Accounting on Parliament Hill criticized
June 14, 2012 by admin
Filed under Choosing Lingerie
Two new reports from the federal auditor general reveal some shoddy accounting and “a widespread lack of compliance” on purchasing practices in the House of Commons and Senate – making it difficult for taxpayers to know if their money is being appropriately spent.
Spending and ethics watchdogs, however, said the report didn’t go far enough in examining the more than $500 million spent annually on the House of Commons and Senate, especially individual expenses of federal politicians.
The reports from new auditor general Michael Ferguson found the House of Commons and Senate, for the most part, have appropriate financial-management policies and controls in place, although there’s “room for improvement.”
Indeed, his audit of spending and administration policies by the two houses in the 2010-11 fiscal year found a number of glaring problems on purchasing and accounting of expenditures by members of Parliament and senators.
In the House of Commons, seven per cent of invoices and claims from MPs and Commons staff that were examined by the auditor general “did not contain sufficient documentation or information to demonstrate proper authorization,” according to the report.
The House of Commons administration requires receipts for certain items, such as rent and hotels, but relies on an honour system and the MP’s signature to confirm other items are eligible for reimbursement.
The audit also found that about 70 per cent (41 of 59 samples) of House of Commons procurements of goods and services failed to meet its own policies.
For example, some contracts weren’t signed or were signed retroactively and other files were missing needed documentation on the work required or reason for not choosing a competitive process.
“This result points to a widespread lack of compliance,” Ferguson said in the report.
In one case, a $600,000 contract related to security was awarded to a bidder who didn’t meet all of the mandatory requirements (specifically related to turnaround time for one of the services to be provided), which breached the House of Commons administration’s own rules.
The contract was ultimately cancelled, but only after the auditor inquired about it.
“It certainly was something that was very concerning,” Ferguson, in a news conference, said about the procurement problems.
In his Commons report, the auditor general examined 264 financial transactions – less than one transaction for each of Canada’s 308 MPs – ranging from hospitality, travel, secondary residences and overtime.
But Ferguson’s office looked largely at whether appropriate financial administration policies were in place, and did not audit individual MPs, the work of employees or consultants in their offices, nor the procurement of professional services contracts awarded by individual members.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said the auditor’s reports failed to provide information on the spending habits of MPs and senators that the public has been demanding for several years.
The spending watchdog is calling on parliamentarians to release all of their expense receipts so Canadians get a more complete picture on where their tax dollars are going.
