Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the opposition motion. If I may, I will begin with a brief review of the proposals making up this motion.
It calls for all audits carried out within the government to be tabled within 15 days of their completion. All audits carried out within the government are made available to the public when they are completed. Even when they are only at the draft stage, they can be obtained via access to information.
The motion calls for all audits to be referred to a standing committee. Any standing committee—indeed any committee of the House, as hon. members know—is able to examine whatever audit report it wishes, once it is completed.
The motion calls for all audit reports requested under the Access to Information Act to be tabled within 15 days. All access to information requests are processed. There have, certainly, been some delays recently due to the very heavy volume, but all requests are being processed and responses will be forthcoming as soon as possible.
For example, last year the Department of Human Resources Development had an excellent record for responses provided within the deadline to access to information requests. This year, however, the department is having to respond to four times as many requests.
I would like to point out that the information commissioner, John Reid, pointed out recently before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and I quote:
Not many people have the skills sought for this sort of work you could find on the street. It is therefore exceedingly difficult to find outside contractors to help you deal with this huge workload.
The law requires, for example, that we respect the personal nature of certain information. We must therefore see whether the documents sought contain personal information and check a number of other points before we can make them available to those requesting them.
I cannot believe that the members of the opposition are asking us to break the law. We will certainly comply with it and therefore protect personal information.
My remarks may be summarized briefly: the motion by the official opposition serves no purpose. What it seeks is already available. I believe that, by presenting the motion we are debating today, the official opposition is showing that it has not grasped one of the vital changes that have taken place in recent years in the way government is managed, in fact all major organizations are managed.
As the hon. members no doubt recall, in June 1997, the Prime Minister designated the Treasury Board as the management board of Cabinet. This was recognition that, in an institution of such magnitude as the Government of Canada, an inflexible style of management cannot be effective. The old style of management based on orders and control simply does not suit today's realities.
There are a number of reasons for this change in the concept of management, both in government and outside public administration. In the private sector, business and other bodies, for example, long ago dropped the style of management based on orders and control, which reeked of authoritarianism.
Increasingly, decisions are made locally. Local managers have increasing responsibilities. This is the key to greater efficiency and the delivery of better services in less time to all clienteles, including the Canadians they serve.
Governments must also adopt more modern management practices, because our field of operations has changed over the years. Not only have we introduced new and creative policy and program directions to better, more efficiently and more effectively meet the needs of Canadians, we are also delivering our services in different ways; in partnership with other levels of government, for example, and in partnership with the private sector and other organizations. These changes have greatly increased the complexity of administration and accountability for program delivery.
In spite of this new complexity in program delivery, the government is committed to both modern management practices and good service to Canadians. That means that departments and agencies must focus on achieving results in a way that ensures clear accountability, proper stewardship of public funds and transparent reporting on what has been achieved. That requires effective control, but through instruments that encourage initiative and creativity.
On the one hand, we must be flexible enough on the delegation of decision making authority and on administrative rules to support initiative and common sense. On the other hand, we must be sufficiently rigorous on standards and control systems to ensure clear accountability.
Modern comptrollership means integrating financial and non-financial performance information, implementing sound risk management, ensuring appropriate control systems and updating related management policies.
This government is committed to ensuring that public funds are managed in an ethical, fair and responsible manner. This means operating transparently. It also means focusing on the needs of Canadians as citizens, clients and taxpayers. It means taking action when problems arise.
I want to make it clear, in regard to the motion today, that the Treasury Board Secretariat is addressing the task of strengthening internal audits.
As I am sure everyone will agree, the existence of a strong internal audit function is vitally important to sound management and modern comptrollership. As part of its ongoing efforts to modernize management and comptrollership practices across government, the Treasury Board Secretariat began a study of the internal audit function last summer.
This study was completed in January. It recommended that changes to the internal audit policy are required to reflect its role in modern management.
In addition, the study recommended that each department establish an internal audit committee, if it has not already done so, to ensure that audit plans address relevant management issues and that there is appropriate follow up action taken to address and approve recommendations.
These recommendations are substantial and the Treasury Board Secretariat is now preparing, in partnership with the internal audit community across government, a plan to improve our professional capacity in this area to ensure we have the right people in place with the right skills.
We are also studying ways to improve our ability to actively monitor the effectiveness of control systems across government.
Last week I tabled a document which describes the various efforts that are taking place to modernize government management practices, entitled “Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada”. This document sets out in a very clear way the management commitments that the Government of Canada is making to Canadians. It also provides a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of departments and agencies and of the treasury board and its secretariat in helping the government to meet these commitments.
Work on the document began last fall and the final product is the result of a great deal of collaboration across government.
Some have suggested that we in government should not delegate authority at all. Some believe that we should return to strict command and control regimes. I do not believe that the command and control approach would serve the public interest.
The motion before us today would take us backward, not forward. Canadians do not need more red tape. That is clear. Nor do they need simplistic suggestions which ignore the complexity of government in the 21st century.
Canadians want the government to continue to modernize its thinking and methods, while keeping sight of the fundamental reality that tax dollars need to be managed responsibly and wisely.
One of the central themes in “Results for Canadians” is that we must continue to implement modern management practices. This involves delegating decision making authority to the right level to achieve the results, but in a way that ensures clear accountability, due diligence and proper control of public funds.
This framework emphasizes the need for clear standards, sound risk management and early attention to control deficiencies. It also makes clear what is needed in terms of active monitoring to ensure effective control.
As this framework is implemented across government it will greatly strengthen resource management, reduce the likelihood of serious control failures in the future and provide Canadians with a more modern, more efficient and more effective public service. That is what I believe Canadians want, expect and deserve, and that is what the government will deliver to Canadians.
