PACC Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 7, 2003

1540

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

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

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

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

1545

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

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

1550

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ)

Mme Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

1555

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

1600

The Chair

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Alan Gilmore (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Alan Gilmore

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Alan Gilmore

1605

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Alan Gilmore

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Alan Gilmore

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

1610

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

The Chair

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance)

1615

The Chair

Mr. Myron Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Myron Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Myron Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Mr. Myron Thompson

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Myron Thompson

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Myron Thompson

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

1620

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

1625

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie

The Chair

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

1630

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Myron Thompson

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Gary Webster

1635

The Chair

Mr. Myron Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Myron Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

1640

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie

Mr. Alan Gilmore

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

1645

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

1650

The Chair

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie

Mr. Alan Gilmore

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

1655

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

1700

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gary Webster

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie

The Chair

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie

The Chair

Mr. Alan Gilmore

1705

The Chair

Mr. Alan Gilmore

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Mr. Alan Gilmore

The Chair

Mr. Alan Gilmore

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

1710

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Alan Gilmore

The Chair

Mr. Alan Gilmore

1715

The Chair

Mr. Alan Gilmore

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

1720

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie

The Chair

Mr. Alan Gilmore

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Alan Gilmore

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Mr. Gary Webster

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

1725

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Alan Gilmore

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Alan Gilmore

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

1730

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

NUMBER 028

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 7, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1540)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the war room and the Standing Committee of Public Accounts, as we have a new venue this afternoon.

The orders of the day 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.

Our witnesses are today from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada are Mr. Jean Ste-Marie, Assistant Auditor General; Mr. Alan Gilmore, a principal with the office; and Mr. Gordon Stock, a director with the office.

From the Department of Justice, we have Mr. Gary Webster, special adviser to the deputy minister.

From the Department of Human Resources Development, we have Maryantonett Flumian, associate deputy minister and vice-chairperson of the deputy minister's office. I think we can say that she is here in the capacity of former CEO of the firearms program. We asked that she come here this afternoon.

If we feel that we've talked about that enough, then we may do some things in camera.

This is a continuation of a meeting that we were holding on March 26, which was interrupted by votes in the House. Therefore, we felt that we had not concluded the business that we wanted to conclude.

The witnesses had all made opening statements at that particular time, which I'm sure you all have with you. Therefore, there's no need for them to be repeated again today. We will just move straight into questions.

Mr. Breitkreuz, you have eight minutes, and it's all yours.

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

Thank you again to the witnesses for coming before the committee. There has been a little bit of a break since the last time we were together.

I was reading the transcripts of the last meeting. Ms. Flumian, at that point you reported that the firearms program was not officially designated as a major crown program, but that you reported to Treasury Board officials who worked in the major crown area. You went on to say that it had been almost two years since you left the centre, but you were sure that the reports were available. It's important that we get those reports.

Would you have the reports you prepared for the Treasury Board officials in this major crown project delivered to this committee? Could you ensure that they would be here so we could examine them and try to determine where this program went off the rails?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian (Associate Deputy Minister and Vice-Chairperson, Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Human Resources Development): Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to go back to the current CEO of the Canadian Firearms Centre and ask him to make them available to the committee.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

I have a point of order then, Mr. Chair. How do we ensure that the reports then can be properly examined before this committee?

Ms. Flumian, do you know how long it would take to get the reports?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I'll communicate with him forthwith. If there's an issue, I'll get back to the clerk of the committee.

The Chair: We could give him a reasonable time to provide the information that they don't have with them. In the event that it's not coming forward, then the clerk, of course, will follow up.

In a couple of weeks, will you have the information?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We're talking about information that was prepared some years ago. I'm assuming that it's relatively readily available.

The Chair: If you can't produce it in the next two or three weeks, would you please communicate to the clerk as to when we could expect it?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I definitely will.

The Chair: Then if there is an undue delay, we will discuss the matter by committee.

Is that okay, Mr. Breitkreuz?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. I have to let you know that I tried to get the reports. Some of the officials, and even the information commissioner, said that no one in the department could remember seeing the written reports that you had prepared and it was unusual for you to prepare written reports.

