May 27, 2010

What a difference a week makes.

Last week I was in the riding meeting constituents and attending Rutland Day celebrations where the main thing on people’s minds was the economy.

This week, back in Ottawa, the most important issue is MP expenditures.  My office has been fielding a number of media calls asking the question “Does he? Or doesn’t he?” 

The answer is I have no objection to the Auditor General undertaking a review of Parliamentary expenditures.
Sheila Fraser has distinguished herself as fair and impartial in her role as Canada’s Auditor General and I have no doubt she and her staff would approach such a review with the purpose of improving efficacy and efficiency. 

Wish it were so in the information world which has done a poor job of informing Canadians about the intent of the Auditor General’s request.

By focusing entirely on the expense accounts of MPs, information outlets have done little more than elevate your blood pressure over the image of free-wheeling MPs whooping it up at your expense. 

If and when the Auditor General moves forward with her assessment the outcome at the end of the day will, in true Canadian style, be quite a bit more mundane.
In fact, the Auditor General has made a request to the Board of Internal Economy (BOIE) to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the House of Commons which includes the six service areas which support the work of Parliament: Procedural Services; the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel; Information Services; Parliamentary Precinct Services; Finance Services; and Human Resources and Corporate Planning Services.

A performance audit, formerly known as value-for-money audit, answers these questions:

• Are programs being run with due regard for economy, efficiency, and environmental impact?
• Does the government have the means in place to measure their effectiveness?

So why did the BOIE reject her request?  It has less to do with protecting elected officials than it does a dispute over the Auditor General’s jurisdiction.  It has not been the tradition of Parliament to allow the Auditor General to review the performance of the legislative branch, a responsibility of the BOIE, since she is in effect an officer of the Government dispatched to review departmental spending.  On this interpretation, the Auditor General and the BOIE disagree. 
Nevertheless, sometimes the times we live in call for change.  Given the disheartening display of corporate excess we have witnessed in the last year and the damaging effect it has had on the economy, nothing, in the mind of the public, should be beyond scrutiny. Not even the mundane details of office supplies, phone bills or photocopier repairs.
"
Fair enough.  There is only one taxpayer and we expect those dollars to meet a multitude of needs and produce the best value for money. 

For the time being, while we wait for an agreement between the Auditor General and the BOIE, I can offer this assurance. In this country, MP’s budgets are not equipped for expenses like cleaning moats or lavish trips around the world.  Within the rules of the House of Commons we simply do not have the latitude.  We are prudent Canadians and feel more comfortable with a system of checks and balances.

In the case of MP expenses, we are required to run every expense though the Chief Financial Officer who scrutinizes each expense put forward by MPs to ensure they legitimately fall within the rules of travel, staffing, office expenditures,  advertising and hospitality.

For my part, I keep my costs down and have saved, on average, $50,000 a year or more since taking office in 2006.  No doubt, in the overall performance of Parliament, the Auditor General will be able to find a few ways to save as well.  Ultimately we must keep a clear eye on obtaining value for money and recognizing that there is a cost for doing parliamentary business.

Who knows, maybe someday we will forgo the need to travel every week to Ottawa.  Maybe we will conduct parliamentary business from our ridings through a virtual House of Commons.  No need for the ancient halls of Parliament, no need for Ottawa, heck no need for MPs at all.  I know some of you are smiling at that prospect.