Government Operations Committee on May 30th, 2006

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is really the issue that was raised in our 2002 report when we indicated that Parliament had initially been informed that the net cost of the program would be $2 million and at that point the government estimated by 2005 the actual cost would be closer to $1 billion. There were a number of factors raised then, and I'm sure Mr. Baker and others can probably elaborate even more. Obviously there was the cost of the computer system. There was an expectation that provinces would participate in the program. Many provinces dropped out, so the federal government had to assume those costs. There were a lot of outreach activities, given the very serious opposition to the program, so a lot of money was spent on advertising and encouraging people to register. There were waivers of fees. I'm sure there are others, but those are the more serious ones that come to mind.

I think we all have to recognize, as we said at the time, that our major concern was that Parliament hadn't been adequately informed, and in that audit we actually saw indications that government knew the costs were going to be higher than the $2 million net at the time the program was put in place. That was our major concern at the time, but I think obviously we can all recognize that given the serious opposition to the program per se, it was very controversial, and there was a reluctance, I think, to share that kind of information.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

Before I get to my third question on basically the wilful attempt to deceive Parliament, which is really the crux of the value and the importance of this committee--that question will go to Mr. St-Jean--I would like to ask a question of Mr. Baker. It's basically about the effectiveness of our system.

With all due respect, sir, I heard you say that you are pleased with the results. My God, how can you be pleased with the results of a program that has basically been the next thing to being out of control? The Auditor General has stated that the volunteer verifying work is weak, CFIS II is still not declared an operational system, and there is a complete hole in the validity of all the data. On many occasions misinformation or lack of information is totally worse even than no information.

Sir, I was a police officer many years ago and I can recall when we went to CPIC or NCIC or whatever to validate information. To have unreliable data is dangerous, absolutely dangerous. How can any police officer in this country walk up to a domestic residence for a domestic dispute and/or a business and/or any area where they would have to verify and confirm presence of firearms and/or judge the capacity of people who are using firearms not knowing that the information is consistent, accurate, and true? If they base their assumptions on that kind of information, they're in trouble. They have to blindly assume that on each occurrence, whether it's stopping someone on the side of the road for a traffic ticket and just jumping across to verify it, there's a weapon in the car, because quite obviously the system just is not reliable.

I could just give you one of, I suppose, millions of examples. Sir, I was a gun owner. I'm not an avid person who's going to run around...but I registered my guns. I registered them online as normal Canadians would do. I'm not registered. I have a copy, a printout that says my guns are registered, but I checked in to see where my guns are. I'm not registered, sir. I'm just one of millions of people. The information is not reliable.

So how can you in all good faith say you're pleased with the results of the gun registry? Can you give me a response?

[William Baker]

With pleasure. You raised several things here. First of all, in terms of your own particular situation, I'm sure the officials in the centre would be pleased to ascertain or make a determination as to whether something needs to be corrected.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I'm not worried about my personal situation. This is just an example of one of the many hundreds or thousands of letters or pieces of misinformation that are in there.

[William Baker]

The second point you raised relates to the degree to which police can rely on the information in the registry. As I pointed out earlier and has been identified in the Auditor General's report, we acknowledge that the data in the registry is not perfect. I can say, though, that the police have now had four or five years of experience working with the registry information. I think they see it for what it is and they take the necessary precautions. I've met with many police chiefs and many police officers, for that matter, and they've all been crystal clear that they can't rely totally on the registry. They have to assume, as you point out with your experience, sir, that there could be a firearm in any residence, in any vehicle, and take the necessary precautions. I think they use the data for what it's worth, blemishes and all.

It's a question of public policy and a question best left for parliamentarians to determine whether that is worth the investment or not. When I said earlier that I was pleased with the work of the Canada Firearms Centre, I was commenting strictly on my mandate and the mandate of my management team, which was to put in place the management controls and procedures necessary to respond to the concerns that were identified by the Auditor General in 2002. On that front, I stand by my comment that I am pleased with the progress we've achieved, and I believe parliamentarians can have confidence today in the information they are receiving about the firearms program.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

You've done your seven minutes.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Can I get to my main question of concern?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Get him the next time around.

Mr. Bonin is next. We're down to five minutes now, for question and answer.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I suppose my question would go to Mr. Baker and probably Mr. St-Jean.

The Auditor General brought to our attention two conscious errors. I think those are the words that were used--conscious errors. One of them is, at least. What's a conscious error? If I go through a red light it's a conscious error, but it's illegal.

My first question is to Mr. Baker. In the agenda you are reported as the former commissioner. What do you do now?

