PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

¹

1535

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

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

¹

1540

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian (Associate Deputy Minister and Vice-Chairperson, Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Human Resources Development)

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Gary Webster (Special Advisor to Deputy Minister, Department of Justice)

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

¹

1550

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

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

¹

1555

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

º

1600

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

º

1605

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

º

1615

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Gary Webster (Special Advisor to Deputy Minister, Department of Justice)

º

1620

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Hugh McRoberts (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 022

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): The order of the day is....

    Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): On a point of order, we're going to have a vote called shortly, I understand. It is my hope that we will break at least for the duration when the vote is taking place. Should the members of the committee want to come back after that, we can. It's a very important bill that's being debated before the House. That vote, I would say, would require us to participate. Do we have an understanding on that, Mr. Chair? How are you going to handle this?

    The Chair: First, there can be no motions today, because of the 48-hour rule. There are no motions before the committee, so there can be no business transacted. We can only hear testimony. We do have reduced quorum rules.

    I also understand there's an agreement between the whips of all of the parties that we should try to keep the hearing going, because the country wants to know what's going on and the witnesses don't want to waste their time. Therefore, the idea, I understand, was that we run with the reduced quorum.

    Mr. Mac Harb: As long as we have that understanding. For some of us, what's happening in the House is as important as what's happening here. Just so we are clear on that.

    The Chair: Yes, we're clear. We can after 15 minutes drop down to three, but the normal reduced quorum is five members, provided both sides are represented. The intent certainly is, as far as I'm aware, that the committee meeting continue until 5:30, but for those who feel they have to go to vote, of course, that is their constitutional obligation.

    Mr. Mac Harb: We have an obligation. Actually, it's in the law that you cannot prevent a member of Parliament from going to the House to vote.

    The Chair: I have no intention whatsoever to prevent--

    Mr. Mac Harb: On this side, I think all my colleagues plan to go to the House to vote on a very important issue. Let's have a clear understanding that notwithstanding what the whips have said, as members of Parliament we have a duty, we have a responsibility to our constituents, so should we need another meeting, we will be more than happy to grant that.

    The Chair: If we lose quorum, it will be with the full understanding that we just schedule another meeting at an early opportunity.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Okay.

    The Chair: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), we are considering chapter 10, “Department of Justice--Costs of Implementing the Canadian Firearms Program”, of the December 2002 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

    Our witnesses today are, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Hugh McRoberts, Assistant Auditor General, Mr. Alan Gilmore,a principal, and Mr. Gordon Stock,a director; from the Department of Justice, Mr. Gary Webster, special advisor to the deputy minister; and from the Department of Human Resources Development, Maryantonett Flumian,associate deputy minister and vice-chair of the deputy minister's office. The committee asked that the former CEOs of the Canadian Firearms Registry be called. I understand Mr. Webster was the CEO from July 2001 to February 2003. Ms. Maryantonett Flumian was the CEO from February 2000 to June 2001. It's in that capacity that they're here.

    I have just one minor piece of business before we start. Mr. Mayfield asked some time ago--and I apologize for not getting this response to him earlier--about an issue raised by Mr. Bryden on the Groupaction situation. The question was asked about performance bonuses. The Access to Information Commissioner said they should be made public. There was some debate, but we wrote to the deputy minister, Ms. Cochrane, asking for the information. On the performance bonuses paid to Mr. Guité and Mr. Tremblay, she wrote to Mr. Rumas, the clerk, and said, “With respect to the committee's question on the above-noted subject, I have been advised by Legal Services that this is considered personal information and is protected under the Privacy Act.” The clerk has a copy for everybody. Mr. Mayfield, if you want to take it up with the Access to Information Commissioner, that is entirely your prerogative.

    There's no opening statement from the Auditor General's office, but we have statements from Mr. Webster and Ms. Flumian. We'll start with Ms. Flumian.

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian (Associate Deputy Minister and Vice-Chairperson, Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address this committee. I was the Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Firearms Centre from February 2000 to June 2001.