I'm not sure if the information commissioner has the right information or not. I only want to be assured that we will get the reports.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Mr. Chair, I'm not quite sure what reports are being referred to, except to say that I will give you an undertaking to go back and make sure the information that was exchanged with Treasury Board officials, particularly in the major crown projects area, is indeed shared with you.

As you know, they are not my personal files. They're the files that are left behind as officials move on from job to job. I will communicate with the CEO of the Firearms Centre as soon as we leave.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Maybe Mr. Webster can help us out in this regard. Were you one of the officials the information commissioner's investigator spoke to while they were searching for those reports? Did you see those reports that Ms. Flumian had produced? Did you yourself prepare reports on this firearms program as if it was a major crown project? Can you also provide copies of those reports, your reports, to the committee?

¹ (1545)

Mr. Gary Webster (Special Advisor to Deputy Minister, Department of Justice): If you are referring specifically to reports prepared in response to a requirement for a major crown project information, to my recollection and knowledge, we prepared no reports in relation to it being a major crown project through that period.

If you're referring to general discussions back and forth between Treasury Board officials and officials at the Firearms Centre at that time, I would say the same as my colleague with respect to any of those reports that do exist, that we'll make them available at the same time.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Are you saying that the reports may not exist?

Mr. Gary Webster: No, I'm just saying that with respect to discussions around the program as a major crown project, specifically, to my recollection, no such discussions actually took place. However, any information that may well have been provided to Treasury Board officials regarding the implementation, that's what I'm referring to. That information is in departmental files, I'm sure.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm not looking for reports that indicate whether this was a major crown project or not. I'm looking for reports that were made by you to those around you and to your political masters to tell them about the progress of the program, how things were going, the costs that were being incurred, where things were unfolding as you expected or did not expect. We are here today to try to figure out why this program spun out of control. Those reports would be essential in helping us to determine what went wrong. Both of you were in charge of this program, so we need to have a complete accounting of that. That's what we're asking you to provide us.

Mr. Gary Webster: I'm making the same undertaking as my colleague, that within that same timeframe we'll endeavour to provide the information through the current CEO.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: All right.

I also looked at the testimony that you gave back on March 26, the last time you were before the committee, Ms. Flumian, and you said, “The oversight committees were set in place before my arrival. ... I arrived off the cycle of the main estimates process”.

Mr. Webster, you said you arrived in July 2001 and there had already been a process established by then. Also, you said that at the time you arrive, they were following a specific budgeting and review process.

Can you tell us who made all the critical decisions about the firearms program before you arrived? Did you implement the specific budgeting and review process? Who made those decisions that you were then building on?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Mr. Chair, is that directed to either one of us?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Both of you, please.

The Chair: Ms. Flumian first.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I'm sorry, could you repeat the question one more time, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Who made all the critical decisions about the firearms program before you arrived? You indicated that things were set in place before you arrived and you just continued with what was on, and Mr. Webster did the same thing, basically.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I think I indicated much the contrary, actually. I think I indicated that I was asked to do two things, actually three things. First, I was to take on the overall management of the Canadian Firearms Centre and the program, in a newly created position, which was a CEO position, and that position had not been in existence before my arrival. So that was the overall management of the program.

Specifically, the two items were to achieve the licensing phase of the program, and in that process we had a fundamental look at the way licensing had been put in place and began a process of reviewing how licensing was and wasn't being achieved, and made some substantive and quite significant changes in the way the licensing program was working.

Secondly, once the licensing phase was close to being achieved, my second part was to have a look at restructuring the entire program to make it more efficient, more cost-effective, and to make it easier to meet the public safety targets that were embedded in the program.

The Chair: Mr. Webster.

¹ (1550)

Mr. Gary Webster: As I mentioned at the last appearance, when I arrived in July 2001 I basically had two primary objectives to achieve in my tenure.

One, first of all, was to develop and implement a strategy for the firearms registration component with the licensing component of the program already well underway by that time. Second was to continue the program restructuring effort in the overall effort ultimately to provide better client service over the short to long term, and secondly, to start to begin to bring the cost down of the operating portion of the program, both on the licensing and on the registration side.

