PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, March 17, 2003

¹

1535

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance))

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General )

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of Treasury Board)

¹

1540

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Sheila Fraser

¹

1550

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Richard Neville (Deputy Comptroller General, Comptrollership Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

¹

1555

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

º

1600

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

M. Richard Neville

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

º

1605

The Chair

º

1610

Mr. Richard Neville

º

1615

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Richard Neville

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

º

1620

Ms. Beth Phinney

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

º

1625

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Richard Neville

The Chair

Mr. Richard Neville

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

º

1630

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Richard Neville

º

1635

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Richard Neville

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Philip Mayfield

º

1640

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Richard Neville

º

1645

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

º

1650

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

º

1655

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

»

1700

The Chair

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Jim Judd (Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

The Chair

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jim Judd

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

»

1705

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Sheila Fraser

»

1710

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

»

1715

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

»

1720

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

»

1725

The Chair

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Richard Neville

The Chair

Mr. Richard Neville

The Chair

Mr. Richard Neville

The Chair

Mr. Richard Neville

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

»

1730

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 019

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, March 17, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The orders today are, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), consideration of chapter 10, “Department of Justice--Costs of Implementing the Canadian Firearms Program”, of the December 2002 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

    Appearing as witnesses today, we have the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, the President of the Treasury Board. From the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, we have Mr. Jim Judd, the Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General of Canada; and Mr. Richard Neville, Deputy Comptroller General, Comptrollership Branch.

    From the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, we have Ms. Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada; Mr. Gordon Stock, a director; and Mr. Alan Gilmore, a principal.

    Before we turn to the Auditor General for her opening statement, I just want to make reference to the fact that I instructed the clerk to distribute last week a letter we had received from the Auditor General of Canada. It's a follow-up to the questions we had asked the Minister of Justice two weeks ago. That letter has been distributed to all members of the committee and is deemed to have been tabled before the committee.

    Ms. Phinney, did you have a question? No?

    Without further ado, we'll turn to the—

    Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Is it a letter dated February—

    The Chair: It's a letter dated February 26, 2003, addressed to me as the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. That is deemed to be tabled.

    Now we'll turn to the Auditor General for her opening statement. Ms. Fraser, please.

[Translation]

    Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you for the opportunity to meet with the committee and further discuss our December 2002 chapter on the costs of implementing the Canadian Firearms Program. As you said, I am accompanied by Alan Gilmore, Principal, and Gordon Stock, Director, who were responsible for this audit.

    As I indicated previously, my report did not comment the merits of the government's firearms control policy. Such a review is not within the mandate of my office. In addition, I did not audit the operations of the program because it was undergoing major changes.

    The objective of my audit was to examine the costs of the program and the information provided to Parliament on the program. We found that the information Parliament received was not clear and not complete; information on the rising costs was given to ministers and to central agencies but not to Parliament.

[English]

    We concluded that the department should have provided this information to Parliament in its report on plans and priorities and departmental performance. This was particularly the case with the firearms program because it was being managed as a high-cost, high-risk, major crown project where more stringent Treasury Board policies on reporting apply.

    At your committee's February 24 hearing on this audit, the Deputy Minister of Justice questioned whether the Canadian firearms program was subject to the reporting requirements for a major crown project. We have reviewed this issue with the Treasury Board Secretariat. The secretariat has agreed with us that the program was to be managed as a major crown project and that reporting should have been better.

    Mr. Chair, the bottom line is that Parliament should have been fully informed, and I hope there is no disagreement that Parliament should have received comprehensive and timely information on the Canadian firearms program. The information was available within the government, and it should have been reported to Parliament. Such reporting would have helped Parliament keep the government accountable.

    We have recommended that the Department of Justice provide Parliament annually with complete and accurate information on the program. I am pleased that the Minister of Justice at the last hearing on this issue indicated once again that the department has accepted our recommendation without conditions, and that full reporting on the program will be provided to Parliament.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. That concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to respond to any questions.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Fraser.

    Now we'll turn to the Honourable Lucienne Robillard.

[Translation]

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of Treasury Board): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this first invitation to your committee, since I became President of Treasury Board, to discuss the Auditor General's chapter on the justice department's firearms program.

    Mr. Jim Judd, the Secretary to Treasury Board and Comptroller General of Canada, and Mr. Richard Neville, the Deputy Comptroller General, are with me today.

    The issues related to the firearms registry are complex, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss them with this committee today.

    The firearms program is an important initiative for Canadians. Its benefits will last for generations. At the same time, it has spent, and will continue to spend, substantial public resources. It must be designed and managed well. And all accountability linkages—from public servants, to ministers, to Parliament, to Canadians—must operate effectively.

    Mr. Chairman, I believe we have two main issues before us today. Firstly, was this project as well managed as it should have been? Do we know what went wrong and are we correcting it?

    Secondly, did Parliament receive accurate financial information and explanations on program costs and revenues over the course of the program? Was the quality of reporting to Parliament on this program in departmental reports satisfactory?

[English]

    There's a third issue that has come up relating to whether the firearms program was or was not designated by the Treasury Board as a major crown project. The Auditor General takes the position that it was so designated. The government has a contrary view, and I am unable to identify any Treasury Board decision designating the initiative as a major crown project. There is, however, general agreement that the project was to be managed in the manner of a major crown project, which is to say managed in a rigorous manner.

    The Auditor General further argues that neither the Department of Justice nor the Treasury Board Secretariat challenged her assertion prior to the tabling of her chapter that the firearms program was designated as a major crown project. In this she is correct. It was an oversight on the part of my department, which I regret. We will endeavour to be more diligent in the clearance process as we review draft chapters in the future.

    The secretariat clarified the situation with the Auditor General, and they both agree that whether the firearms program was designated as a major crown project was largely beside the point. The question of reporting to Parliament was more at stake.

[Translation]

    I would like to begin by providing the committee with background on Treasury Board's role and responsibilities with regard to programs such as the firearms initiative.

    As the government's management board, Treasury Board sets policies and guides departments on their financial, human resource and other related responsibilities. Treasury Board examines the proposed spending plans of departments and approves the terms and conditions of most of the government's non-statutory grants and contributions.

    Mr. Chairman, by law, convention and necessity, the government operates in an environment of devolved management responsibility and accountability. Ministers and senior officials are responsible to ensure that adequate management practices are in place to achieve results and properly control resources. They must provide Parliament with accurate financial information and they must answer the questions of parliamentarians on any relevant aspect of their mandate.

    At the same time, the government's management board has a responsibility to maintain an ongoing awareness of the risks associated with major investments and programs, and must work with departments to identify real or potential weaknesses in management practices and help them to take corrective action.

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    This brings me to my two main issues: first, was this program managed as well as it should have been; and are the identified weaknesses being addressed? On this issue, Mr. Chairman, the justice department, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and the government as a whole accept the views of the Auditor General and those expressed by many members of this committee.

    While I am satisfied that the program was managed appropriately, given the many challenges it faced, we did not report key information as well as should have been done. The identified weaknesses are being addressed. Significant improvements must be made in the management of this important initiative.

    As members of the committee now know, the government intends to strengthen accountability and transparency to Parliament by reporting full program costs across government, tabling an annual report to Parliament that provides financial and performance information on the program, hiring a comptroller, and creating an annual audit and evaluation plan for all major program components.

    This plan would operate on a three-year cycle, with the first report on results in 2005. These measures attest to the government's intention to rectify the management problems identified by the Auditor General and to do so without delay.

    Let's turn to the second issue.

[Translation]

    Did Parliament receive accurate financial information and explanations on program costs and revenues? Should Parliament have received more transparent reporting on program costs and management issues?

    Let me say that there was never any intent to keep Parliament in the dark. All funding for the program was approved by Parliament in the normal annual process, through either the main or supplementary estimates.

    Amounts included in supplementary estimates were always clearly identified as being for the firearms program. In their reviews of the supplementary estimates, the Senate Committee on National Finance questioned Treasury Board officials many times starting in 1997 and the following years on these amounts and on the costs of the overall program. Accurate answers were provided in all cases. Finally, the Public Accounts of Canada disclosed the overall costs of the initiative.

[English]

    That being said, and in light of the experience, I believe that both the justice department and the Treasury Board Secretariat agree that the department could have provided a clearer picture of the cost-of-management issues and departmental reports to Parliament over the years.