[English]

During this time the Canadian firearms program faced two challenges. The first was to ensure the successful completion of the licensing phase of the program, and you've already heard about the program improvement plan. The second was to address the program's complexity and rising costs, and you have heard from other witnesses on the program's restructuring plan. This was a time of particular volatility for the program, when a series of changes and external pressures challenged virtually all earlier planning assumptions. A majority of provinces and territories had opted out of the program, and several provinces had also launched a Supreme Court challenge regarding the constitutionality of the Firearms Act. Partly as a result, gun owners were not acting on licences as early and steadily as had been assumed.

[Translation]

    The management team at the Firearms Centre did its best to meet each of these challenges, and I believe that our efforts had substantial results.

[English]

    In the spring of 2000 public awareness of the licensing requirement and its approaching December deadline was limited. As a consequence, compliance was low. In addition, many firearms owners who were aware of the requirements were waiting for the Supreme Court decision before applying for a licence. This only occurred in June 2000. By May 2000 only one-quarter of the estimated 2.3 million active firearms owners in Canada had acted to comply or had a valid firearms acquisition certificate issued under the former program. Applications were coming in at a rate of only 4,000 per month.

    As a result, the centre launched an advertising campaign to inform these individuals of their obligations under the law. A comprehensive outreach assistance program, combined with a simplified application form to help them comply and submit error-free forms, was implemented. Given the strong opposition to the program among some gun owners, and following consultations with police organizations, representatives of firearms owners, and the Coalition for Gun Control, a fee reduction to further stimulate compliance was also offered. The result was that compliance increased substantially throughout the second half of 2000. Applications began coming in at the rate of several thousand per day. This influx, ultimately of 1.3 million applications in just a few months, vastly exceeded earlier planning assumptions. This placed a considerable strain on our processing systems. In order to manage this workload, aspects of the system were re-engineered, a temporary licence was introduced, and additional term employees were hired to assist in the processing.

[Translation]

    The licensing phase was ultimately a success. By the deadline of December 31, 2000, more than 1.8 million firearm owners had acted to comply.

[English]

    In parallel with meeting the licensing challenge, a restructuring plan to reduce the program's complexity and to stabilize and reduce its cost was also developed. The plan included simplifying the registration form and a system for processing registration applications, putting in place a new lower-cost and more effective information technology system, outsourcing a significant component of program operation, and consolidating and downsizing parts of the organization. Central to this plan was a legislative review, now Bill C-10A, which was first tabled in Parliament in March 2001 as part of Bill C-15. These legislative proposals aimed to further simplify program requirements, improve service to our clients, focus administrative accountability, and always reduce costs.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

    In developing the plan, the Center listened to and acted upon the views of parliamentarians, firearms groups as well as individual gun owners, police, and other program stakeholders and interested Canadians. We also acted on the lessons that we and our predecessors in the program learned from the early stages of implementation.

    This restructuring plan led to continual reductions in program costs over the next few years, even as the program faced its most significant challenge of registering all firearms in Canada.

    During this period, all program costs were disclosed in the Public Accounts. All monies spent on the program were voted by Parliament.

[English]

    I would be very happy, Mr. Chair, to answer any questions you might have about the firearms program during my time as CEO, subject only to my duty to maintain the confidence of cabinet and advice provided to ministers.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, indeed.

    I will turn to Mr. Webster for his opening statement.

    Mr. Gary Webster (Special Advisor to Deputy Minister, Department of Justice):

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, for also giving me the opportunity here today to address your committee.

    I succeeded Ms. Flumian as the chief executive officer of the Canadian Firearms Centre in July 2001. I served in that position until February 6, 2003. My top priorities during this period were to develop and implement a strategy to achieve firearm registration and to continue the program restructuring effort my predecessor had already begun. Registration was widely seen to be the most contentious aspect of the government's gun control program. My team and I were also aware that most Canadians supported registration. They expected us, though, to deliver it while bringing down the program's overall costs. We also wanted to avoid the system overload that had occurred during licensing and proven so difficult and costly to manage.