So as I did mention last time, I was coming into the program with a plan presented to me and with the instructions that I should proceed in the continuation of its implementation in the final stages of the licensing at that time and the introduction and management of the registration phase of the program. In terms of who was making decisions, I was provided with the direction by my predecessor, who had undertaken the work of developing the implementation plans, and proceeded from that point on that basis.

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

Monsieur Gaudet, s'il vous plaît, huit minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and thank you. I am sorry I am late.

Mr. Webster and Ms. Flumian, when did you begin to work on the firearms file?

Mme Maryantonett Flumian: I began in February 2000 and I continued until June 2001.

[English]

Mr. Gary Webster: I started as the CEO on July 4, 2001.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Before you arrived, how much had been spent on the firearms issue? The last time I sat on this committee, we were interrupted by a vote. It was my turn to ask questions, but I did not find my documents, because they had been misplaced in my office while I was away. I know that between 1995 and 2001, when the committee began this work, we were dealing with something like $400 million. Is that possible? I no longer remember the figures, but I would like to know them.

Given that you have both worked for the department for some 15 years, can you tell us why the program cost so much during the year when you, Ms. Flumian, were associate deputy minister and vice-chair in the deputy minister's office, and while you, Mr. Webster, were, I believe, a deputy minister in the Department of Human Resources Development?

[English]

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Roughly, Mr. Chair, in fiscal year ending 1999-2000 the costs of the program were $327 million, which corresponds to the period of time when I arrived. The cost of the program in the time I was there covered off two aspects: the start-up of the program and the completion of what was then seen as the automated system for the processing of applications. This was not yet completed during that timeframe, so costs continued to be incurred for the development of a system. Furthermore, the largest component of the program was due to be implemented during the timeframe that I was in the job.

The most significant component of the program was the licensing phase of the program. This was a program that was starting from scratch in terms of licensing Canadians under this kind of process. And therefore the most significant component of the program, to be followed only by registration, had to be achieved during that timeframe.

The last time we appeared on March 26, we spoke at some length about the logistical, technical, and management challenges facing the program at the time. We spoke of the volatility of the program and the notion that we had to bring some stability to some of the planning assumptions that had been made, and about the fact that Canadians were not applying in the numbers we had assumed and the fact that we had to make changes to the program in order to encourage Canadians to come forward for the licence phase of the program.

In order to do this, we had to reach Canadians in terms of making them understand that the licensing phase of the program was the first phase of the program under which they had to comply. In order to do this, we launched an advertising program where, through television, radio, and print media, we reached out to Canadians, letting them know what the requirements under the law were for licensing. We went from about 4,000 applications a month in that period of time to several thousand applications a day, I believe, over that timeframe. By the end of that timeframe, we had reached the vast majority of Canadians who needed to be licensed.

During that timeframe, as part of this massive outreach program, over the course of the summer and fall we also hired hundreds of students primarily to do outreach across the country, reaching Canadians in shopping malls, at fairs, in various locations where Canadians would congregate--gun clubs, for example--to try to help them fill out those application forms with the kind of accuracy that would make it easier for them to be processed. It was, for instance, to help them to have their pictures taken, because we were having significant errors in terms of pictures being taken and having to reject or return applications for that to be rectified.

During that timeframe, we also had to make determinations about how to simplify the application form. We were getting many administrative errors as a result of the way the application form had been originally set, and we radically simplified the application form while meeting all of the public interest tests, as outlined in the legislation. Altering the application form then led to increasing costs in making system changes that would allow us to proceed to process the application form.

Probably the next biggest thing is that, because all the planning assumptions we had been working with at the centre in terms of how those application forms were coming in obviously didn't materialize, and because application forms did indeed come in in the kinds of volumes that they did in the last few months of the year 2,000, we had to also add to our processing capacity in Miramichi, in the province of Ontario, in Edmonton, and in Victoria in order to process those application forms. So we added additional people to process the application forms in those areas and we also outsourced a portion of the processing of application forms.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Gaudet.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand correctly, the first 4,000 copies to be sent out cost $327 million. When you arrived, you did all the work, as far as I can see. According to what you just said, before you arrived, $327 million had been spent, and you said in your brief that 4,000 copies had been sent out. The copies were very costly before you arrived!