    Treasury Board guidance to departments on their reports to Parliament can be strengthened and clarified, and it will be. Officials of the two departments can pay closer attention to balanced reporting, and they will. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that parliamentarians will see improvements in the next departmental report on plans and priorities, which will be tabled in Parliament later this month.

    More generally, the recent budget reiterated the government's commitment to work with parliamentarians and with the Auditor General to improve the quality of reporting to Parliament. I'm anxious to work with this committee and with the government operations and estimates committee and with others to make this happen.

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, Treasury Board and its Secretariat are committed to improving how the government serves Canadians.

    The Auditor General's report is a valuable contribution with firm, fair and constructive suggestions. Minister Cauchon's action plan addressed the Auditor General's recommendations and will put the firearms program on a much more solid footing.

    My officials and I want to work with parliamentarians over the coming months to understand their information needs. I believe we have an opportunity to improve the clarity, accessibility and balance of parliamentary reports and, through that, improve accountability to Parliament for the management of the resources.

    Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I are available to answer any questions you may have.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Robillard.

[English]

    Mr. Breitkreuz, eight minutes.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Madam Minister, and also the Auditor General for her presentation.

    I want to pick up on one statement the minister made near the end of her report, and that is that “the Public Accounts of Canada disclosed the overall costs of the initiative.” I beg to differ with that, because we don't even know at this point how much money was spent on this. The minister has never answered that.

    You also said, Madam Minister, “there was never any intent to keep Parliament in the dark.”

    Mr. Chairman, I applied many times through access to information to get the information on that program, and not only did the minister and the department prevent that information from coming to me, it was denied to Parliament as well. To argue that this was not deliberate I think is really misleading. The access to information process should have provided that kind of information, but the loophole of cabinet confidence was always used to deny me that amount. So this report is misleading.

    I want to get to the main point of my question. “The Treasury Board is to ensure that Parliament and Canadians have the information to hold the government accountable.” That's obviously not the case. “The Treasury Board Secretariat is to ensure that the government's overall policy directions are consistent with and supported by appropriate program design and costing.” I'm going to quote from another one of the guidelines. Furthermore, “The Treasury Board, assisted by the secretariat, is to account for all expenditures. It is to advise cabinet on the extent to which departments are using their resources efficiently and effectively.” Mr. Chairman, none of that was happening.

    The question I have is if the firearms program wasn't formally designated as a major crown project but was treated as one by the department, why didn't Parliament get detailed performance reports, as it does on other programs that are formally designated as major crown projects? I've heard the minister say--

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: Let's let the minister respond.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: If the minister isn't aware of her own guidelines, I can read them to her. It's all here as to how major crown projects should be treated.

    The Chair: Madame Robillard.

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, the member asked many questions.

    Allow me to say from the outset that I completely refute the allegation which was made, namely that information was deliberately withheld from Parliament. I feel that does not represent the intentions of those who manage this program. As I said, Mr. Chairman, financial information was provided on a regular basis within the normal process.

    That being said, I have also admitted that the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board Secretariat recognize that the reports on plans and priorities and the performance reports should have provided much more complete information to members of Parliament.

    I think that in her report, the Auditor General said that the central agencies of government were informed and that therefore government had also been informed. That's correct: we were informed as the process evolved.

    The question we must ask ourselves is as follows: Did members of Parliament receive the information as management problems arose with regard to this program, and with regard to the related escalation in costs? We have said that better information should have been provided to Parliament.

    The issue of major crown projects has been raised. Was this a major crown project or not? I think the Auditor General and I have already clarified the matter. The issue is whether information was provided to Parliament. Let me assure you that the program had a very strict management framework and that additional information should have been provided to Parliament. So, in that regard, we agree with committee members.

[English]

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would like to get the Auditor General to comment, because there's an obvious disconnect here between what the minister is saying and what the Auditor General is saying. There's a disagreement here, and I would like the Auditor General to comment on this.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: The point of the report was that Parliament was not given full and complete information. As we've said all along, the amounts were all voted on. There was nothing we could see that was illegal in the funding of the project, but there wasn't the kind of summary information one would have expected of a project of this nature, with the high risk and the amounts of money involved.

    I think that is the major issue we should be discussing today, and the President of the Treasury Board has indicated her agreement on that issue.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's something we need to get, and maybe the Auditor General can comment. Doesn't the Treasury Board Secretariat have the responsibility to ensure that Parliament is given accurate, timely, and complete financial and performance information concerning a program of this nature? To me it seems obvious that never happened.

    We have to insist that the minister come clean in this whole matter. Parliament was deliberately kept in the dark. No matter which way you spin this, Madam Minister, there is no excuse for this. Treasury Board guidelines were broken, and we have to know why.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Madam Robillard, please.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I think you had the opportunity to hear from my colleague Minister Cauchon several weeks ago and to ask him questions about his plan, about reports and priorities, and on the role of Treasury Board, as well as performance reports particularly.

    I think that over the years Treasury Board has always updated its guidelines in order to provide Parliament with better information. We even had a few round tables with members of Parliament to find out how we could improve the information.

    That being said, I think that my colleague and the Minister of Justice have recognized that they could have done better. I think that is the issue. We must ask ourselves whether the two reports that have been tabled and are included in part III of the main estimates, that is, the report on plans and priorities and the performance report...

[English]

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Minister, that's not what I'm asking.

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: As problems arose, we should have provided clearer information in the reports tabled before Parliament.

[English]

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: May I just make a comment before my time is up?

    I'm asking why the guidelines were broken. The guidelines are very clear. The department is supposed to describe the programming; it's supposed to say what the leading and participating departments and agencies are. We've never received any information on that. What are the total expenditures to date and the planned expenditures in the future? None of that has come forward.

    The guidelines you have, Madam Minister, were violated, and they are still not being complied with.

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, my colleague and the Minister of Justice have recognized that they could have presented better reports to Parliament. As you say, Treasury Board's policies and guidelines are very clear in this regard.

    In addition, I can assure you that Treasury Board officials, who appear regularly before the Senate Committee on National Finance, have, since 1977, regularly reported on the costs associated with this program.

    That being said, I think that we are all ready to admit that departments have to provide better reports on plans and priorities and performance reports. I don't know if Mr. Judd or Mr. Neville...

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Neville is next, with a very brief response, please.

    Mr. Richard Neville (Deputy Comptroller General, Comptrollership Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): I would also like to point out that the report on plans and priorities for 2003-04 will be tabled shortly. You might want to look at that particular report for the Department of Justice very carefully.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Breitkreuz.

[Translation]

    Mr. Desrochers, you have eight minutes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I would like to welcome Ms. Robillard and her colleagues to the Public Accounts Committee, as well as Ms. Fraser and her colleagues.

    My initial questions are for the President of Treasury Board. Since becoming President of Treasury Board, how many ministers have you worked with who were responsible for the Canadian Firearms Program?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I took up this position in August 1999 and at that time I believe Ms. McLellan was in charge of the program, but I would have to confirm that. Today, my colleague Minister Cauchon is in charge of the program.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: It is Mr. Cauchon.

    As the President of Treasury Board, when were you made aware of cost overruns associated with the Canadian Firearms Program? Did you say that you took on the job in 1999?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, it was in the summer of 1999. Believe me, the program was discussed at length at Treasury Board meetings beginning in 1999. I was briefed very early on.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: When the ministers involved, Ms. McLellan and Mr. Cauchon, requested additional funding from you to support the program, did you ask them why they needed so much money to fund the Canadian Firearms Program?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Of course, yes! That goes without saying.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: What were the reasons given?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: When a department asks for additional funding, it must be based on a decision taken either by way of legislation passed by Parliament or by way of a program authorized by government, by Cabinet. Every time they appeared before Treasury Board or sent an application to Treasury Board, you can bet that my officials asked them why they wanted the additional money.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: What reasons were given to justify the supplementary funding? What specifically were the reasons given by the two justice ministers when they requested additional money for the Canadian Firearms Program?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think that reasons can be found in any of the main or supplementary estimates tabled in Parliament and authorized by Parliament. Beyond that, Treasury Board even received requests for other projects, for instance. If you want to discuss how the situation has evolved since 1995, we'll be here for a while.