    Our registration plan involved a direct mail-out of a simplified application form to all licence-holders on a schedule staggered by region across the country. A limited fee waiver was offered to those who returned their applications within 60 days of receipt. The point of this approach was to encourage earlier compliance and to even out the incoming application workload. Largely because we had all licence-holders in our database, we were able to contact each of them for registration purposes by direct mail, and thereby significantly to reduce the need for broad-based advertising. Each licence-holder received three mailings, which included an application form. We also introduced free on-line registration, which substantially reduced our processing time. About one-quarter of our clients chose to take advantage of this service option.

    The registration plan appears to have been effective. Compliance levels rose earlier than they had for licensing, and the more even workload proved easier and less costly to manage. By the statutory deadline of January 1, 2003, almost 6 million firearms across Canada had been registered, and many thousands of gun owners had also filed letters of intent to register.

    During my tenure as chief executive officer I continued to restructure the program and reduce staff levels, and through a transparent public bidding process, I identified and commenced work with a private sector firm to develop a new, lower-cost IT system and outsource much of our operation. It was not possible to proceed any further with these plans until Parliament completed its review of the amendments now contained in Bill C-10A. Nonetheless, the restructuring that was undertaken, completion of the bulk of licensing, and a registration plan built on lessons learned from the licensing phase enabled the cost of the gun control program to fall by 50% over the course of the two fiscal years during which I was CEO. With licensing and registration accomplished, the major elements of the gun control program were in place.

    I too would be pleased to answer any questions that members of this committee might have about my tenure as CEO of the firearms centre, subject only to my duty to maintain cabinet confidences and advice to ministers.

    Thank you very much.

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

    I see we have a new addition at the end of each statement now, cabinet confidences and advice to ministers. This is something new for the public accounts committee.

    Mr. Mac Harb: It's new to you, Mr. Chair, but we already know about that. It's just important to keep reminding you.

    The Chair: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Harb. I think it didn't happen to us before.

    Mr. Breitkreuz, eight minutes.

¹  (1550)  

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

    I thank you very much for coming before the committee. I appreciate that.

    The Treasury Board never formally designated the firearms program as a major crown project, but we are told the department treated it as such. I want your confirmation on that. Did you then prepare reports on the program that would normally be required by a formal major crown project?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Mr. Chair, we'll give the answers in chronological order. I'll go first.

    The Chair: Perhaps Mr. Breitkreuz can direct his question to one or both.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Well, Ms. Flumian would be the logical person, because she was there first and she would know that.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: My understanding is the same as yours, that we were never officially designated a major crown project. We did, however, report in my time there on several occasions, as the most effective way, through officials who worked in the major crown area, to make sure we had the management rigour in place. We did report to them through that process, as well as reporting through the departmental estimates process.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: If you prepared those reports, as you say you did, what happened to them once they left your office? Do you know whether they were ever included in any reports to Parliament?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: In my time there they would have been shared at the working level as a way of keeping as many people as possible informed as to what changes we were making at the firearms centre and what changes we were making to the program. Since there was no official designation, there were no official reporting requirements I'm aware of.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: But you said you did report.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We did, in order to keep the processes open internally. You'll remember that we were making many changes. I've already reported on the program improvement plan, the program restructuring plan. In order to be making those changes, we were taking advice as broadly as we could.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: According to Treasury Board guidelines, you were the project leader and you were to be personally and visibly accountable for all aspects of the program. Did you not have a responsibility to ensure that those reports got to the people at the top responsible for this?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: The way the project was being managed, because it was not officially designated, most of the dialogue was at the working level, and our reports were submitted.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: So those people ultimately responsible, your political masters, never saw those reports?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: There was no official designation, so the work was done at the officials level to ensure that as we were going through this, we kept as many people as possible informed of the proposed changes and of the consequences of the proposed changes.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: This contradicts what previous witnesses said, that this was treated as a major crown project. If it was treated as a major crown project, you, as the project leader, would have to be accountable for all aspects of the program and to report to those people. You're not sure those reports got there. You'd have to submit those reports to Treasury Board. Did they not get there? Treasury Board should then have been aware of what was going on in the program. Didn't you feel some kind of responsibility to inform your political masters that this project could never be implemented, that all the firearms in Canada could probably never be registered, that the costs would skyrocket?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Again, if the question is whether we reported to all the appropriate officials on our undertakings, we did. My comment was to point to the fact that most of our relationships were at the working level with officials from Treasury Board.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Where are those reports now?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: It's been almost two years since I left the centre, but I'm sure they're available.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We have tried to find some of those, and they say they are not available. So there's a conflict here between what you're telling us and what is actually happening.

