Auditor General (AG) Erik Peters has delivered his annual report. Once again, it is replete with examples of waste and mismanagement. Sadly, his report will have little or no impact. AG reports used to warrant heavy media attention and were feared by governments. They drove opposition question period strategy for a week or more. Today, a report from the AG is, at most, a one-day headache for a government.

Politically astute governments even manage their legislative agendas to ensure that other initiatives compete for the media attention that should be reserved for the AG's report. And public indifference in response to the AG's findings clearly points to an unhealthy body politic.

Unlike an extra-parliamentary interest group, the AG has no specific axe to grind or constituency to represent. Instead, as a servant of the legislature it is Mr. Peters job to research government programs to ensure they are meeting their stated objectives and that taxpayers are receiving value for dollar.

Here are just of the low-lights from Mr. Peter's 340 page report.

Partisan advertising: Taxpayers (even if they support the Harris government) should applaud Peters "diplomatic" words in offering up his opinion on government advertising, no doubt taking indirect aim at the Tories' pre-writ advertising campaign last spring.

"We believe it would be in the interest of improving public accountability for the government and/or the legislature as a whole to consider the establishment of principles, guidelines and criteria that clearly define the nature and characteristics of taxpayer-funding advertising," says the report.

While we remain skeptical of the ability of taxpayer-funded, partisan ads to sway public opinion, it does constitute an unwarranted expense of tax dollars that would be better left in people's pockets or channeled to hospitals or schools.

Cancer care: The AG found that "only 32% of cancer patients requiring radiation therapy received it within the recommended four weeks from referral." So almost 7 out of every 10 cancer patients needing radiation therapy waited too long for their treatment. In addition, the Ontario government's initiative to help third-world countries with their cancer fighting efforts (Cancer Care International) squandered money on furniture and internal staffing/leadership issues. Which begs the question: if we can't treat our own people, why are we stretching resources further with misguided multilateral efforts

Health restructuring: In short, the government's effort to restructure institutional health care delivery is four years behind schedule and could go $1.8 billion (84%) over budget. Also one new hospital ($110 million to construct) reported that half of its operating rooms were idle due to a shortage in operating funds. Instead, patients traveled to other centres (i.e.: cities) to receive care.

Protecting the mentally ill: The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee has serious problems. To start, it withheld over $13 million dollars from over 1,300 people it thought were minors who were at least 25 years old. Then, the AG found that it found a number of cases where it broke rules or acted without authority for its "mentally incapable clients"

Of course this is just a sampling of the problems plaguing Ontario's government. Sadly, not much will be done. So if we're really serious about saving a few million bucks, why don't we just scrap the AG's office The tireless work Mr. Peters and his staff is, at best, tolerated, and more likely, just ignored. It makes you wonder why they even bother