    The basic premises underlying the program proved to be untenable. Even the enactment of the legislation was delayed. It was not passed on time. As well, we took for granted the fact that provinces would share responsibility for the program, which turned out not to be the case. We had to bring in a new computer system. The issue was taken to court. Just name it: it was one thing after another.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Why are you telling us this today? Why wasn't Parliament informed of the reasons why supplementary money was requested?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Given my responsibilities within Treasury Board, I always made sure the reasons were included in the main and supplementary estimates. The supplementary estimates are always more specific: there is a line for each time an item is entered. Some people have said that the program used the supplementary estimates too often. But every time we asked for spending authority, Parliament was always clearly informed.

    You asked about the reasons why these requests were being made. You should have found that information in the department's performance reports.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Seventy per cent of the budget was provided through supplementary estimates. Is there any other program within Treasury Board which has that ratio?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Within government?

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Yes.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I don't know if one can answer that question. But it is not the norm within government.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Then why was this program not the norm, as you say?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Let me begin by saying that, in my view, the supplementary estimates are part of the government's budgetary cycle. It's not something which is outside of the normal process, which is not authorized by Parliament and which is not presented. They are part of the budget, of the government's budgetary cycle.

    The program faced so many changes and challenges as it evolved that additional funding often had to be requested within the supplementary estimates and not the main estimates, because, when that happened, the relevant information may not have been readily available.

    Perhaps Mr. Neville can say a few words about that.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Ms. Robillard, you know full well that supplementary estimates are tabled at the end of the fiscal year and that it is not a good time to monitor them. Don't you find it passing strange that, with regard to this program, fairly significant sums of money were provided through the supplementary estimates and that 70% of the Canadian Firearms Program's budget came through that channel?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The real issue is whether this was exceptional. Yes, it was exceptional.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You say that you will monitor this program much more closely. Does this mean that from now on, as regards the planning of expenditures and the budget, there will be a specific line for the program to justify the escalating costs of the Canadian Firearms Program? Will it be clearly indicated or will it still be included in the overall budgetary envelope of the Department of Justice?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Your question deals with how the main and supplementary estimates are presented to Parliament. The “advantage” of supplementary estimates, if I can put it that way, is that they provide a line-by-line breakdown, as you say. In the main estimates.... I have to say we forced the Department of Justice to present more information in their main estimates. This year, you will see that for yourself, and Parliament will have to vote on the matter in a few weeks. So, the votes are not presented the same way in the main estimates. There are four or five different ways of presenting the overall votes of departments. If each department provided all the details of each of its programs, I don't know what you would do with all that information, Mr. Desrochers.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I certainly know.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: To my mind, it's impossible.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Neville, would you like to add something?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The deputy comptroller general has just said that the minister is right.

    M. Richard Neville: I just wanted to add that if all that information were included in the main estimates, the document would run to perhaps 2,000 or 2,500 pages. The main estimates have to be fairly specific.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: That's not what I'm saying, Mr. Neville. What I am saying is that from now on, given the scope of the program, it would be normal that it be put on a separate line. It should be dealt with separately. After all, we're talking about $688 million and possibly $1 billion one day. If we want to be more transparent and rigorous in our accountability to the population, the program should perhaps have its own line in the budget tabled in the House of Commons.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Let me reassure you. When the budget is tabled, it always includes parts I, II and III. Part III contains the department's reports on plans and priorities, which contains far more detail. In fact, the Auditor General wondered why, over the years, the appropriate details were not included in part III. As well, when the performance reports are presented in the fall, they should also contain more details.

    So you asked whether, this year, part III will have more details. The answer is yes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Desrochers.

[English]

     Since there have been a lot of questions, and Parliament still has a hard time understanding the numbers that are in the estimates and the supplementary estimates, perhaps the Treasury Board could send a letter to the committee giving us the figures on a year-by-year basis since the program started, indicating the money that was approved by Parliament in the main estimates and each of the individual supplements on a year-by-year basis, so we can see how it all adds up. Then if we have further questions on that, individual members may approach the Treasury Board.

    Mr. Breitkreuz, please be brief.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's the whole point of this. What's the total cost of the program? It should include all the departments and agencies. That has not been forthcoming. We should be getting answers on that today.

    The Chair: That's just exactly what I've asked for, Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Mahoney is next, on a point of order.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): When we receive that information, perhaps we could include the record of how all members of the House voted on all of those estimates, the dates, and exactly when that information was put before the House of Commons.

    I'd like to see it, because it's quite obvious we all voted on it, and some members didn't know what they were voting on, in spite of having great opposition to gun control--

    An hon. member: What do you mean?

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm assuming Mr. Breitkreuz would have voted against this, and I'd like to see if he did or not. I think he doesn't know what he's doing.

    The Chair: That's not a point of order.

    Thank you very much. I made a specific request to Treasury Board for the detailed information so we can go back ourselves and find out where that money was that we didn't see in the main estimates and the individual supplementary estimates. Then each individual member can follow through from that point--

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: And we can include the votes.

    The Chair: I'm not sure that's Treasury Board's responsibility.

    We're going to move to Ms. Phinney now for eight minutes, please.

    Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Could you elaborate on your point?

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Again, Mr. Chair, we will be pleased to provide you with that information. In fact, we have already provided part of it to the Senate Committee on National Finance.

[English]

    Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Minister, on page 2 of your comments today, third paragraph from the bottom, you talk about how there will be a tabling of an annual report to Parliament providing financial and performance information. A comptroller will be hired, and an annual audit and evaluation plan will be created. You said this will be a three-year cycle, with the first report on results in 2005.

    You've just said you're going to be reporting on a whole lot of things every year, so what are you going to report on after three years? It's just a little thing that struck me. I don't understand why, if it's a three-year cycle, you'll still be reporting every single year. What's the report at the end going to say? What's it for?

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: We have a problem with the microphones, I think. We'll have to have a time out here.

    [Technical difficulty--Editor]

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Richard Neville: Mr. Chair, what is meant there is that when Minister Cauchon made the announcement that there were some planned changes in terms of accountability and in terms of putting in more transparency at the Parliament, there were a number of initiatives. These are in fact part of the initiatives that were announced.

    What is referred to in terms of the three-year cycle is that by the time the initiatives kick in and by the time you actually report, the DPR--the departmental performance report--will be in the year 2005, so you'll start seeing results in the DPR in 2005.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Again to the minister, there have been some misunderstandings about the main estimates--parts I, II, and III--and the supplementary estimates. Could you tell us how we, as parliamentarians, since it's really our job to keep an eye on what's going on, could help you improve departmental accountability?

    The Chair: In one minute or less.

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, you may smile, but I think it's an excellent question. Members of Parliament often ask us this question. The House now has a new committee, the Government Operations and Estimates Committee, which will study the government's budgetary cycle. It's not simple or easy to understand. We operate in a fairly complex system.

    In fact, when we table the budget, there are three parts, part I, part II and part III. Part I is a general overview of spending within the government's budgetary cycle. Part II provides far more details on each departmental vote, with the vote being defined in a fairly general way. What is important is part III. Parliamentary committees are often interested in concrete issues. What does the department want to do with the money? What are its objectives? What are its priorities? It must set them at the beginning of the fiscal year and account for its performance with regard to those objectives at the end of the year. Did the department reach those objectives, yes or no, and if no, why not?

    I must say that the report tabled before Parliament have improved over the years, but there is still much room for improvement, so much so that my colleague the Minister of Finance even mentioned it in his budget speech this year.

    Apart from that cycle, there are also the supplementary estimates, which are usually tabled twice a year. Supplementary estimates are tabled either because an initiative would not have been fleshed out enough to justify spending authorization from Parliament, or because in the meantime Parliament would have passed legislation authorizing spending. When this happens, supplementary estimates are tabled. As I said, this happens twice a year.

    Could you answer the question with regard to the Public Accounts?

    Mr. Richard Neville: Don't forget that at the end of the year, we summarize all the expenditures and prepare the consolidated financial statements for government as a whole. The Auditor General gives us her opinion, which is included in the Public Accounts of Canada, and which we must table no later than December 31, as stipulated by law. But most of the time, we table them in October of the fiscal year.

[English]

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Well, we got less a comment on how it all works. Do I still have a little bit of time?

    The Chair: Yes, you do. You have about three minutes.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: But it didn't tell us any way we could help you in the process--anything we should be doing to improve your departmental accountability. Is there anything we could do?

