some production out of criticism. I think the numbers more than adequately speak for themselves. The numbers are a testament to the legitimacy of the auditor general. They are also a testament to the effort that the department and agencies put into ensuring problems pointed out by the auditor general are properly addressed.

The number of recommendations implemented is not a sufficient indicator of the success of this office. One must look at the individual success stories. The auditor general can and does in part III of the estimates offer plenty of examples to show how government has successfully acted to follow up on opportunities he has identified for improvement.

One of the auditor general's priority areas in recent years has been revenue collection. In his 1996-97 part III of the estimates, he outlines several areas where Revenue Canada was responsible and responded well to his suggestions. This is one of many examples.

As the member for St. Albert, the mover of this motion, can attest, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts also plays a key role in the circle of accountability. The committee is chaired by a member of the official opposition. One of its more important jobs is to review the findings of the auditor general's report with departmental officials. I would like to publicly commend the efforts of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

As the mover of this motion can attest, it is a very busy team. As a result of the hearings, I believe the committee presented to the House 15 reports in 1995. Each report, based on the findings of the auditor general, called for and received a formal response from the government. Follow-up as careful and extensive as this should not be underestimated.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts does not have the time to call all departments and agencies mentioned in the auditor general's reports. This does not mean we let the departments off the hook. Each summer the committee contacts each and every department that was not called to testify and requests an update on actions taken. If it not satisfied with the progress achieved, the committee may call the department at a later date.

I hope I have provided an adequate snapshot of the explicit points in the current circle of accountability as it relates to auditor general's reports. The circle exists. It is well defined and working well.

We must ask ourselves how much value this motion is to the circle. Will the proposed legislation simply be adding further process, which is something we must avoid? This is where I would like to pick up on the other theme that ran through our last debate on this motion, the pursuit of good government.

On March 7 the government released its progress report-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert, a member of the public accounts committee. He has gone to some considerable work since his election to bring forth a series of bills and motions to improve the process of accountability with respect to money in government, specifically accountability of government departments and agencies to the House of Commons. This is one example.

Last year I had the pleasure to debate another rejected idea he put out, to have a more established system of program evaluation. I will read the motion before the House today:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act requiring all departments and agencies to table in the House of Commons a specific response to the auditor general's report on their activities, including time frames within which corrective action will be taken regarding any shortcomings or failures of administration identified by the auditor general; and such reports should be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and to any other relevant standing committees.

This sounds like something we would want to endorse. The auditor general is an officer of the House of Commons. He must report annually to the House on improper money management, improper records maintenance, non-approved expenditure and program inefficiency.

Every year we spend $50 million so the auditor general can fulfil this mandate. However, when the report of the auditor general is tabled in the House, every chapter is automatically referred to the public accounts committee. If the public accounts committee cannot pursue the matter specifically the chapter is often overlooked.

As has already been pointed out, in the 1994 report of the auditor general there were 34 chapters, but only 4 received a response from the government in last year's budget. This year, of 27 chapters in the auditor general's report, only 1 was addressed in annex 1 of the budget plan. It would seem there is some reasonable need to assure this process is being followed and followed up.

We all suffer our various purgatories here. The hon. member for St. Albert's is to be a Scotsman and an accountant, a deadly combination at the best of times but particularly deadly when dealing with issues of Canadian politics and government spending. Obviously that combination goes in an entirely different direction.

When I listened to the debate today it is one of those days where I wonder why we are here, specifically what I am doing here. Before I spoke today I looked at the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board on this motion, who is normally a very competent and genial member of Parliament representing the constituency of Bruce-Grey where most of my maternal relatives reside.

He made the following observations. I quote selectively from his speech because I think it summarizes the position of various government members:

I do not need to remind my fellow members that the auditor general himself follows up every two years on the progress and recommendations. I am positive that all members would agree the office of the auditor general must be diligent in reporting on the efficiency of the Canadian government operations. Do we want to undermine the efforts of his office by attempting to duplicate this work?

During this time of fiscal restraint, while we are trying to achieve maximum efficiency with a modicum of resources, we should consider as we debate this motion whether it will be cost effective.

It does not matter whether it is the government, a business, a municipal government or any organization that handles funds, it is the way in which one does business. It is the efficient way in which one does business and not the amount of paper and the reporting that makes the business function or makes it efficient.

In other words, we have this process, we know what it is, we have heard some descriptions today. The auditor general makes a report on inefficiency. The public accounts committee can study it and return its report to the auditor general or to the House. The auditor general will follow his own recommendations.

We can bring it up in question period when we get these erudite explanations of government management and administration. We are to believe that all this is getting directly to the government department itself, which is the one thing left out of all this process I am describing. It was called by the previous Liberal speaker the circle of accountability, whether we want to put more elements in the circle.