    Why was there a need for Treasury Board to oversee this program? If you were doing your job, why did they need to have these oversight committees taking charge of the program? I'm really wondering about that as well.

¹  (1555)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: The oversight committees were set in place before my arrival. There is no doubt that there were logistical, technical, and management challenges associated with this program. When you're going through such complex programming, and we were going through so many program changes, as the assumptions of earlier times had not panned out the way they were expected, it's clear that as much interdepartmental discussion and dialogue as possible is a good thing, because you have many people turning their minds to the issue, they're able to advise you from their own perspectives, you're able to present your own views.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Did you not at some point tell someone it was almost impossible to do this task and it would be virtually impossible to do it for the costs they had projected, but these costs would skyrocket and go way beyond what was originally projected?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Once again, there were clearly logistical, technical, and management challenges associated with the Canadian firearms program. That's why the position of chief executive officer was created. The policy had been set by the government, and it was my job, along with the management team and my colleagues, to try to deliver on the goal of compliance. That's what we turned our minds to.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Why were the supplementary estimates twice as much as the original estimates for every single year, and how often did you have to go to Treasury Board for more money during the year?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I arrived off the cycle of the main estimates process. There were many challenges we faced. The assumptions that had originally been made with the program had not panned out, and so we were having to establish more stable assumptions, test those assumptions, verify those assumptions, consult with all the parties involved inside and outside. The factors that led to some of these things were the establishment of a central processing site, which had never been accounted for, the arrangements we made with the--

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Can you tell me the times you went to Treasury Board, because that's what I asked you?

    Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Breitkreuz has already asked the question, the witness is in the middle of answering it. I think you should be polite to this bureaucrat who is trying to give the best information she can, and she should be allowed to finish her answer. He doesn't need to be rude.

    The Chair: We have a point of order from Ms. Torsney that is somewhat valid, that we must always treat our witnesses with respect, but you're entitled to ask the questions you feel you must to conduct your job. But wrap up, because your time is done.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just a second. Mr. Chair, the witness was in the middle of an answer when he interrupted her, so I think she should be asked to finish her answer to that question.

    The Chair: Well, the time is up. I'm sorry, Ms. Torsney.

    So now we're going to Mr. Gaudet.

[Translation]

    Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Flumian, could you tell us what your duties entailed when you were appointed CEO of the Centre?

[English]

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: As I said, I was asked to take on two primary tasks. There's the overall administration of the Canadian firearms program, but one important task I was asked to take on was to ensure the successful completion of the licensing phase of the program. I arrived in February 2000, and the legislative deadline for compliance with the licensing phase was December 2000, so there were not many months between the time I arrived and the legislative deadline. The second important thing I was asked to take on was to see if there was a plan we could put in place for restructuring the program to address the complexity and the rising costs.

º  (1600)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Roger Gaudet: What concrete steps did you take to improve the program? Your mission was to ensure that permits were issued and that the firearms program was restructured. Did you have a plan of action in place to accomplish this task?

[English]

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Before I speak to restructuring, the first part of your question addressed how we were going to get Canadians to comply with licensing. The first thing we did was launch a fairly extensive consultation program with representatives of firearms owners, representatives of the policing community, at both the chief and the rank-and-file level, representatives of aboriginal policing organizations, Canadians who had an interest, and the Coalition for Gun Control to see what their views were, because I'm a public administrator, I was not a firearms expert. I needed their views as to what they thought were issues with this program and why the compliance rates were as they were.