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: In my view, the perfect time for members of Parliament to question ministers and senior officials with regard to their plans is when the estimates are officially tabled with the House of Commons and sent to the various parliamentary committees. At that point you can ask them why they requested additional money and ask them to provide details about their plans. At the end of the fiscal year, you can call them back to ask them what they have achieved.

    Members of Parliament surely have an important role to play in that regard. Too often, when a parliamentary committee studies the estimates we have presented, we are not even asked about the figures people have before them.

    I think that ministers and their officials should be prodded into providing more information.

º  (1620)  

[English]

    Ms. Beth Phinney: The estimates are probably the last thing that most committees want to look at. They push it off until the very last day. I guess what you're suggesting is we should be making it our number one priority and studying it better and not being critical afterwards. I presume that's what you're saying.

    I have a question for the Auditor General. In our parliamentary system each minister is accountable for his or her department and the programs and the money given to them and how they spend it. If we want to maintain that and respect this concept, how do you suggest that reporting on horizontal issues be done, specifically the estimates? Is there a way we could change this?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think there have already been initiatives. For instance, in the case of this program it was designated as a single point of accountability in order to assemble, if you will, or gather all of the information and all of the costs across government for that initiative. I go back to I think the drug strategy as well, the Department of Health. We did a report on that about a year and a half ago. It also has responsibility for reporting on an initiative that involves several departments.

    The mechanism already exists, and it is through the departmental plans and priorities and departmental performance reports that this kind of information should be given. There is a mechanism that already exists. It just has to be better coordinated among departments.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please. Eight minutes.

º  (1625)  

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chairperson, we've also heard this before that really it was the parliamentarians who didn't do their job. I think we're all prepared to take some of the blame, but the Auditor General was fairly clear in her report that the government kept Parliament in the dark. I think it's incumbent upon the government to sit down with the Auditor General and find out exactly what information was not forthcoming and to present that to us. I have yet to hear that this government is prepared to do that.

    Let's talk for a minute about the role of the Treasury Board then, the reference to the Senate and the detailed work that's been done at that level. Let me ask in that context, then, about the contingency funds that have gone from Treasury Board to the firearms control program. In 1999 to 2000 it was $41 million. In this fiscal year, 2002-2003, it's $14 million plus some change from the contingency fund. Tell us on what basis the decision was made to make these allocations to the firearms control program.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will ask the deputy comptroller general to answer this question, but let me point out that what you found out in the supplementaries of this year was not linked at all with the firearms program. I think the leader in the House was very clear that it was for aboriginal litigation, and I forget the second one. But having said that, this is for the one of this year. For the former years, it was used, and I will ask the deputy comptroller general to answer on that.

    Mr. Richard Neville: Thank you, madame la présidente.

    In terms of 2002-2003, that is correct that we have not used TB vote 5 contingencies for the firearms program. In prior years we have, and in each case we followed our guidelines, which are quite stringent in terms of when you would go and use TB vote 5. There was a case made based on the submission that was received and then we went to Treasury Board with a recommendation. Just to reconfirm, 2002-2003, there is no amount that was used out of TB vote 5.

    There are eight guidelines. If I could, I could try to just be very quick. The first guideline is that it ties in with--

    The Chair: Why don't you send this in a letter, Mr. Neville, because Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has only one minute left.

    Mr. Richard Neville: I could be very quick, Mr. Chair, if you want.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, I'd appreciate it if you could send it to us.

    Let me just ask one final question then. Are you saying, Madam Minister, this $14 million in the contingency fund for 2002-2003 does not relate at all to your government's decision in December of 2002 to withdraw your request for supplementary funding through regular parliamentary channels? I believe that was in the neighbourhood of $72 million. Are you saying there is no relationship between the contingency fund for this coming fiscal year and the previous amount that was withdrawn from parliamentary channels?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You're right that the $14 million is not linked with the firearms program. This is for aboriginal litigation and federal prosecution.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You're saying it has nothing to do with the firearms program whatsoever.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Exactly.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Mr. Keddy, please. Eight minutes.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to welcome our guests to committee. The Auditor General spends a lot of time here, and it's nice to see the minister responsible for the Treasury Board here.

    Quite frankly, I think there is entirely too much playing with presentation. There seems to be a lot of discussion of whether or not this is actually a major crown project, so I'll try to be very succinct. I would ask the minister to be very succinct in her answer to this, because it's important. Language is important in this place. People's credibility is held at stake because of language. If the Treasury Board wasn't trying to mislead Parliament, then let's clear up this issue about whether or not it's a major crown project.

    In the second-last paragraph to the Auditor General's letter to the Treasury Board, submissions in June 1996 and April 1998, she referred to the gun registry status as a program. These documents are considered by the minister to be cabinet confidences and as such only the minister or the government can release them. So I would ask you, with the intent of clearing up this controversy, if you would release those documents the Auditor General has referred to.

º  (1630)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, the member knows full well that I am bound by Cabinet confidentiality and that, as a minister, although I did not make these rules, I must abide by them.

[English]

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I expected that answer, Mr. Chairman, so let's try the supplementary estimates and see if we can clear up some confusion that seems to be around the supplementary estimates. Let's see if we can clear that confusion up.

    The standard practice, I'm sure the minister is aware, in supplementary estimates is to advise Parliament that contingencies have been used to fund a program. Usually an asterisk is put beside the word “requirement” in explanation of requirement. I think the minister has had part of this question before, so she should be ready with an answer.

    Indeed, in all other cases where contingencies were used in advance of the supplementary estimates, this is where it appears. We're talking about the asterisk. So, for example, if you turn to page 78, you will see on the supplementary estimates--

    The Chair: Of December 2002.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

    You'll see this treatment for the additional operating requirements for Industry Canada, and the same is true if you flip ahead to page 112 under Veterans Affairs. However, Madam Minister, on page 82 in supplementary estimates for Justice, we find the asterisk beside the words “Incremental Funding to Address Core Operational Requirements”, rather than beside the heading “Explanation of Requirements”. So the gun registry is one of five items that form the requirements, core operational requirements being another.

    My question is clear. Is this a slip in normal reporting practices, or is the Treasury Board going out of its way to dissuade us from linking contingency funding to the gun registry? It seems to me it would be fairly clear that this is one way to cover up the use of contingency funding. Otherwise, the asterisk would be where it's supposed to be.

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I will ask my expert in that area, the deputy comptroller general, to answer that question.

[English]

    Mr. Richard Neville: Mr. Chair, we just wanted to make sure that it was crystal clear that the funding in this particular instance was not directly related to the Canadian firearms program.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Maybe you would care to enlighten us then on what it was related to, because there's a lot of contingency funding that's gone on here. Certainly, if you look at it, under the supplementary estimates, there's $4 million in 1995-96; there's $16 million in 1996-97; there's $16 million in 1997-98; there's $40 million in 1999-2000; there's another $40 million in 2000-2001; and another $40 million in 2001-2002. The contingency funds were used to fund this before you ever went after supplementary estimates. So what would have happened, for instance, if you hadn't received funding for the supplementary estimates and they were voted down?

    Mr. Richard Neville: Well, no, let's go back over the years, Mr. Chair. In the previous years there was a submission provided by the department asking for funds prior to the normal budgetary cycle allowing for the funds to be voted. There was a case made. It went to Treasury Board. It was approved, and therefore we were able to provide funding out of TB vote 5.

    In the case of 2002-2003, we have not gone to TB vote 5 for additional funding prior to coming in with the Treasury Board supplementary estimates.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: But you certainly used it in all other years previous.

    Mr. Richard Neville: Oh, we had used it in previous years, but we have not used it for 2002-2003.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: But my point is, where's the cover-up here? Reporting to Parliament.... There's an accusation on behalf of the minister that part of the problem here is somehow parliamentarians didn't do their job. Well, excuse me, we can only work with the tools we're given. We can only work with the information we're given. Questions have been asked since the beginning of this program, and the answers have either been fudged, misleading, or non-existent. It's absolutely wrong to say that somehow what's gone on in the justice department or in the Treasury Board is the fault of parliamentarians. Now, I would agree that perhaps Parliament could have done a better job, but I don't know how they could do a better job without better information.

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, please allow me to come back to this.

    First of all, I completely refute the allegation that this is a cover-up. Frankly, I believe we can use terms more worthy of Parliament.