Is it a circle of accountability or is it the run around? Is it the non-circle or is it the circle of non-accountability and never getting any answers?

I know hon. members come in and read canned speeches the government provides them, all with the same lines but with some different quotes to justify non-action.

One hon. member said the auditor general's report must be fully followed and must be given all the legitimacy it requires because after all we do spend $50 million; the very fact we spend money must mean we are spending right.

In going on with these canned speeches, the hon. member said that worrying about these kinds of details and worrying about whether or not the departments actually have a report and have taken action themselves that they can demonstrate, we are really unable to see the forest for the trees.

Since we are all in the habit of making silly quotes for the sake of making a point, let me make one which brings together the whole issue of the forest and the trees: "It looks more like a sycamore to me". That is a quote about the forests and the trees. It comes from Yogi Bear who said that as the sycamore fell on his head. The reason I raise that is if we want to talk about losing the forests for the trees and we want to talk about too much paper, maybe there is too much paper in some of these canned speeches.

More important, there is too much paper out there as we float $450 billion in federal government bonds in international and national bond markets. That is the too much paper we should be worrying about around here; $450 billion which we are now only increasing at the rate of $25 billion to $30 billion a year in paper, enough to cut down several of Yogi's forests without any doubt. That is $25 billion to $30 billion a year plus, I will add just so nobody thinks that I am understating the problem, the other $100 billion in various specified purpose account liabilities, plus another $500 billion in the unfunded liability of the Canada pension plan, which the hon. member for St. Albert has tried unsuccessfully to get the government to account for in its formal document.

I hear comments that they are trying to get a specific answer to a specific problem; that they are trying to get a report; that the agency affected is to report directly on what it did wrong; and that they are trying to add that element of accountability. I hear the comment that it is adding too much bureaucracy. This reminds me of several instances in life.

It is the same as taking my car into the mechanic because it is not running properly. The mechanic gives me a report stating what is wrong. I ask him exactly what it is he will do to fix it and how much it will cost and he tells me not to bother him with all that bureaucracy.

It is the same as if I were to tell a doctor that I think I have some terrible illness. My arm, my leg or whatever hurts. I ask him to tell me what is wrong. The doctor runs all kinds of tests. I ask him what he is going to do and he tells me not to bother him with all that bureaucracy.

We are suggesting that there is a purpose here. We are not suggesting that there be reports for the sake of having reports. We have already spent $50 million to find out what is wrong, now let us find out if anything was done about it. That is the point we are trying to make. I will add a couple of topical illustrations where this would help.

Various changes are needed in Revenue Canada to capital gains legislation relating to family trusts. In the last few days in this House there have been discussions that some prominent Canadians have managed to shift billions of dollars out of the country in their family trusts. In other words they have avoided taxes and specifically capital gains taxes. There were lots of questions on whether that was fair in the way it was done.

We were told by the minister of revenue, who seems terribly flustered by all this, that the government will act quickly on the auditor general's recommendations but it really all occurred under the previous government. The problems were known for years but the government was never actually sure whether anything was done about them. That is precisely why the member for St. Albert is proposing this motion.

Another example is that in the past the auditor general has specifically called for discussions not just on deficit targets, as the government has no long term deficit targets, but that there be discussions on debt levels and appropriate debt to GDP ratios and what can be sustained in the medium and long term. This happens to be one of the few areas where I do have some expertise. This is a very important question. It is the critical question in terms of the long term financial health of the country. However, the last budget contained virtually no mention whatsoever of our enormous debt levels, let alone long term and medium term debt targets.

I say all these things to point out that there is a need for it. There is a need to add this additional reporting requirement to ensure that the $50 million we spend on the auditor general office is followed up and that we know specifically what has happened.

I would also point out, in spite of my frustration and sarcasm today, that this is a non-partisan motion. It does not aim at any specific government department or agency. It is something every member should be supporting. I hope the government members will put away their canned speeches, send them back to Yogi in the forest, so that we can get on with having some accountability for government money.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague on a fine speech. I notice that the member for Calgary West wants to replace the member for Calgary Southwest as leader.

In terms of the motion before us, I am the vice-chair of the public accounts committee and I see merit in the motion. In many cases too many reports come before the public accounts committee. I believe this year there are some 35 chapters and we will be fortunate enough if we get to examine seven of them. Clearly it would be useful to make sure that issues raised by the auditor general got back to the relevant standing committees and then ultimately reported to the House.

There is no question we want the auditor general and the public accounts committee to be certain that the bureaucracy has taken the suggestions into account and has made the relevant changes to make government operations more efficient.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 2.45 p.m., the time provided for Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House stands adjourned until Monday, May 27 at 11 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 2.47 p.m.)