    It quickly became evident that we had several issues. The application form seemed to be very complicated. The fact that the application form was so complicated meant many Canadians who were trying to comply with the program were making errors in filling out the application forms, forgetting to fill out sections of the form, entering the wrong postal code, things of that nature. Every one of those errors, when they interacted with our computer system, would require manual processing. We would have to stop the process we were engaged in of processing these forms and go to very extensive and costly manual processes to try to deal with them.

    We also in that process realized that much of the focus of the public debate was on the issue of registration. Many Canadians didn't realize that the act actually required them to licence and that it was important to licence yourself to ensure that you understood the safe storage and handling of firearms, that you had taken all the appropriate courses to make sure you knew how to handle a firearm properly, that you were who you said you were, and that you didn't have the kind of interaction with the policing community that would make you a risk to society. For all those reasons, we entered into an advertising campaign to ensure that Canadians knew what the requirements were under the act--licensing first, registration second. As part of this, to help people fill out these application forms, which by now were greatly simplified, we ran an outreach program, where we hired students over the summer and fall months to go out into communities and help Canadians who wanted to comply with this legislation to fill out the application forms, take their photograph, so we'd have fewer errors on that front, and submit those. And as we were doing that, as we changed the application form, we had to bring about computer system changes, and that too was part of the challenge we faced for reaching the licensing phase of the program.

    In order to address the restructuring plan, on the second part of your question, we began to look at how we might simplify the entire registration process. Our assumption at the time was that if the vast majority of Canadians actually licensed, we would have information on them already in our system and it would be a much more simplified process that we could follow for registration. We began to see how we could go about simplifying the registration form itself and simplifying the computer system for the processing of these registration applications. We thought about putting in place a new, lower-cost, and more effective information technology system. In order to do that, we recognized that we'd have to run a request for proposals and go out to the marketplace. We decided, as part of this plan, that outsourcing a significant component of the program operation would help to bring down the cost.

[Translation]

    Mr. Roger Gaudet: Thank you.

    Approximately how much was spent on the initiatives carried out prior to your taking office? Based on what you've told us, not much was done before your arrival. This proposed initiative...

[English]

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: On money spent before I arrived, I don't have the exact number for you, but it would be of the order of about $300 million possibly. I'm sure someone can confirm that for me.

    What had happened before I arrived? Obviously, there had been the passage of the bill and the passage of the extensive regulatory process that went with it. There'd been the negotiations with the provinces to establish the regime, because the administration of justice is a split jurisdiction, as you know. There'd been the establishment of the central processing site in Miramichi, New Brunswick. There'd been the establishment of a site in Montreal. There'd been the establishment of the registrar's office at the RCMP. There were all sorts of issues that had also been dealt with before I got there, which I then had to continue to work on when I arrived. Many other program requirements that required additional automation, like authorization to transport, transfer and sale of firearms, the preloading of business inventories, were all requests that had come up before my time that we then had to implement in the system. The policing community had asked that the registry be accessible from police cruisers, which was a very good idea. This also added to the costs, but it was an area we undertook, so we had to build a computer system to do that.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: I have to interrupt you there, Ms. Flumian. Monsieur Gaudet's time is up. I'm sure you could go on at considerable length, and I will get you on the next round, Monsieur Gaudet.

    Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to thank all of you for coming here today. I'd like to mention that we have heard from the Auditor General at least twice on this topic, and she made it very clear that there was no misuse of funds, that the correct steps were taken by going through Treasury Board and cabinet and reporting in the estimates. This was all correctly done. The fact that the members of Parliament don't look too carefully at the estimates doesn't say much for our side. We should look more carefully, but we're all busy.

    I'd like to talk for a couple of minutes about an explanation we had from the Canadian Police Association. They talked about the use of the registry and how important it is to them now. They gave two examples. One was a house they were called to where the senior male in the house was very disturbed. He had very serious mental problems and he was really going quite crazy in the house, to put it bluntly. They had called the police, and the police came. During the course of interviewing this person was asked if there were any guns in the house, and they were told no. They were then able to turn to their computers, which have the gun registry information on them, and they flicked to this man's name: he had 21 guns on the registry. They had to search the whole house, and they showed us pictures of the house. These guns were hidden between the mattresses, up in the rafters, all over the house. If they had left this man, had not had access to that registry, they would have had no idea that this man who was deranged had 21 guns in the house. There was some follow-up, but I won't go into it.