    The issue here is whether sufficient information was provided to Parliament. In her report, the Auditor General stated that Parliament could have been provided with better information. The Minister of Justice and Treasury Board Secretariat recognized that. However, saying that things were intentionally concealed from Parliament... Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, but I really cannot accept that.

    Secondly, I never said that parliamentarians were not doing their jobs. I did not know people were quite so sensitive. I said that every department had to improve its reports to Parliament, while parliamentarians had to question ministers and senior officials in greater depth on the documents that they receive. That is all I said, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have an inquisitive question, Madam.

    The Chair: A very brief one, Mr. Keddy.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

    The Treasury Board has permitted a situation to develop under a very controversial program in at least six of the past eight years, and you were able to receive $156 million in advance of Parliament voting the funds. How would you think parliamentarians would not suspect there's another reason for this? Beyond the amounts published in the supplementary estimates, there's no other information in the public domain about advances from any contingency votes. Very simply, if the funds were advanced in instances in the past when--

    The Chair: Do you have a question, Mr. Keddy?

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

    Have there been any instances in the past when funds beyond those shown in the supplementary estimates were advanced to the justice department for purposes of the gun registry?

    Mr. Richard Neville: None, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you very much. Now we're going to start the second round.

    Mr. Mayfield, it's four minutes, please.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Considering and perhaps covering some of the same ground a little bit differently, in November 1999 the Senate standing committee on finance went over the firearms program, the supplementary estimates. Treasury Board officials reported that the Department of Justice were seeking $35 million in the form of loan funding. In 1996 cabinet approved a provision of $40 million in repayable loan funding to resource this initiative.

    The Treasury Board officials at the time called it a device of the executive and informed the committee that Treasury Board decisions in this regard were not public. I'd like to know a little bit more about this device of the executive. How many times did Treasury Board use this device of the executive for firearms program? Did they use it for this year's cash management of the program? Have they used it every year?

    Mr. Richard Neville: Mr. Chair, if the terminology that is used refers to a loan, we only used that once with respect to this particular program, to the best of my knowledge.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: There was only a loan used once.

    Mr. Richard Neville: To the best of my knowledge, yes.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: The situation described in the question I've asked. Is that correct? And that was in November 1999.

    Was Treasury Board carrying out its own major crown project rules in funding in this way?

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Richard Neville: Well, I think it's fair to say, Mr. Chair, that there was a more robust management regime that was put forward than is normally required. In that context, maybe I could just touch on the components of that.

    There was an interdepartmental steering committee, which was struck in 1997, an interdepartmental advisory committee that was struck in 1999, and a program improvement in plan in 2000, which encouraged compliance and increased processing and technical systems efficiencies. There was also program restructuring that took place in 2001. This was to satisfy the registration requirements within the group.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: But getting back to this one instance here, there was only one instance. The question was did Treasury Board violate its own rules in doing it this way.

    Mr. Richard Neville: No. We are not aware of our rules having been violated as a result of that particular transaction, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: There's often been the comment that the Department of Justice was off cycle in putting forward supplementary estimates rather than main estimates. What did Treasury Board do to get this major crown project back on cycle, if it did anything? And if it did, when did it do it?

    Mr. Richard Neville: Well, first of all, just to make a correction, we never designated it as a major crown project--

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Excuse me, Mr. Neville. I'd like to just read a couple of things that have come here.

    In February 1998, in the report of the internal audit division of the Department of Justice, Canadian firearms program, part one, 1997-98, stated, “The Canadian Firearms Program is a major Crown project.”

    The Chair: Can you tell me your source for that quote, Mr. Mayfield, please?

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: The Canadian firearms program, part one--

    The Chair: No...that's in the letter.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: --and that's in the letter that Mrs. Fraser gave to us.

    The Chair: Dated February 26.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Secondly, if I may, Mr. Neville, also in the same letter, the Department of Justice July 2000 strategic plan for the Canadian Firearms Centre, submitted to the Treasury Board secretary, stated that “CFC is operating under Treasury Board designation as a Major Crown Project until the load-up phase is completed at the end of 2002.”

    Third, as indicated above, we provide drafts of our chapters to departments to allow them to comment. The Department of Justice.... Pardon me?

    The Chair: We'll get a quick response, because you've run out your time.

    I'll take a quick response to these two points by the Auditor General in her letter, which Mr. Mayfield has stated are totally contradictory to the two positions taken by the witnesses today.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: [Inaudible—Editor]

    The Chair: Just one moment, please. We apparently have no sound.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'm sorry, Madam Robillard, I didn't hear what you said.

    The Chair: Mr. Mayfield, we have a problem with the translation again.

    Is the translation fixed? Right.

    You'll have to speak a little louder, Madam Robillard, please.

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Thank you.

    I thought we had clarified this issue since we began this meeting. I believe that, with the Auditor General, we had determined the issue of whether the project would officially or non-officially be designated as a crown project. I thought we had clarified the fact that we had managed it as a crown project. The basic issue is whether appropriate information was submitted to Parliament. In my view, that is the basic issue.

    Mr. Mayfield, you said the Department of Justice has always stated it is off-cycle in submitting fund applications for the main estimates, and you asked why the department had used the supplementary estimates so many times over the years. That is the question Mr. Neville will answer.

[English]

    Mr. Richard Neville: So in that context, what has occurred over the years is that the Department of Justice has come in with requests that are off cycle. In other words, they had not completed their planning at the time of the main estimates, or there were changes in the programs, scope changes, announcements made by the provinces, and these events necessitated treating the requirements in supplementary estimates. That's why you're seeing a number of supplementary estimates over the years.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: Well, Mr. Neville, I think it's up to you, the Treasury Board, to slap the fingers of the Department of Justice and tell them to get on cycle like everybody else.

    I want a quick comment from the Auditor General because of this disparity, because of your correspondence saying that you believe that it was a major crown project. Are you still abiding by that statement, Ms. Fraser?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, I think it is important to realize this is a minor issue. It is probably a very technical issue that we could spend an inordinate amount of time on and it would not be getting to the real issue of our report.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Desrochers, you have four minutes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Robillard, I would like to come back to the question I put to you before. When were you informed that the cost of the Canadian Firearms Program had risen to $688 million? I imagine that the Department of Justice told you that the projected costs had been exceeded. You explained that supplementary votes were allocated. When Mr. Rosenberg appeared here with Minister Martin Cauchon, he said that, when Mr. Cauchon received his portfolio, he had been informed that program expenditure had reached $688 million.

    As President of Treasury Board, when were you informed of cost overruns in the Canadian Firearms Program?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I believe all of government was informed before that. As President of Treasury Board, I was aware that the costs have increased over the years. We did not hit $688 million overnight. The costs increased year by year. Every time we tabled main or supplementary estimates, the costs increased, increased and increased again. Every time we tabled a budget, I was aware of those increases. Moreover, my officials were regularly summoned before the Senate committee.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: In that case, Ms. Robillard...

    Mr. Neville, do you have anything to add?

    Mr. Richard Neville: I would add that, every year, in the Public Accounts of Canada , we indicated the real program expenditures. Moreover, additional expenses were listed in the appendices to the Public Accounts of Canada.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Ms. Robillard, why did you wait for the Auditor General's criticism before taking action on this issue?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We did not. The Auditor General clearly said that central government agencies had been informed. She said that Parliament had not been informed.

    We were indeed informed, and in 1997 an inter-departmental committee was established with TBS cooperation in an effort to help the Department of Justice better manage the program, and deal with the challenges it presented. We continued this in 1999. All along, we have worked on developing...

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Ms. Robillard, I am talking about public perception here. We have the impression that your government woke up when the Auditor General said that the program made no sense, that it was going to cost $1 billion. What do you have to say to that?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Well, I can show you copies of all the Public Accounts published since the beginning to prove that costs have increased year to year, and that we did in fact inform Parliament. However, you had to look in the Public Accounts and in the estimates to establish the overall costs.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Is this the only program that has caused you so many problems? It seems very complex indeed. Is this the only program for which your department has had to put in so much effort to determine what was going on?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The Treasury Board Secretariat was involved with the Department of Justice all along, and therefore obtained information as it became available. Senior officials even worked with the Department of Justice to bring everything back on track.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: What sort of things did you want to bring back on track?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Well, some aspects like the structure and management of the program, the computer systems, and so on.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Do you know how many computer systems have been used, and how many contracts were awarded for the Canadian Firearms Program computer system to be put in place?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: How many contracts in all?

