For many years now, the public service in the Government of Canada has been rocked by allegations of corruption in relation to a programme of sponsorships and advertising.

In essence, the story is this: After the narrow victory for Canadian unity during the 1995 Referendum on Quebec¿s sovereignty, the federal government decided to fund projects that would raise the profile of Canada in that province. The notion was that a visible presence in advertising and sponsorship would help Quebeckers recognize that the federal government is beneficial to their lives. To manage this process, the Government of Canada created a special office in the Department of Public Works staffed by public servants who were particularly sympathetic to the cause. To ensure close political oversight, the Prime Minister¿s Chief of Staff was personally involved.

Governments do this, in different ways, around the world. In this case, the Government of Canada engaged a number of private firms in Quebec to help identify the best opportunities and awarded large advertising and sponsorship contracts to a number of these companies. But there were irregularities. Many companies were clearly not delivering the services required and there was little evidence that the public monies were being properly spent. Many public servants complained privately, but nothing was done to change the objectives or the process of the advertising and sponsorship programme. It was clear that political interventions were short-circuiting calls for better, more accountable administration of the programme.

Finally, a public servant aired his complaints to the media.  In 2002, the Auditor General of Canada, an agency of the Parliament of Canada, conducted a study of the programme and the final evaluation was devastating. The Auditor General declared that many rules had been broken and that criminal offences may have been committed. The matter was handed over the police. Many observers and many critics of the government argued that the poor management of the programme represented a systematic weakness in the entire public sector.

There was a great deal of political damage at a time when the governing party was undergoing a change of leadership. When Prime Minister Paul Martin assumed office, he called on a judge to preside a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the scandal. The judge in question was Justice John Howard Gomery, a justice of the Quebec Superior Court. For over a year, Justice Gomery had conducted public hearings on the matter and on 1^st November 2005 delivered his first report.

¿Gomery¿ has become a synonym for what went wrong in the government and in his report, the judge has delivered a stinging assessment. He wrote that the management of the sponsorship programme of the government of Canada showed ¿multiple failures to plan a government programme appropriately and to control waste--a story of greed, venality and misconduct both in government and advertising and communications agencies. All of which contribute to the loss and misuse of huge amounts of money at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. They are outraged and have valid reasons for their anger.¿

Justice Gomery has promised a second report of recommendations for February 2006 and has indicated that he will propose changes that could transform the administration of the government of Canada. In the meantime, the government itself has adopted measures to transform accountability in its operations.  At the same time, there is a widespread concern that the reforms proposed by Gomery will work to discourage innovation and flexibility in government operations.

The Institute of Public Administration of Canada organized a conference in Ottawa on 15^th November entitled ¿Responding to Gomery: The Future of the Public Service of Canada¿ in which prominent scholars debated the interpretations of Judge Gomery and articulated their own proposals for reform.

Mr. Wayne Wouters, Secretary of the Treasury Board of the Government of Canada presented the outlines of the public sector¿s response. He argued that the new approach of the government would work to make the public sector more accountable, more responsive and more innovative. 

In terms of accountability, the government has committed to providing more information to Parliamentarians. It will start by tabling the overall strategic plan to help Parliament assess proposals. It will also ask Deputy Ministers (the highest ranking officers of the bureaucracy) to reinforce their management responsibilities, and will compel them to sign off personally on accounting documents. Deputies must be strengthened by having access to more internal auditing functions and access to funds to promote better training for financial management.

Treasury Board has also committed to reviewing its rules. Mr. Wouters indicated that there are too many rules, and that many of them are redundant. At the same time, Treasury Board will improve its processes to ensure that departments have capital plans, and financial systems in place to provide reliable data. The same efforts will be committed to reduce the redundancy of rules that are imposed on organizations that deliver services on behalf of government.

The Treasury Board secretary also made a commitment to reinforce transparency. A charter of public service will be drafted as well as a code of conduct with specific rules of behaviour will be drafted. The government is also committed to maximizing information on grants and contribution.

Finally, the Treasury Board renewed its commitment to creating the conditions necessary for an innovative public service. Money has been pledged for new learning plans for the public service on a variety of issues, including expenditure management systems.

The Treasury Board has therefore ¿responded to Gomery¿ by improving transparency, improving processes, encouraging education, and renewing values and ethics.

Only time will tell whether the Gomery Inquiry will change public administration significantly, but it is clear that the Canadian government is intent on making changes to the way it operates. Notwithstanding his critique of the sponsorship programme, Justice Gomery was careful in writing that ¿Canadians should not forget that the vast majority of our public officials and politicians do their work honestly, diligently and effectively, and emerge from this Inquiry free of blame¿.

As governments around the world grapple with issues of corruption, transparency, accountability and the need to maintain a public service that is innovative and flexible enough to adapt quickly to changing conditions, the Canadian experience can be viewed as an interesting study in modernization.

Notes

The Report of the Gomery Commission on the Sponsorship Programme and Advertising Activities is available at www.gomery.ca.

The proceedings of the IPAC Conference ¿Responding to Gomery¿ are available via video stream at http://training.creativityplus.com/main/ipac/index.asp

The IPAC Statement on the Commitments of Public Servants can be found at:

http://www.ipac.ca/ethics/a_public_servants_commitments/index.html