PACP Committee News Release
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
|
Standing Committee on Public Accounts |
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES OTTAWA, CANADA K1A 0A6 |
Comité permanent des comptes publics |
For immediate release
NEWS RELEASE
Report on the Sponsorship Program (Ninth Report)
Ottawa, April 07, 2005 -
OTTAWA: Today, Mr. John Williams, MP, and Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts, tabled the Committee’s Report on the Sponsorship Program (Ninth Report).
The Committee makes 29 recommendations aimed at strengthening oversight, reinforcing accountability, and improving financial management of all programs involving contracts, grants and contributions. It also recommends that the Auditor General be given the authority to audit recipients of government grants, contributions, and contracts, a power already enjoyed by some provincial auditors general.
The Committee heard from 44 witnesses during 47 meetings on the Sponsorship Program, yet not one of these witnesses, neither ex-ministers nor public servants acknowledged that they were responsible for managing the Program and accountable for what went wrong with it. The Committee intends to deal with this issue in a subsequent report on ministerial and deputy-ministerial responsibility and accountability.
These recommendations arise from the Committee’s investigation, which found that the Sponsorship Program went wrong in every conceivable way. Government contracting rules were broken. Contracts were awarded without competition. Payments were made for little or no work. Money was spent without Parliament’s approval or knowledge. Those in positions of responsibility failed to prevent the wrongdoing that was taking place.
In its Report, the Committee traces the evolution of the Sponsorship Program, identifying the missteps and abuses that occurred along the way. Despite early signs of trouble, a lax administrative environment that allowed abuses under the Program was not fixed until it was too late. Rules that were in place were not enforced and the Program did not receive the scrutiny from senior management that it should have.
- 30 -
|