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: How many contracts or computer systems. We hear that a lot of effort was wasted. This would explain how costs skyrocketed to $688 million.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We can ask the Department of Justice to provide you with a detailed answer.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Desrochers.

    Mr. Mahoney, please, four minutes.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Desrochers for being the first member on the opposite side to actually admit that the cost of the total gun control program over eight years is $688 million, that this is not $1 billion wasted by the government or a program where the costs have been allowed to run out of control. It's the first time I've heard those accurate figures used.

    One of the requirements of quality reporting by a department is having quality interpretation of the facts when they're put out. However, in this short time, let me ask the Auditor General a couple of questions, if I might.

    First of all, you state that the issue of it being a crown project or not is minor; yet your letter of February 26 devotes fully a page and a half to that issue, with attachments of two pages on the issue of whether or not it's a crown project. Clearly this sets out a major difference of opinion between your findings and those of the department on the issues. I can certainly see why people don't particularly think it's minor, although I would tend to agree with your analysis of that. It's just curious in relation to all the information coming in.

    But I want to zero in on your suggestion on page two of your letter, where you talk about source documents that were presented to Treasury Board. Just to be clear, when a Treasury Board submission is made, it is made under the secrecy of cabinet confidentiality, and there are source documents made when that submission goes forward. You are suggesting--in two different places, actually--that neither your office nor the department may release these documents when they are submitted.

    I would think this is for a pretty good reason, whether you're talking about the Canadian gun control program or security issues or affordable housing. If we have a Treasury Board submission on affordable housing, you wouldn't necessarily want builders and developers to know what's in that submission before it goes out, or before it's been approved.

    In the letter from the Auditor General, you have suggested--and I'll read it, “Your committee may wish to consider asking the government to release the source documents...”. You then go on to say in a later paragraph that certain documents “would be considered by the government to be confidences of the Queen's Privy Council, and therefore only the government can release them”.

    Here is my question and my concern: Are you advocating that the government system pertaining to confidential documents forming part of a Treasury Board submission should be changed, and that documents on whatever issue may be on the table--it need not be the gun control program--should be made public?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, I would like to start, perhaps, by responding to the question as to whether this is a minor point or not.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: I didn't ask a question; I simply made a statement. I agreed with your answer.

    The Chair: Mr. Mahoney, we will let the Auditor General speak.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I said I thought this was a minor issue in relation to the overall findings of the audit on the information.

    It was to us a matter of importance because it is critical for us that all of our audits and reports be based on facts. We go through a very long process of validating the facts in our report and of substantiating the facts we put in. So we take it very seriously when what we believe to be a fact is called into question by a deputy minister in a public accounts committee hearing.

    The committee asked us to provide the substantiation or the documentation we had that led us to conclude that it was a major crown project. That is why this letter is so extensive.

    We have listed, I think, seven documents--and we have even more, in fact--that led us to arrive at the conclusion we did. Contained in those documents were some that are subject to cabinet confidence, as Mr. Mahoney has rightly mentioned, and we are not able to release those. The department is not able to release them. I am not in any way advocating that they be released.

    I'm saying that the committee asked us to give the information on which we based our conclusion. We have tried to paraphrase these documents in such a way as to respect confidentiality. If ever the committee wished to see them, the only way they could would be to ask the government to release them.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mahoney.

    Mr. Murphy, please, four minutes.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    First I have a general question to the Auditor General. It appeared to me that this project seemed to have got off the rails as early as 1995 or 1996. There was some question again of whether it was a major project or a minor project, whether the information should have been disclosed in the main estimates or the supplementary estimates. Then the evidence of Mr. Neville is that the supplementary estimates were off budget or off cycle. It seems to me it would be someone's responsibility to get them back on cycle, if that were in fact the case.

    But here's my general question. I classify this as a system failure; the system we know has failed us. There wasn't timely, accurate information provided to Parliament. Based upon your extensive involvement in this file, what caused the system to fail, and what department, committee, or individual was primarily responsible for the system failure?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Why it failed I honestly do not know. I don't know if the other witnesses have ideas as to why. I think there was a clear lack of information given to Parliament, in spite of a lot of questions even in committees. I don't think it should be up to committees to have to go searching for information on this kind of a project. It should have been there for them and there should have been discussion on it in the reports on plans and priorities and in their departmental performance report.

    I would perhaps ask what kind of monitoring is done to make sure major projects like this are adequately reported on in those reports. I think there is still a question today as to how all that happens. I think, as the President of the Treasury Board has indicated, there is also a role for parliamentarians to review estimates and those documents in committees, and challenge the departments in the review.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Perhaps I'll ask the very same question to the minister or Mr. Neville. Mr. Neville has been with this file for some time now. He appeared before the Senate committee in 1999.

    In your opinion, Madam Minister or Mr. Neville, what caused the system to fail, and in your opinion what committee, individual, or sub-department was primarily responsible for the system failure?

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would say that the Department of Justice is responsible, because it is the department responsible for the program. Now the question is, should the department have informed Parliament of all costs incurred by other departments? That question has not been raised today. I believe that the responsibility rests first and foremost with the Department of Justice, which was required to provide parliamentarians with appropriate information.

    With respect to reports on plans and priorities, we all acknowledge that the information provided was not fully satisfactory. But I can give you examples of other departments where things are not perfect either.

    You yourself, as parliamentarians, have often told TBS officials and other officials that reports on plans and priorities, and performance reviews tabled in Parliament should contain more strategic, relevant, transparent and clear information. You have even made recommendations to that effect. So it is not only the Department of Justice which should improve its reports to Parliament. Surely, there are others in the same position as well.

    That is why the government, in this year's budget, officially stated that, in cooperation with the Auditor General and parliamentarians, it would determine tangible ways to help departments improve the reports provided to Parliament.

    There is nothing more I can say on that score.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

    I have a quick question for the President of Treasury Board. The Auditor General pointed out, and you just said, that the Department of Justice should take the lead or be more or less responsible for the program. But there was a firearms control project interdepartmental steering committee established. It was co-chaired by the deputy secretary of the Treasury Board Secretariat. I believe that was Mr. Himelfarb. Therefore, it does seem to me that Treasury Board was playing a very real and central role in the entire management of this program. Is that right?

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, one inter-departmental committee was established in 1997, and another in 1999. In complex cases like these, it is not unusual for the Treasury Board Secretariat to work more closely with departments, to help all departments involved in the program and to provide more effective coordination.

»  (1700)  

[English]

    The Chair: But is it normal for the Treasury Board to chair that interdepartmental committee? You use the word “help”, but when you chair the committee, that's more than help, right?

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I don't know whether that was the case in 1997: can someone answer that question?

[English]

    Jim, do you want to answer that?

    Mr. Jim Judd (Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the initial interdepartmental committee was chaired by an official at Treasury Board, as you've indicated. The next iteration of this interdepartmental committee was co-chaired by Treasury Board and the justice department. There are instances elsewhere when Treasury Board officials are involved with officials of other departments on such groups to look at policy or program issues.

    The Chair: Are they chairs?

    Mr. Jim Judd: That varies on a case-by-case basis.

    The Chair: Okay. I would doubt that they chair, but we'll find out.

    Ms. Meredith, please. You have four minutes.

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both, Ms. Fraser and Ms. Robillard, for appearing.

    I have listened with some interest, obviously, to what's been said this afternoon. I take offence to hearing terms like “normal process” and then finding out it's not normal for departments to be operating off cycle. It's not normal for some departments to be chairing interdepartmental meetings. So I take offence to the fact that when we have departments brought before us we're given the opinion that things like this are in the normal course of events--they're on supplementary estimates because of all these unforeseen circumstances.

    I sat on the justice committee when this firearms legislation went through, and let me tell you, it was quite obvious from the very get-go that there were going to be challenges in the courts and issues that would have to be addressed later on.

    Did the justice department do its due diligence before it approached the Treasury Board for funding on the firearms registration program? Were you, as the Treasury Board, confident the justice department had done its due diligence before it started the process of firearms registration?

    Mr. Jim Judd: We believe the justice department did do due diligence on its costing estimates, which the Treasury Board Secretariat worked on with the department. But I think the issue goes back to the changing nature of the policy over time, as you indicated, which was such that provinces were in, provinces were out; it was fractious.

