Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Compromise Tuesday

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:12pm - 9 Comments

Meanwhile, MPs have agreed to let Auditor General Sheila Fraser have a look at the books.

“The Board of Internal Economy has decided to invite my office to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the House of Commons,” Fraser said, adding the invitation was accepted. “Our objective is to determine whether the house has sound management processes and key administrative systems and practices.”

“Some specific expenses incurred by MPs will be included as part of the examination.” However, Fraser said the audit will not look at “the management of individual members’ offices nor the merits of individuals’ transactions.”

Below, Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch dissents.

Tags: Board of Internal Economy, expenses, MP expenses, Sheila Fraser

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

…and so the least shocking conclusion to an issue comes to an end.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

This post needs a Wells' Rule #1 tag. :)

ex canuck

Sounds like grudging acquiesence to a watered down request from AG's office. Wonder why?
http://intensedebate.com/people/DuffConacher DuffConacher

This compromise is not acceptable because it allows for ongoing secrecy in MP and Senator spending — the spending of individual MPs and Senators must be audited to ensure that they are getting value for money spent, and not hiring family members or friends using the public's money.

Not only does federal Auditor General Sheila Fraser have the power to audit the expenses of MPs whether or not they invite her to do so, a strong argument can be made that she is legally required to do the audit at least every few years.

The Auditor General Act states that the Auditor General "shall make such examinations and inquiries" needed "to report as required by this Act" (section 5). The Act requires the Auditor to audit the "public accounts" (which includes all the money spent by federal government institutions, including the House of Commons and Senate) and issue reports on whether the public's money is being spent in ways that are proper, efficient and waste-preventing.

The Act also states that the Auditor General has the right "to information that relates to the fulfilment of his or her responsibilities" (subsections 13(1) and (4)) so she clearly has the right to look at MP expenses.

The Auditor General does not have the resources to audit the entire government every year and so most of the main institutions are audited every few years.

Given that it has been 20 years since MPs were audited, the Auditor General will essentially be failing to fulfill her legal duties if she waits any longer to audit every dollar of the $500 million spent by MPs and the House of Commons, and the money spent by the Senate, annually.

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator
Democracy Watch http://www.goodgovernment.ca

http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

Couldn't agree more. The most important aspects of parliamentary spending will remain shielded.
LiveBloggin Junkie

"the spending of individual MPs and Senators must be audited to ensure that they are getting value for money spent"

How is value to be determined? Who would determine if an MP is allocating to many resources to helping constiuent case work over correspondence?

http://intensedebate.com/people/DuffConacher DuffConacher

That is not usually what a "value for money" audit assesses, although if she conducted such an audit of MP and Senator spending the Auditor General may reach some general conclusions about spending patterns overall.

What a value for money audit would check is whether MPs and Senators are getting the best price for the quality of products and services they are receiving through competitive bidding and purchasing processes, or whether they are buying products and services through sole-source contracting processes and/or purchasing products and services from family members or friends.

Such an audit would also examine whether MPs and Senators and their staff have bought products or services with public money that are not justifiable, such as electronic equipment that they take home and use personally and never return.

I think one of the things the MPs most fear is that such an audit would examine the policies that cover such spending, and this would highlight just how many on-the-job perks MPs receive, many of which few private sector employees receive.

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher

LiveBloggin Junkie

It does, thanks!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

It is pretty clear that in the short term, the politicians have won. I think this audit will be very valuable; it is clear that their internal measures are lacking from the Sgrogate matter. However, without a review of individual members, the AG is going to have a hard time filling the seats for the press conference where the results are announced.

That said, I think Fraser may think in longer timelines than the politicians. She now has carte blanche to produce a report that would compel parliament to have the spending of all of its members examined … providing plenty of work for the AG's office down the road. (It kinda reminds me of what happens when I ask my mechanic about a funny noise my car is making.)