Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert and to continue the debate on this issue.
By now, in this third hour of debate, we all know the essence of the motion which calls for an amendment to the Financial Administration Act. The pursuit of good governance and accountability is crucial for government reform. We all agree.
Where we disagree is on how this will be carried out. In light of this I will take a few minutes to remind the House of certain
elements of our current system, specifically the accountability loop and program review, and to re-emphasize their importance.
The accountability loop is strong and should not be tinkered with. Let me explain why I think voting yea to this motion would result essentially in a duplication of services already provided. As I remind the House how the accountability system works, I am sure members will agree that the level of reporting and follow-up on the auditor general's report is quite extensive.
The auditor general's main purpose is to cast a watchful eye on how money is collected from Canadians and how it is spent. In carrying out this role the auditor general submits reports several times a year tabled in the House. The accountability system begins with these reports.
Even before the reports are tabled in the House departments and agencies are provided with the opportunity within the reports to state publicly their response and intended follow-up actions to the auditor general's recommendations.
Since 1994, in addition to his main report the auditor general has the authorization to publish up to three more reports each year. For example, in 1995 the auditor general tabled three reports in the House of Commons. Most likely he will present as many this year.
The second key element in the accountability loop is question period. This provides the opportunity for members to question ministers about what they intend to do about concerns raised by the auditor general and about the operations of government. Question period often proves to be an important forum for challenging the government on points raised in the auditor general's report.
Third, the auditor general follows up on the actions of the affected departments and agencies every two years. I am positive, as all members of the House must be, that the auditor general and his office are extremely diligent in carrying out their duties. It is obvious from the last two hours of debate on this motion that we all agree the auditor general provides an invaluable service that is highly respected and legitimate.
Although the auditor general is not a civil servant, he does report to this House. This independence from the bureaucracy gives him the freedom to criticize and to form independent assessments of how things are working. Thus, his follow-up recommendations are key to the accountability process.
The government is highly motivated to respond to the concerns raised in each of the reports; we can be sure of that. For the most part, departments and agencies will address, and quickly, the issues raised by the auditor general in his report.
The fourth element of the accountability chain is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The hon. member for St. Albert can attest to the fact that this is an influential and involved body. This committee contains each and every department and agency mentioned in each report tabled by the auditor general. That is rigorously followed up. The committee asks them to report on their progress and on the recommendations mentioned in the report. The public accounts committee has been known to ask for detailed work plans on the status of various activities in addition to project updates provided every six months.
The last key element of the accountability system again falls under the public accounts committee. It also issues frequent reports on government activity to which the government must respond.
I want to emphasize that the public accounts committee is actually contributing actively. It is doing something. It is not just reporting. It is quite a different approach from what is proposed in this motion which focuses more on reporting and controlling and less on doing.
It seems that these five key elements of the accountability system combine together to provide a careful chain with explicit steps in keeping our government accountable and we all want our government to be kept accountable. Not only is there a formal external review process led by the auditor general and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, but there also exists an internal review process which is alive and effective.
Moreover the internal review process for the government is continually being improved. This internal review function consists of internal audits, program evaluations and manager led reviews. This strengthened internal review process has led to the improvements in programs and policies that are based not only on recommendations from program managers but also from clients and other internal review groups.
Members may recall a progress report entitled "Getting Government Right", tabled in the House of Commons on March 7 of this year. It discussed another form of program review. The program review exercise is an ongoing initiative of this government to examine all federal programs and activities. It is seen as the most important review work since the early 1950s. It differs from previous review exercises in that each department and agency conducted a review of all its programs and activities based on a set of guidelines. It was by no means a small effort. These guidelines took the form of a series of questions or tests which were led by experts in each area. There were six tests in all.
The first test, the public interest test, asked: Does the program area or activity continue to serve a public interest? The second test, the role of government test, asked: Is there a legitimate and necessary role for government in this program area or activity? The third test, the federalism test, asked: Is the current role of the federal government appropriate, or is the program a candidate for realignment with the provinces? The fourth test, the partnership
test, asked: What activities or programs should or could be transferred in whole or in part to the private or voluntary sector? The fifth test, the efficiency test, asked: If the program or activity continues, could this efficiency be improved? Finally the sixth test, the affordability test, asked: Is the resultant package of programs and activities affordable within the fiscal constraint? If not, what program or activities should be abandoned?
These are crucial questions. They are being asked internally within departments. Getting the right programs and services delivered the right way for the right cost is the basis of this initiative. So far the program review has resulted in an end to some programs, the transfer of others to a different service delivery method and a greater efficiency in those that remain within the federal responsibility.
This is a continuous process that is being carried out in phases. As a result of the program review in 1996-97, there is expected to be a drop in costs of close to $5 billion compared with the last fiscal year. I think it shows just how much the government cares about taxpayers' dollars.
Madam Speaker, my time is almost gone and you can see I have a full speech here to keep on going. It is important to remember who we are and what our role is. As representatives for Canadians, we must weigh the costs against perceived benefits and consequences on all issues, especially during this time of fiscal restraint.