    The other incident they showed us and talked about was when a policeman stopped a car. He thought the man looked a little strange, so he looked in the trunk of the car, and there was a gun sitting there. Through the registry, which he had with him, he was able to find out that this was illegal; the pictures were all there on this little computer he holds in his hand. He found out that it was an illegal firearm, stolen. They were able then--and it follows on and on--to go back to the person it was stolen from, and they found out that many of his 60 guns were stolen. This type of thing is what they can use this registry for.

    I don't have a question, Mr. Chair, I just want to thank the people who have been working on the gun registry and to let you know we understand. I have four reasons the registry has cost so much, one of the provinces backing out that said it was going to run part of it, the fee reductions that happened, the sabotaging of the system by people who wanted to sabotage the system and put in information that was incorrect, and mainly, the fact that it's a new program. Any new program has to undergo changes and corrections. Considering the size of this program, I would like to congratulate those who have been doing it and acknowledge the fact that they've been willing to change and adapt as they go along.

º  (1610)  

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

    Mr. Webster.

    Mr. Gary Webster:

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    To underline the comments that were just made, an essential part of the Canadian firearms program is a support organization to Canadian Police across the country. Since its inception, that organization has been in a position to help in over 3,000 files directly supporting police organizations across the country. There are numerous examples now of police organizations being able to recount the kinds of situations that were just now reported to us. Also, the fact that the Canadian firearms registry on-line, which is available to police across the country, is used on a daily basis over 2,000 times is testimony to what the chiefs of police and the Canadian Police Association told us through a very extensive consultation process at the time we were developing improvements to the licensing system and the registration system, that there were certain kinds of services police required so as to readily use and benefit from the Canadian firearms program. That is what we attempted to meet, and I think we're now seeing some of the benefits.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Webster.

    Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I just wondered if the people here would be able to give a number for the lives that have been saved. Do you have any figures on this? Is that available?

    Mr. Gary Webster: It's always a very difficult proposition to determine what didn't happen. The Coalition for Gun Control, the Canadian Police Association, and the chiefs of police have readily said to us, with the examples I gave earlier, that service is becoming more and more indispensable to them. Without the kind of information that is available to them, there would likely be more incidents, involving police or otherwise. I think we'll have to look down the road a little way before we can be precise about that. There is some research going on, particularly within the coalition and other organizations, which I'm sure will be very useful in that regard. Let me just underline again the fact that police are continually providing us with examples of how the information that is provided to them assists them in undertaking their duties and responsibilities.

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

    Now we'll turn to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis for eight minutes.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you.

    I'm glad to follow up on Beth Phinney's comments, because I think that line of questioning does a disservice to the issue we're dealing with. That doesn't mean, when I and others make these points, we're against the firearms control program or the gun registry. The Auditor General has clearly identified some very serious problems with the program, and in fact, she has cited this as the biggest boondoggle in the history of this government and the most serious problem of fiscal mismanagement we've ever seen, and has also--

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Ms. Phinney, on a point of order.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I think we should clarify that the Auditor General did not say there's a problem with the program. What she talked about was the communication on how the extra funding was going out.

    The Chair: That is not a point of order, Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me finish my remarks.

    The Chair: Is this a point of order, Ms. Torsney?

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd like Ms. Wasylycia-Leis to explain where it was on the record that the Auditor General said something was “the biggest boondoggle”. I don't believe she actually said that anywhere.

    The Chair: I'm was just going to get to that.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

    The Chair: You cannot put words into the Auditor General's mouth.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I will withdraw that those remarks, and I will be more specific in my comments. I don't need to exaggerate in order to make the point I'm trying to make, which is--

    The Chair: If I can just interrupt for half a second, the bells are now ringing. It's a 15-minute bell, so we'll be governed accordingly.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My point was that the Auditor General certainly has to be looked at in respect of some very serious administrative and structural problems that cannot be dismissed as simply facts, as suggested by others, pertaining to its being a new program or sabotage. We've got some serious administrative problems that we need to get a handle on, and it's vital in regard to support for the program itself. So let me just refer to several of those issues.