    Ms. Val Meredith: It was quite clear at the hearings when this first hit the floor that the provinces were not going to be onside. They made it quite clear in the initial hearings on the firearms registration that they had tremendous problems with it. It was quite clear they were not all onside and that there would be challenges.

    I want to ask the Auditor General a question. You have stated that you have only done a report to Parliament on the costing. Are you now going to do a report on the administration of the firearms program? It is quite apparent to me that a lot of the problems are with the administration of the program, and I would suggest a lack of due diligence when it first started, and of proper follow-up and controls since the implementation of the program. Are you going to do a report on the management of the firearms program?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We have indicated that we will consider doing an audit of this. I don't want to commit my office to doing an audit now, until we've gone through our normal planning cycle. We would only do it when the whole program is operating at a steady state, and the Department of Justice has indicated that this could take three to four years.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Then how is the government going to correct operational problems, if you're going to wait until after the fact, when these problems are only going to be larger than they should be?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I would hope the government would correct it without my having to be there auditing them. We will see, at some future point in time. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to go in now, when the program is not in complete operation and operating normally, to be auditing in that kind of state.

»  (1705)  

    Ms. Val Meredith: The fact that Treasury Board has allowed the justice department to be off cycle for how many years would indicate that Treasury Board is not prepared to look at a situation, see that there are problems, and do anything about it until you come out with a report.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, I was just going to say I think that question is better addressed to the Treasury Board.

    Mr. Jim Judd: I think, if I could go back to where I started earlier, Madam, the policy changed over time. The program had to be adjusted to reflect the policy.

    The Chair: We're running out of time here.

    I can't understand how the policy changed. There was one single firearms registry that you wanted to implement. I never heard of any changes. As Ms. Meredith pointed out, the provinces were never onside.

    Quickly, why did you tolerate the justice department being off cycle, off balance, off budget, and everything else?

    Mr. Jim Judd: They were off cycle in most instances, Mr. Chairman, because the decisions around the program were taken beyond the normal main estimate cycle.

    The Chair: Therefore, it's not a normal situation, as you've been alluding to all afternoon.

    Mr. Tirabassi, please, for four minutes.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would like to welcome the minister, the departmental officials, and of course the Auditor General and her officials here this afternoon.

    This morning in another committee we had Treasury Board officials in to discuss supplementary estimates and main estimates, and the whole issue around the difference. There are some concerns that supplementary estimates have somewhat overstepped their bounds and reached far beyond what was intended.

    My question to the Auditor General is, do you think supplementary estimates are less transparent than main estimates, and if so, why?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, we haven't specifically looked at that, though I will tell you we are planning to do an audit on the whole expenditure management system and how main estimates, supplementary estimates, vote 5s, and all the rest work. I think there is a need to have clarity about it.

    I do think that, yes, supplementary estimates receive less attention. I was told, in fact, by a member of Parliament that she hadn't even received the whole book of supplementary estimates, that she received them only for the committee and the department. If she was serving on a particular committee, she received it for that department, not for all of them.

    That's information that kind of surprised me. I expected everybody would have received the whole thing.

    So I think there is less attention paid to supplementary estimates. It doesn't mean the documents themselves are less clear.

    That's just a personal opinion, based on no audit work in our office.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I'm just wondering--this is to the Auditor General--for a program of this nature, the firearms program, to evolve from where it started and get to this point.... We hear about the justice committee, the Treasury Board, and of course the scrutiny of public accounts, but are there any other committees that might have been able to deal with this particular program?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: In the House of Commons, I do not believe so. Perhaps Treasury Board has a better answer. I know, obviously, as has been mentioned, the Senate national finance committee has paid particular attention to this and has asked many questions throughout the life of the program.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: As a final question, to kind of tie it in, when you're conducting your audit, while you're interviewing or scrutinizing departmental officials, do you also review committee input--the number of committees, specific requests they may have made of the departmental officials who appeared before the committee, and whether or not they were given appropriate and timely responses? Do you audit that as well?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We would in some cases. I'm not sure if we did in this case, but we would look at the kinds of information that had been given to committees, yes, the questions that would have been asked. If there had been any recommendations, for instance, from committees to departments on the particular program or area we were looking at, we would have looked at that, yes.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: And where would we find that information? I don't believe you would include it as part of your report, and I understand why.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: That's right. As we have mentioned, this particular audit was very much limited to an audit of the costs, with the information that was presented to Parliament through the normal process being the report on plans and priorities and the departmental performance report.

»  (1710)  

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Harb, please, for four minutes.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, unlike my colleagues on the opposite side of this room, I'm quite optimistic. I think what we have here is a situation where the Auditor General has defined the problem and the government has agreed to take action. The government has accepted the recommendation of the Auditor General, to the chagrin of some of my colleagues on the opposite side.

    And I wanted to say, Mr. Chair, it's quite obvious that we have two agendas here. We have the agenda of those who are trying to address specific and serious concerns that have been raised by the Auditor General. Then there are others who may have other agendas, and that is to get away with the program as a whole.

    This leads me to the question I want to ask the Treasury Board president as to whether or not she is aware--and I've heard this many times--of some sabotage that has been taking place by some special interest groups whose main purpose is in fact to sabotage the system. Just for the record, Mr. Chair, I'm told that some of them have on purpose misfiled their application forms when they applied for firearms, have on purpose jammed websites, have on purpose jammed telephones, and have on purpose put wrong information on their applications, all this with the sole purpose not of helping the efficiency of the system but rather of bringing down the system. As a result of their opposition, they obstruct what the government is trying to do.

    I don't know whether or not anybody has looked into this, whether the minister is aware of something like that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I am not at all aware of such problems, nor are my officials. If such things did take place, you will find Department of Justice officials better informed about them than we are.

[English]

    Mr. Mac Harb: Are my colleagues on the opposite side aware of any of that?

    The Chair: No, we're not having questions across the floor. The questions are for the witnesses.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Who said?

    The Chair: I said. You can direct your questions to the witnesses.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Okay.

    I'm quite glad, actually, to see the issue of whether this is a major crown project or not being cleared up. I want to commend the minister for clearing it up with the Auditor General's office.

    I wanted to ask the Auditor General whether or not, in light of what the Treasury Board minister has indicated, as well as in light of what the Minister of Justice has indicated, she is now satisfied that we can move ahead and see some sort of an action plan that will satisfy the needs of Canadians.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, as I mentioned, we are pleased that both the Minister of Justice and the President of the Treasury Board have indicated that they are in agreement with our recommendations and are pleased that more complete and clear reporting will be given to Parliament shortly.

    The Chair: We're going to have a quick round robin of questions for each party, and we're going to start off with Mr. Breitkreuz, please.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: With respect, Mr. Chair, each party is supposed to get questions in the process, and the NDP and the Conservative Party didn't get to question.

    The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Keddy, but we lost quite a bit of time because the microphones didn't work. Every party and every person is entitled to speak in this committee, and I'm trying to be as fair as possible. We're going to have Mr. Breitkreuz, then we'll have Mr. Desrochers, then we'll have one from Mr. Speller, we'll have one from Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, and we'll have one from you.

    Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    It's hard for me to sit in my seat here and not explode when I hear the minister blame parliamentarians for not asking enough questions. I couldn't have asked enough questions. I couldn't have asked more questions--over 300 access to information requests. So that was a pretty obvious cover-up.

    But I want to come back to the key question, that the department--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

»  (1715)  

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz has the floor.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The key question comes right out of the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General stated that the department provided information that there was $688 million spent on the program. The Auditor General clearly says they believe this does not fairly represent the cost of the program to the government. So my question is, what is the total cost of the program to date for all departments and all agencies?

    According to Treasury Board guidelines, this should have been reported, yet it has not been reported yet. We are still waiting for the answer, and I don't know how much longer we will have to wait. Treasury Board should not be approving any funding until that question is answered.

    Mr. Richard Neville: Mr. Cauchon has undertaken to look at the total cost of the program, including those departments that have charges that are not normally included in the costs, what we call “provided free of charge”, and will be reporting back to Parliament accordingly.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Can the Auditor General comment on that as well?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Well, Mr. Chair, all I know is that there's a commitment to produce some report. We will wait to see what it contains.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Desrochers.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I'm a bit surprised that we are talking about major projects, about other projects, after all, $688 million have been spent.

