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.