Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, Phase I Report and Phase II Report Canadian Public Administration Volume 49, No 2 (summer 2006) Ian Greene and David Shugarman Presented by:Mete Yorgan March 24, 2009 Mppal 6120

Article Objectives:  Brief Background to the Establishment of the Commission  Report on Key Findings (Phase I)  Key Recommendations (Phase II)  Assessment of the Recommendations

Background to the Commission  Newspaper allegations 1999/2000: “hefty fees” paid to advertising firms connected with the sponsorship programs Connections to Liberal Party Little work for amounts received Funds being donated back to Liberal Party?  Two Reports by Auditor General

Background (con’t)  Commission created (2004) due to “enormous public pressure” by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin  Commissioner’s Role: Mr. Justice John Gomery: wide powers to assess: What happened to the funds?  without suggesting criminal liability  who was responsible for the mismanagement of the program? Advisory committee lead by Donald Savoie (Professor of Public Administration)

Background (con’t)  Final report divided into two Phases, delivered in two stages (October 2005 and February 2006) Phase I “getting to the bottom” of what happenned, who’s responsible? Phase II Recommendations to prevent similar abuses of public trust

Coincidence of Events: 1)Allan Cutler: demoted civil servant “whistle blower” 2)Globe and Mail reporter’s inquiry through the Access to Information Act 3)2 Auditor General Reports, 2002/2003 4)Prime Minister Paul Martin establishing Commission

Phase I Report: Key Findings Purpose of the Sponsorship Program (Liberal gov’t 1994) Counter separatist sentiment in Quebec Promote Unity Main Approach:  Displaying Canadian symbols at public events

Phase I (con’t)  Key Findings: Invoices were submitted and paid – for work that was never performed Portions of money paid out came back to agents charging special commission fees …and back to the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec Audit findings of “non-compliance” were not adhered to (i.e Ernst and Young)

Phase I Three Main Reasons for Mismanagement 1.Program directed from the PMO departmental procedures and safeguards bypassed 2.Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) Deputy Minister’s failure to oversee and manage middle manager’s abuse of spending … within own department 3.Program operations were deliberately kept secret

Phase I: Conclusion  “far too much administrative control was ceded to private sector communication agencies  “program began without attention to rules, guidelines and criteria and without any appropriate oversight”

Phase II: Key Recommendations Eighteen recommendations for restoring accountability in the decision-making processes of government (Nineteenth–call on government to respond within two years) Three Categories:  The role of deputy ministers and the Clerk of the Privy Council  Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee  The public service, crown corporations, and ministerial exempt staff

Phase II: The Role of Deputy Ministers and the Clerk of the Privy Council  Most controversial: represent a major shift from existing practices. Recommendation highlights: Open competition for deputy minister positions Deputy Ministers/senior public servants be accountable to “public accounts committee” (not through the minister) Role of Clerk of the Privy Council abolished…new role “Secretary to Cabinet” representing the public service to the government

Phase II: Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee Recommendation highlights:  “Substantial” increase in funding available to parliamentary committees to conduct research; especially the Public Accounts Committee  Registrar of Lobbyists report directly to Parliament with regards to enforcing the Lobbyists Registration Act

Phase II: The Public Service, Crown Corporations, and Ministerial Staff Recommendation highlights:  “shorter and simpler” statement of values for the public service; to be known as the Public Service Charter  Rules adjusted to ensure fair and competitive procurement procedures  Destruction of public records by public servants as an offence  Crown corporation appointments to be based on merit

Assessment Gomery Report’s “ambivalence” to the significance of the mismanagement of the sponsorship program. -“there is no reason for the public’s confidence in the integrity of our democratic institutions to be shaken” (Phase II Report) -mismanagement of the sponsorship program “subverted and betrayed” the public trust in its government (Phase I Report)

Rhetoric vs. Law  Public service accountability addressed in the past via: Glassco Report (1962) Lambert Commission (1979) Public Service 2000 La Releve 1997 However: Has unethical conduct in the public service been improved? Rhetoric is not enough: “Measures not to be taken through the law and through a reformed system of checks and balances”.

Conclusion: Proceeding with the Recommendations  Has Gomery gone too far? i.e. Phase I may cause friction between ministers and deputies; the recommendations are too radical?  Gomery recommendations are worth proceeding with: Image of politics and public service require overhaul to restore public confidence Avoidance of future scandals