    I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board if this is the only program where we will see an administrative boondoggle of this magnitude. Can we have her assurance that other programs will not be as complex, and that discrepancies as significant as those we are debating today will not reoccur?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I certainly hope not. If your question pertains to future programs, or existing departmental programs, I can say that I certainly hope we will not see this sort of thing again.

    However, in a system as varied and complex as ours, mistakes will always happen. But now we have the systems we need to identify those mistakes. The Auditor General's departmental audits are very important tools, but we should bear in mind that ever since we reviewed the departments' internal audit policy, departments are required to be much more consistent in the way they present their results. They post the results of their internal audit directly on their websites, and there is no need to request information under the Access to Information Act. The audits show that mistakes do occur in some programs, but that is why audits exist.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Speller, please.

    Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    My question is to the Auditor General. I want to let her know that I started on this committee in 1988, and even though I'm not on it any more, I've watched it evolve and watched her office evolve. I think it's probably evolved in the right direction in terms of making sure that government departments do provide the value for money they should.

    But I've also watched it evolve in terms of there being not only more Auditor General's reports but a lot more dramatic Auditor General's reports. I think you've evolved somewhat, as Parliament has over the last number of years, where to make a point you really have to come out and you really have to have something there.

    I refer to the $1 billion, for instance, and the fact that if I were to talk to my constituency, I'd find an impression you left them with in your report that in fact this program did not work, that in fact it wasn't working, and that in fact the whole program was not only a financial mess but also was not providing what it should have provided in terms of the commitments the government made to the protection of its citizens and so on.

    I wonder if you could comment on that, whether or not what my constituents and a lot of people think is true, namely that it doesn't work.

    The Chair: Madam Fraser.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    On the first part, about the language we use--and I've heard that, I might admit, a couple of times in recent weeks--we have made a conscious effort to use plain language in our reports. I believe it's important that our reports be accessible to all Canadians, that people can read them and understand what we're saying. I will admit that this, perhaps, makes the reports seem somewhat blunter than reports that maybe you're used to, especially being in Parliament and government. So the language, I think, is a little sharper.

    As to whether we were commenting on the policy, it is clear we do not comment on policy. I was very clear. If you look at my opening statement in the press conference, I indicated that this audit was not about the firearms policy, it was not about the operations, and I actually said it wasn't even about the costs. Even though the increase was troubling, that wasn't the real issue. The issue was the information that had been given to Parliament. And when we looked at the media and the way it was picked up afterwards, I think people really did focus on that issue.

    Now, I know there is quite a vocal opposition to the policy. They may have used our report in that way. But it's clear to us, we do not comment on policy. It would be inappropriate for us to do so and we made that very clear.

»  (1720)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speller.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis, please, one question.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Bob raised the question of the cost-benefit analysis and I think that is an appropriate one for the President of the Treasury Board to answer. I would appreciate an answer. But I'd also like to ask how procedures are changing in the Treasury Board to ensure that that kind of oversight function, which was so necessary to alerting the Canadian public and Parliament to the problems with the firearms control program, never happens again.

    It seems to me that the buck should stop with Treasury Board. When you approved a $41 million contingency fund in 1999, that should have set off alarm bells. The public should have been alerted, Parliament should have been alerted, all departments should have been alerted. There should have been an emergency program put in place at that time.

    Why did you simply approve $41 million in 1999 and not make sure that the mess of this program was corrected? Why did that not set off those alarm bells?

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, alarm bells were set off in the government. Parliament may not have been alerted, but central government agencies were well aware that something was amiss, and that costs were increasing regularly. That is why we saw a series of measures dating back to 1997.

    You ask what we plan to do so that the same sort of thing does not happen again. Well, information is provided to Parliament in the reports on plans and priorities, and in the performance reviews.

    We have already had round tables among parliamentarians, but we will certainly work with the Auditor General and you, all parliamentarians, to see how we can beef up the requirement to provide appropriate information in reports to Parliament.

    Moreover, the Treasury Board Secretariat already follows up certain reports tabled in Parliament, but we will have to become much more active in overseeing the quality of those reports.

    At present, as President of Treasury Board, I transmit those reports to Parliament. They are not checked line by line by the Treasury Board Secretariat. It is only after they are tabled that some problems may come to light. I see that the chairman is signaling. Before I conclude, I should point out that the situation has also sent a strong message to the Treasury Board Secretariat, which has to be much more proactive in overseeing information quality.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

    One question from Mr. Keddy.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    A follow-up on Ms. Wasylycia-Leis' question. The minister stated that she was kept up to date and many premises on which the firearms program rested were untenable. You've stated to this committee that you knew what was going on within the firearms registry and that much of what you saw there you knew was incorrect, or improper and unworkable.

    I'd like to ask you a very simple question. Did you at any time ever make the recommendation to the Minister of Justice, to whom you have already alluded, that the department would be most at fault here? Did you ever make the recommendation that the registry be scaled back, that it be cut out entirely, that it be changed in any substantial way?

»  (1725)  

    The Chair: Madam Robillard.

[Translation]

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I do not want the member to misrepresent what I said.

    I said very clearly that right from the beginning of this file, Treasury Board, through Treasury Board ministers, had been kept informed regularly about what was going on with this file, either through tabling budgetary requests or tabling special or ad hoc requests. Further, as you emphasized, the secretariat was involved in an interdepartmental committee. Thus, up-to-date information was available throughout all those years. And so, we were kept informed about the program. This is why such measures were taken.

    Now, the problem lies in providing Parliament with information, as everyone recognizes today.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I have a final question myself. In supplementary estimates (A), 2002-2003, at page 109 under Department of Justice there were two amounts: one under vote 1 for the Canadian Firearms Program of $62,872,000, and $9,110,000 under vote 5, for a total of $71,982,000. That amount, as we all know, was withdrawn.

    Supplementary estimates (B), which have been tabled, do not include such amounts. You tell us you've been open and transparent in the way you report to Parliament. Either the money that was requested was never spent, or if it has been spent, on what basis will parliamentary approval be sought for this kind of money?

    Mr. Richard Neville: Mr. Chair, the amount of $72 million was, as you're aware, withdrawn out of supplementary estimates (A), and the amount that is in supplementary estimates (B)—the $59 million—is in fact a reduction of that $72 million. The department has made some hard decisions about deferring some costs and basically has taken some administrative measures to reduce the expenditures.

    The Chair: Mr. Neville, I was of the opinion that supplementary estimates (B) mentioned $14 million for the Canadian Firearms Program. The President of the Treasury Board specifically stated that was pertaining to two issues that were not related to the registry. Supplementary estimates (A) specifically say “Canadian Firearms Program”, with two amounts totalling $71 million. You're now telling us that amount has been reduced to $59 million, but I did not find the $59 million in supplementary estimates (B). Will you tell me where I can find them?

    Mr. Richard Neville: Yes, Mr. Chair.

    In supplementary estimates (B), 2002-2003, on page 82, it's quite clear in the explanation of requirements: Canadian Firearms Program, vote 1, $50,589,000; vote 5, $8,858,000—for a total of $59,447,000. That is all that's in supplementary estimates (B).

    The Chair: Okay.

    And that money has not been advanced from vote 5 of the Treasury Board in the meantime?

    Mr. Richard Neville: That is correct, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: And given the fact that the Canadian Firearms Program has been ongoing in the meantime, where did they get the money?

    Mr. Richard Neville: Mr. Chair, the Department of Justice has an operating vote—vote 1—which is a much larger vote, and they have been drawing from within that vote.

    The Chair: Okay.

    We're running out of time. I know many people have many more questions, but we're going to have the final words from the Auditor General of Canada, as we normally do, and then we'll wrap this up.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the committee for the attention paid to the chapter and look forward to a further hearing on this, I believe in ten days or two weeks.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: At that time we will have the CEO and the former CEO of the Canadian Firearms Registry before the committee.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

    The Chair: Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Having seen what you have seen so far now, do you really think we should waste more time on this issue? Wouldn't you think we should move on to more substantive issues that deal with relevant matters that—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: That is not a point of order, Mr. Harb.

»  (1730)  

    Mr. Mac Harb: No, no, no. Let's—

    The Chair: Mr. Harb, the steering committee decided these will be the witnesses. They will be heard.

    This meeting is adjourned.