Madam Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to take part today in the debate on Motion M-166 put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert. The hon. member has much experience in this area, having sat on the Standing Committee of Public Accounts for several years. The motion would call for amendments to the Financial Administration Act.
Departments and agencies would be required to table in the House action plans including specific time frames in response to the recommendations of the auditor general.
On the surface there appears to be some merit to the proposal. We are all interested in doing whatever we can to improve the level of affordable service to all Canadians. All members of the House want to see weaknesses corrected and problems addressed, however, there are several issues that must be perforce discussed.
As members are aware, one of the main tasks of the public accounts committee is to review on behalf on Parliament the reports of the auditor general. This is done by examining in detail with departmental and auditor general officials the issues and recommendations raised.
At that point, the committee, based on its hearings, submits reports outlining its conclusions and recommendations to Parliament. The government is expected to table within 150 days formal responses to the committee's recommendations. As quite often happens, the public accounts committee asks the auditor general to do further follow up work on the responses provided by the government. The committee wants to know just how far departments and agencies have gone in meeting the original recommen-
dations. If it is judged the progress is unsatisfactory the committee can hold further hearings.
This process is an important part of the accountability process between government and Parliament. I must admit that in the past it has worked well.
Successive governments have taken the reports of the auditor general seriously. A review of the supplementary activities on which the auditor general reports every year in his annual report shows that departments and agencies have, on the whole, reacted positively to the auditor general's recommendations.
Will the amendments suggested in Motion M-166 add any value to this accountability process?
Will the departments and agencies improve their performance by settling the problems raised by the auditor general? Or would it be simply introducing an additional, and often useless, stage in a process that is already working well?
We must also consider what impact this proposal may have on the workload of the auditor general. In recent years there have been important changes to the Auditor General Act, significantly impacting on his office.
In 1994, as a result of a private member's bill, this act was amended to allow the auditor general to report to the House more frequently. It was a fairly substantial change. In previous years he was limited to reporting, except in emergency situations, only once a year.
The auditor general is now authorized to publish, in addition to his annual report, up to three other reports each year. In 1995, he tabled three reports in the House. I suppose he will take a similar approach in 1996.
Because of this change, the House now receives information from the auditor general in a much more timely fashion. The public accounts committee is able to examine problems as soon as they are identified and departments and agencies are able to respond more quickly with the necessary corrective action.
In December 1995 the Auditor General Act was again amended. A new position was created within the Office of the Auditor General entitled the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Substantial new responsibilities relating to environmental issues were given, obviously, to this new position.
As a result, the auditor general must now report to Parliament on the degree to which departments are meeting the goals and targets set out in their approved sustainable development strategies. These strategies must be tabled in the House by individual ministers beginning in 1997. This will be a tremendous task.
These amendments will provide real challenges for the auditor general as he seeks to effectively allocate his resources to his many responsibilities.
The motion before us today may well lead to even more demands on the auditor general, not only from a public accounts committee point of view but also from other committees.
I must ask again whether this additional work will be of great value or whether it will simply prevent the auditor general from exercising his other responsibilities. Canadians want the auditor general to use his meagre resources as efficiently as possible, like all the other government agencies.
Some said this motion will increase the transparency of government and improve the accountability of the government to Parliament. Again, this is an objective that we find admirable, on the whole.
I would like to take a few minutes, however, to remind the members of the many other important sources of information and of analysis already at their disposal. We often forget, in debates such as this one, that the auditor general is not the only source of information on government operations.
The sources of information are in addition to those provided by the auditor general. They provide us with the substantial tools by which the government is held accountable for all of its actions. The findings of the auditor general are important but they are only a part of the story. We need much more to truly understand and hold this government and all governments to account.
First, other parliamentary officers and organizations table important reports in this House. These include those from the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners.
Second, many reports are submitted to us by departments, organizations and crown corporations. These report concern their activities, their achievements and their plans. I would mention, among others, the annual reports, the economic outlook and part III of the Estimates.
The government has undertaken many initiatives to improve the quality of its tools.
Third, the reports prepared within the departments by internal program evaluation and audit groups. These reports, which can provide good explanations on matters hon. members are concerned with, are not well known.
A major step in promoting the use of these reports was taken in November 1995 when the President of the Treasury Board tabled in the House the first annual report on strengthening government review.
This report provided detailed listings of the many important reviews undertaken by government departments. These reports are available to parliamentarians.
It is important when assessing the success of government operations that we consider all of the information available to us. We must not spend too much of our time focusing on one source, the auditor general.
There is no doubt the government has demonstrated its seriousness about following up on issues raised by the auditor general. The record speaks for itself. I was pleased to note that in February 1996 the Minister of Finance included as an annex the government response to the auditor general's report. The annex addressed the government's actions on selected important issues raised by the auditor general.
I refer to the minister's address to the comments raised by the auditor general in the 1995 report on the need for better information about the public debt. The minister provided an update on the actions taken and the results achieved to date.
To conclude, let me reiterate how much the government's accountability to Parliament means to me and how important a role the auditor general and his reports play in this process. However, as I said, this debate cannot come to an end before we examine all these issues.
Taxpayers want their government to be effective and affordable. To help achieve this goal we must always look at what works and what does not. We must put our time and energies into those areas where improvements can be made.