    There was supposed to have been a single point of accountability through the firearms centre. The Auditor General says that single point of responsibility and accountability was never implemented. I think that's an important point with the problems we're dealing with. What happened? Would that not have made a difference with the cost overruns in the program?

    Mr. Gary Webster (Special Advisor to Deputy Minister, Department of Justice): When I arrived in July 2001, there had already been a process established whereby we were working very closely with federal government departments that were clear partners with respect to implementation of the firearms program, for example, the RCMP and CCRA. There was not at that time a day-to-day relationship with the other departments referred to in the Auditor General's report, the National Parole Board, for example, or Corrections Canada. At the time I arrived we were following a very specific budgeting and review process, which insured that all reporting with budgets that had been provided was undertaken in particular ways. So we reported very clearly with respect to funds that were provided to provincial governments for the delivery of the program, as well as the funds that were made available to the RCMP and to CCRA. There was no request at that time, in fact, to be reporting.

    With respect to the other organizations, there had by that time, July 1, 2001, ceased to be a day-to-day involvement between the other organizations and the firearms centre. We continued to report clearly through the established departmental and parliamentary processes all expenditures that had been made through the public accounts, as well as any resources we required through the established parliamentary and government processes.

    We had not been, at that point, asked by either government or Parliament to provide the numbers to which you refer. We managed the program very clearly with respect to the resources that were being given directly to us. We managed those resources, we reported on those resources through established processes to the fullest of our ability.

    With respect to the whole issue of other government costs, I think the minister has already declared that we could have reported more, and he is now embarking on a plan that will ensure that it will happen in the future.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, do you want Ms. Flumian also to answer this question?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. The Auditor General's report clearly stated that the firearms centre was set up in 1996 and was designated a single point of responsibility and accountability; the 1997 project charter clearly outlines how that would function as a single point of responsibility and accountability. The Auditor General concludes that this never happened. So I still don't have a clear answer as to why not. Are you disagreeing with the findings of the Auditor General?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I think it's important to state that there's never been any intention to provide incomplete or misleading information on the firearms program. In fact, when we were working through this, the program did report all its costs in the approved framework. All costs of the program have been reported by the various federal partners, but they weren't reported through the single source, the Department of Justice. The Auditor General believes this is required, we did not, because the department has no legislative or regulatory authority over many of the federal responsibilities where some of the impacts of the program are felt, such as corrections or policing. So it would have been extremely unusual, given the absence of this authority, to report the costs this way.

    That said, as Mr. Webster has already noted, in the spirit of full transparency, the minister and the department have already committed themselves to providing Parliament with as much information as possible about the costs of all the departments involved in the program. We do take the commentary seriously, even though we have a disagreement as to the nature of the reporting that would have been expected. We thought we were complying with every aspect of what was required of us under the framework .

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. McRoberts, could you comment on that response to that aspect of the report and whether this point is being taken seriously.

    Mr. Hugh McRoberts (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): I believe both the Minister of Justice and the President of the Treasury Board have agreed that better and more complete reporting is required for the future and will be provided. It is our understanding that the single point of accountability concept would have required pulling together for reporting purposes all of those costs and that involved possibly cutting across departmental accountability lines, in order to provide central agencies and others who required that information with a complete cost accounting for the program. I would refer in particular to the sections from the charter that we extract in paragraphs 10.23 and 10.24 in support of that conclusion, where we believe this expectation is very clearly set out.

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

    I mentioned earlier to you that the bells are ringing. It is an important vote, and we had agreement at the beginning of the meeting that if we were interrupted, we would reschedule the meeting. The clerk advises me that we have an opportunity on Monday afternoon, so we will ask our witnesses to come back on Monday afternoon.

    This meeting stands adjourned until Monday, at which time we will continue, same witnesses, same time, same place.