Mr. Speaker, I am standing on debate tonight on what we call, in the vernacular here in Parliament, the late show. For anyone who happens to be watching this and does not understand what the late show is, the late show is about asking a question in the House but not getting an answer.
On April 8, 2003, this being June 9, I asked the Prime Minister the following question:
Mr. Speaker, today, in the Auditor General's 2003 annual report, she indicated that her office was facing a $1 million shortfall.
Two years ago the member for Calgary Centre mentioned in the House: “There are several ways to muzzle the watchdogs of parliament. One way is to deny...adequate funding to the auditor general....”
Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether the Auditor General will be receiving additional resources in order to keep up with the audits on programs such as the failed long gun registry?
The answer I received was that if I thought the Auditor General needed more money she should just simply apply for it. I certainly thought that answer was a glib statement.
The issue here is critical to the ongoing ability of Parliament to function, and especially for the officers of Parliament to function. The most important issue for me in the debate tonight is the issue that in order to do their jobs, the officers of Parliament, the Auditor General being one of those officers, need to be independent. In order to be independent they need adequate budgets, which means they cannot go on bended knee to the Prime Minister, who has the final say, every time they need extra funding to continue their work as watchdogs for the Parliament of Canada. Part of that independence is providing them with the funding they need to do their jobs, plain and simple.
The issue goes further than that. The government has consistently displayed a culture of secrecy and a continued determination to bypass Parliament. It is part of a pattern of the government as it attempts to shut down normal scrutiny. When the information commissioner seeks records, the Prime Minister takes him to court. Excuse me. It seems to me there is something wrong there.
When the Liberals promise an independent ethics commissioner, they break their word and turn the councillor into a clerk for the Prime Minister. The privacy commissioner is regularly ignored and the Auditor General's recommendations are habitually set aside.
Even the Auditor General's office, which is supposed to be independent of Parliament, has been attacked by Liberal members of Parliament because she has caught them breaking just about every rule in the book, and plans and intends to, as is her responsibility, to investigate these breaches of the law.
As far as I am concerned and my party is concerned, the only way to secure the dignity and responsibility of Parliament is to make sure the officers of Parliament are properly funded. That is absolutely what we need to do with the Auditor General.