As I continue my series on Canada’s procurement practices and policies, I invite you to read my previous article if you missed it. https://marksdeepthoughts.ca/2024/08/31/procurement-paralysis-the-pregnant-pause-of-government-inaction/
It’s been over a decade since the Auditor General started banging the drum on the gaping holes in our government’s internal controls, and yet here we are—another audit, another set of problems that seem as familiar as a broken record. The more things change, the more they stay the same. One can almost hear Bill Maher chiming in with a classic, “Are you kidding me?” when reviewing the latest findings. The truth is, we have had the tools, the guidance, and the policies. What we’ve lacked is the will to enforce them, the oversight to ensure compliance, and frankly, any semblance of urgency to fix this mess.
This isn’t a new issue. The Auditor General has been waving the red flag for years, but it seems the only consistency in these reports is inconsistency itself. Let’s break down the pattern of failure laid out in some of the latest reports.
The Illusion of Process: Tools That No One Uses
The 2022 Audit on Contract Management clearly states that “Cost Centre Managers and their supporting Branch Management Services (BMS) employees were unaware of the intranet site and toolkit.” That’s right. In an era of unprecedented access to information, where nearly everything we need is one click away, government managers tasked with overseeing millions of dollars of contracts couldn’t be bothered to look at the guidance that was there to help them do their job. But don’t worry, they were likely too busy scrambling to fix the mess caused by their lack of awareness.
The audit also uncovered missing documentation for ten out of twenty-five contracts reviewed. Let that sink in—40% of contracts didn’t have the documentation necessary to justify the payments made. If this were the private sector, heads would roll. But here? Just another day at the office.
Oversight? What Oversight?
According to the Audit of Program Performance Measurement, the Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee (PMEC), which is supposed to provide critical oversight, “allocates very limited time to performance measurement.” It’s like having a fire department that spends most of its time playing cards rather than putting out fires. The result? “Many meetings do not include performance measurement as a formal agenda item.” Meetings, by the way, that are supposed to be all about performance oversight.
Let’s also mention the Performance Measurement Improvement Plan (PMIP)—yet another bureaucratic safety net that might as well be called “The Paper Tiger.” Sure, it’s filled with wonderful initiatives like updating frameworks and creating databases, but the Audit of Program Performance was blunt: “Program Performance Information lacks overall use and utility. It’s like someone handing you an umbrella in a hurricane and saying, “Good luck!”
The Performance Measurement Division recognized the mess, developed an improvement plan, but the execution? Abysmal. They admit that their recommendations “go unaddressed,” and stakeholders don’t even know the resources exist to make improvements. How does this keep happening? Incompetence, lack of communication, and no one holding their feet to the fire.
Lessons Unlearned: The Rinse and Repeat of Government Failures
The Review of Contract Management shines an especially damning light on the internal knowledge gaps that plague government operations. One glaring issue: despite clear policy outlining the need for documenting and applying lessons learned, the audit team found “no guidance related to how Cost Centre Managers could carry out the documenting, sharing, or applying lessons learned. Think about that. They have no idea how to learn from their mistakes, let alone implement change.
In fact, this absence of lessons learned is so widespread that when Cost Centre Managers actually have training, it’s outdated, ineffective, or irrelevant. The report states that a key course for managers titled “Procurement 202: Managing Contracts” hasn’t been offered in years and is under review. Sounds like they’re right on top of it—if by “on top” you mean lost in the bureaucratic fog.
Compliance, Anyone?
Let’s take a moment to talk about compliance—you know, that little thing that ensures your government isn’t wasting taxpayer money. The Audit of Contract Management revealed staggering compliance issues, especially in maintaining key contract documents like payment approvals and status updates. Ten out of twenty-five files reviewed were missing essential documentation to demonstrate that payments met the contract terms.
This isn’t just a paperwork issue; this is about millions of dollars flowing out the door with little to no oversight. The audit team was forced to admit that “poor document storage practices, and BMS staff turnover, were the cause of documentation issues. But turnover and poor storage are not justifications—they are excuses. And excuses are the enemy of progress.
The Root of the Problem: Accountability and Oversight
The government’s own audit teams have repeatedly pointed out that risk-based oversight is weak to non-existent. In one of the most egregious examples, the audit stated: “The current process requires the Cost Centre Manager to proactively highlight concerns… in many cases the Cost Centre Manager and/or BMS staff are not aware of contract risks, or it may not be in their personal interest to bring an issue forward.” In other words, no one wants to rock the boat, so the boat keeps sinking.
When oversight is an afterthought, when accountability is optional, and when ignorance is rewarded with another pay cycle, is it any wonder these problems persist year after year, decade after decade?
Decades of Warnings, Zero Change
These issues aren’t new. They’ve been echoed in Auditor General audits for more than a decade. In 2012, a report highlighted many of the same concerns—weak contract management, poor documentation, and lack of oversight. Fast forward to 2024, and here we are again. A different year, the same mess.
There’s a fundamental failure to act on the warnings from these audits. We keep hearing promises of improvement plans, but as one audit put it, “There is a risk that a lack of performance measurement resources, systems, and processes may limit the Department’s ability to fully respond Translation? We’re flying blind, and no one seems to care.
The Final Verdict
The government has the tools, policies, and frameworks to manage contracts and performance. The problem isn’t a lack of process—it’s that no one follows the process. There’s no incentive to do so, no consequence for failure, and no urgency to fix these longstanding issues.
It’s time for the government to face the music. This isn’t just incompetence—it’s negligence. And until we hold people accountable, until we implement real consequences for failure, we will continue to see audit after audit telling us what we already know: that our government can’t manage its own house.
So, what’s next? Are we going to wait for another decade of the same tired excuses? Or are we finally going to demand that our leaders do their jobs and manage our resources like they actually matter?
Because if they won’t take this seriously, it’s time we start taking them to task.
References:
Missing Documentation: The Contract Management Review highlighted a severe gap in documentation for many contracts: “In total, 10 files had missing documentation to demonstrate that the basis of payment was met. Some files had multiple overlapping issues, including missing timesheets, missing status updates, and missing deliverable documentation.” This oversight led to a failure to retain critical evidence necessary for financial approvals under the Financial Administration Act.
Lack of Oversight: The Program Performance Measurement Audit pointed to glaring weaknesses in oversight: “The Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee (PMEC) allocates very limited time to performance measurement. Many meetings do not include performance measurement as a formal agenda item.” This lack of focus has contributed to inconsistent program measurement across the department.
Poor Risk Management: The Contract Management Review found that “Cost Centre Managers and BMS Staff stated that they do not feel they have sufficient knowledge or training to recognize potential contract risks.” Furthermore, a lack of proactive risk identification mechanisms leaves many issues unresolved, posing ongoing threats to compliance and financial accountability.
Document Storage Issues: A recurring issue in multiple audits was the absence of a centralized, organized document repository. “Poor document storage practices, and BMS staff turnover, were the cause of documentation issues. Currently, contract documents are maintained in an ad hoc and unorganized manner by individual Cost Centre Managers,” further complicating accountability.
marksdeepthoughts.ca 
Leave a comment