[English]

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I think in my response, Mr. Chair, I said we were getting in 4,000 application forms a month. I didn't say in total. I think when I arrived, if the numbers are accurate in my recollection, we had about 400,000 application forms in for the licensing process out of a potential of 2.3 million active gun owners in Canada. By the end of the licensing period, I believe the numbers--and Mr. Webster can correct me if I'm wrong--were in the order of magnitude of 1.8 million Canadians who had been licensed by that period, and about another 100,000 additional Canadians licensed themselves in the few months following that. So I think they're at about 1.9 million now.

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Gaudet.

[Translation]

Mr. Gaudet, one brief question.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Who was in charge of the program? Was it the Department of Justice or Human Resources Development?

[English]

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: The Department of Justice. The Canadian Firearms Centre was responsible for the program.

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Gaudet.

Ms. Phinney, please, eight minutes.

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

Going back to some of the studies we had on March 26, I believe it was, I think we had four main reasons for why this whole project went squiffy from the point of view of costs. The first reason was that the provinces pulled out when we expected the provinces to share the costs.Another was that the money from the registry itself was greatly reduced from expectations, because for a certain number of months it was reduced, or I think free, for a time. Then there were deliberate attempts by the users to sabotage the system, and finally there's the fact that it was a brand new program, never been done before, and of course it's very difficult to predict that. I think the Auditor General commented that this group of four would be what accounts for the largest share of the overrun.

The Auditor General also said something else that was very important--and I've underlined a lot of places in here where she's commented on this--and that is that accountability for all program costs were not maintained--accountability to Parliament. This accountability part seems to be what the Auditor General was dwelling on. I think because of comments made to the media at that time, around the 26th, she had to make statements that there was no money that just disappeared, there was no money absconded with by anybody, that the reasons the costs of the program have increased could be justified and could be accounted for--maybe not justified, but accounted for.

Could you, whoever wants to, make a comment on the Auditor General's comment.

º (1600)

The Chair: Mr. Ste-Marie.

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chair, I will ask Mr. Gilmore, my colleague, to deal with that question.

The Chair: Mr. Gilmore.

Mr. Alan Gilmore (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): We were concerned in the report about accountability to Parliament, getting the full costs of the program reported, as there has been agreement that this was to be managed as a major crown project, and this was the reporting that was required.

In terms of the reasons why this occurred, the reasons we report in the report are the reasons given to us by the Department of Justice. They're not the reasons we created, or we researched, or we developed; those are the Department of Justice's reasons. The Department of Justice told us that one of the cost increases they believed to be a result of the provinces not giving them the cooperation they expected. However, most of the costs of the provinces were going to be reimbursed by the federal government in any case, so the provinces weren't co-sharing the program, as far as we understand it. There were revenue reductions, because the fees were reduced to encourage, as has been noted, registration and licensing. So fees were reduced.

In regard to the question of attempts to sabotage the system, we don't have any evidence on that and we did not look at it, so I can't talk to it. It's a new program, that's true. I don't think we attributed that in particular this was different from any other new program, but it is, as you say, a new program.

I think the Auditor General mentioned that we did not find that money had been misappropriated. What we were interested in was the use of the money fully reported to Parliament and whether all the costs were fully reported to Parliament.

Ms. Beth Phinney: What you just said is clear to everybody, that the Auditor General's report did not find that money had been misappropriated. Thank you.

Also in our discussions on March 26 it was mentioned that the processes, the way it was supposed to go with spending.... The bill comes into the House, and it passes stages in the House. If more money is needed, it normally would go to Treasury Board for a request for more money; and then I think it goes to the cabinet for approval, and then it is voted on. But these processes of getting more money, at each stage when more money was asked for, were followed in the House of Commons.