[William Baker]

I'm still employed. I have recently been appointed the deputy commissioner and chief operating officer of the Canada Revenue Agency, which is the organization for which I worked up until three years ago, when I was asked to go to firearms.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

That brings me to my next comment. Previous commissioners are now deputy ministers. Is that how we thank conscious errors in this society and in this government--the people responsible for conscious errors get promoted? Who do I ask this question to, the controller? Are there no consequences to this kind of stuff?

[Charles-Antoine St-Jean]

Thank you for your question, sir.

When we ask whether this is an error or a decision, I think the Auditor General has been very clear on that point. I do support her views that 2002-03 seemed to be just honest errors in terms of accounting, in which period it should be recorded.

As the commissioner has also pointed out, all the costs have been reported as of the end of 2005, so it's just a question of the timing. It's a very important question, and I do not minimize that at all, but was there a decision to record the $21.8 million? Not in 2003-04. Later, yes indeed, a decision was made to do so.

At the time, the official who looked at the issues had multiple advice, so it's not just only one; we're providing multiple advice for different perspectives. Some were taking the perspective that this transaction should be recorded as per the generally accepted accounting principles when you do accounting on an accrual basis. Some--

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

But the buck has to stop somewhere.

[Charles-Antoine St-Jean]

Sir, if I--

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

If 25 of my supervisors tell me to do something illegal and I agree to do it, I do it; I'm responsible. It's one person who ends up doing what the advisers have said is wrong and to do it. The intent to mislead Parliament is serious, and we can't blame 10 advisers; we can't blame lawyers. If lawyers advise us to do something illegal or wrong, we shouldn't hire those lawyers.

I find there are no consequences to people who mislead Parliament. There are no consequences; they get promotions.

I would expect that when the comptroller, if it is to be a comptroller, finds these wrongdoings, the comptroller would advise Parliament to do something. There should be consequences. Have we got a new program in place to have consequences, or should we, as parliamentarians, start assessing what the consequences of these acts should be? I'm not very pleased to find out years later that I have been misled.

[William Baker]

The year in question is year two. The one year, I think everyone acknowledges, was an error in accounting in a large department, which is understandable--

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I accept that.

[William Baker]

The one in 2003-04 occurred under my watch when I was commissioner. There was certainly absolutely no intention to mislead Parliament at all.

As indicated in the Auditor General's report, there is a chronology of events around that so-called error in 2003-04. The Canada Firearms Centre had just been set up as a separate agency. We were building our financial, accounting, and systems capability. We were doing a review of all of the financial records, and actually our accounting experts identified that amounts should perhaps be booked in 2003-04. Naturally that was a big finding, because our allocation for the year did not contemplate that we would have to include something like that. We brought the matter to the attention of the central agencies as well as the Department of Public Safety and others that were involved, because at that point in the fiscal year it was important to get a resolution on this so we would know the way forward vis-à-vis Parliament--whether, for instance, supplementary estimates would be required or not.

A lot of discussions took place, including discussion of where they should have started, which was a look at the actual issue--the nature of the contract--to try to ascertain the amount of debts and liabilities. This, frankly, took us into very technical discussions involving lawyers and involving even more senior accountants about what is and is not a liability, what is and is not a debt.

Ultimately a decision was made, based on all that input, that this amount was best recorded as a contingent liability or an unrecorded liability, and not as a charge to the vote of the Canada Firearms Centre. As commissioner of firearms I can tell you, without any hesitation or any doubt, that based on the steps we had gone through, we were comfortable that we were doing the right thing. Two years later the Auditor General has had a chance to look at it, has raised concerns about it, and has characterized it as an error. The Comptroller General's office has acknowledged, and agrees now, that on balance it would have perhaps been better to do it the other way, but rest assured that two years ago, when those decisions were made, there was absolutely no intent to mislead Parliament. Had the conclusion been the other way, steps would have been taken to address the financial shortfall.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Madame St-Hilaire.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Ms. Fraser. Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for being here this morning.

I'll be brief. Mr. Baker, you said that, in your view, the program was still effective, even though errors, conscious or unconscious or whatever, were made. Ms. Fraser, throughout your two audits, did you ever doubt the program's effectiveness or relevance, since errors were made?

[Sheila Fraser]

Madam Chair, our role is to audit the management and administration of government programs. We don't do evaluations. We determine whether the departments or agencies have adopted measures to evaluate program effectiveness and efficiency. In this case, we indicated that there were not enough performance indicators to do that. But it's not our role to do that job. That's a policy matter, which is not our responsibility.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Are you thinking of auditing the program again?

[Sheila Fraser]

Perhaps, we'll see. That will depend on what the future holds for the program, where it will stand and whether we do a follow-up in a few years. Right now, we don't think it's necessary to do another one very soon.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you.

I have heard — and most of my colleagues have no doubt heard this as well — hunters say that this program resulted in a lot of red tape. Did you verify that with hunters during your audit?