2nd Reaction - Gomery

Structure, Responsibility and the Lines of Accountability in the Federal Government

So far, I've only read the first ten pages of this part. But there are some significant details that haven't made it in the news.

The first is on page 20 and 21 where the Attorney General of Canada argued that there was no 'Sponsorship Program' until 2001.
This is very important, because it would be on the advice of lawyers within the Attorney General's office to make sure that legislation is interpreted and followed, in particular with respect to setting fiscal guidelines.

All legislation has definitions of the terms in its preamble to clarify what is meant by a particular word or phrase to help in the interpretation. All legislation is supposed to be written clearly and unambiguously.

Once government gets advice from their lawyers for the go ahead to use a loophole in the law, in this case being a lack of definition and clarification of what constitutes a 'program', then it is easy to see how the sponsorship funding could have been allowed to run.

Gomery concluded against the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada's arguement because in section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, it refers to 'program' even though there was no definition of program in the definitions of the preamble of the legislation.

Here's what Gomery has said:


"Despite some contrary points of view, I have concluded that the series of projects and initiatives launched by the Government of Canada in 1996 unquestionably constituted a “program”.

Sponsorship initiatives were a series of projects or activities planned and undertaken to accomplish the objective of enhancing the visibility of the federal presence and promoting its programs and services.

As such, they fit precisely into the dictionary definitions of "program”. The fact that the program was not formally structured and had not been specifically approved by Cabinet, Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office did not make it less of a program. "

So the Ministry of the Attorney General's office has attempted to argue that the inquiry should not be legally binding with respect to the Financial Administration Act, thus attempting to remove the legal fiscal accountability under this Act from the Ministries and Ministers involved.


In my opinion, here starts the problem.

Why would the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada attempt to argue that the Sponsorship Program was not a program binding under the Financial Administration Act? Who are these lawyers working for the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada?

To me, this is just more support to remove the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada out of the umbrella of a political party.