Defence Audit Problems

Posted on Saturday, August 21 at 12:02 by whelan costen
Altogether, a sampling of 521 randomly selected transactions found that 7.4 per cent had serious problems that violated government guidelines. "The level of non-compliance . . . appears significant and exceeds the targets established by some other federal government departments," says the report, dated January this year but only make public this summer. http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1692862

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:15 pm
    First question why keep it from the public till now? could it be it might have comprimised the election outcome? Very bad news and I don't like an 8 month delay on reports like this...

    ---
    If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

  2. by avatar Milton
    Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:58 pm
    I agree with you Catherine. The governments in Canada don't seem to be able to follow policies and procedures very well. I think the auditor general should be elected rather than appointed and operate independantly of the government. S/he should also have access to all government transactions without exception. In other words, national security should not be an excuse. The recommendations of the auditor general should be binding on the government. There should be no more shifting of the blame to accounting clerks or low level accounting staff. Million dollar invoices are not approved by accounting clerks or low level management in any competent organization. For the military chief financial officer to suggest that this was where the problem arose only shows his incompetence in performing the duties of his post, IMHO.

  3. Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:55 am
    Interesting point Milton, elected by who, the public or the members of the Legislature? Should their names be on the ballot along with other candidates in elections? If so we should first change the law that suggests it's ok to lie during election campaigns, or that promises made to get elected are not binding. Any other job in any area will find the applicant without a job if they are found to be lying to get the job, why not our public officials?

    P.s. does anyone have the link to that story, where the judge made the ruling on campaign promises??

    ---
    If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news