The fact that the MPs were not aware of it was more because we don't look at the estimates. We don't see what's going on, because we just say we don't have time to look at the estimates. We now have formed in the last few months a new estimates committee. But what I understood when we did this before was that it didn't skip the process of going to Treasury Board and getting an okay, and it didn't skip being approved of in the House. It's simply that we were not aware of it, that we were not made aware of it, and a good deal of that is our fault--“our fault” meaning the MPs' fault--for not looking at the estimates.

Mr. Alan Gilmore: I wouldn't want to comment on MPs. But I will comment on internal processes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are referring to the supplementary estimates. To get the supplementary estimates approved by the House, the steps had to be taken, because a proposal had to be submitted to the Treasury Board Secretariat and be approved by Treasury Board and then be put into an appropriation.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Was that done each time more money was asked for?

Mr. Alan Gilmore: Yes, it was done.

As we noted in the report, our concern was simply that 70% of the funding was done through supplementary appropriations, which was very unusual. We considered that to be an inappropriate use of the supplementary estimates process.

º (1605)

Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay. Again, it wasn't that any money had been mismanaged or misappropriated, and the proper steps were followed to get approval of funds in the House of Commons—even if you think it was over the amount it should have been?

Mr. Alan Gilmore: Yes.

In our view, you wouldn't normally get 70% of the funding for a major program through supplementary estimates.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay, but there was nothing irregular about the process other than that?

Mr. Alan Gilmore: Other than that, right.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Ritz, please. We're now on round two, which will be four minutes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, a lot of you were involved in the process as it carried on. Were any of you involved with ongoing discussions with the provinces and territories? Everybody seems so shocked that they didn't stay onside, and of course, those of us representing the other provincial governments realize why, but I'm just wondering if you guys were involved in any of those discussions back and forth.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Mr. Chair, I have to say that I arrived at the program on the same day as the reference was heard by the Supreme Court. So I arrived late in the process, when discussions with the provinces had already broken down, as you might say.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Were there no discussions with the provinces and territories following that?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: There were always ongoing discussions with the provinces. Part of the issue was that the management process in place spoke to accountability when I arrived. As I said, my position was newly created, and it was created as a result of some observations made in earlier assessments of why things were going they way they were. I did speak significantly of logistical, technical, and management challenges.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Okay.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Part of it was that there was no central, single point of accountability up until that point in time.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Was being that single point your job, then?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Correct.

Therefore, one of the things that were happening up to that time--and it continued after my time there, though I don't know if it has continued until this day—was that the area of administration of justice was a split jurisdiction, if you will. So while the Department of Justice had responsibility for writing the legislation and ensuring the passage of it and all the appropriate mechanisms through the House of Commons, the administration of the program, as originally envisaged, was going to be undertaken by each of the provincial jurisdictions in their own capacities.

As you're aware, that's where things started to break down, when various provinces took on various views about the constitutionality of the legislation.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Okay. Part of what the provinces--

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Mr. Webster.

Mr. Gary Webster: When I started in July 2001, when Madame Flumian was there, we were still working very closely in delivering the program, with the provinces still working in partnership with the firearms program nationally. And we were still meeting on quite a regular basis for consultations and taking advice, and that sort of thing.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Right.

Part of what the provinces and territories were asking for was a cost-benefit analysis. Was one ever done?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: In my sojourn at the centre, we worked on a regular basis, and work had been undertaken on that.

Again, though, I remind anybody who has an interest in this file that the assumptions on which some of that costing had been based were no longer valid. As the assumptions were radically changing by the time of my arrival, and long before that, we almost had to go back to the drawing board, if you will. We managed the process by having, first of all, federal-provincial agreements governing the management of the program and the costs that we would actually pick up and, secondly, a daily operations committee in which our operations folks and the provincial folks had daily conference calls across the country on how this thing was being conducted.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: That doesn't go to my question.

The provinces answer to the same constituents as the federal government does. They were asking for a cost-benefit analysis on how this was going to work out in the long term, but was one ever done to help?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I can only speak of my time there, but work had begun. The assumptions people were operating under, however, were changing so radically that the work that had begun was not very valid, even by the time I had arrived.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: The gun control system was initiated in 1995.

º (1610)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: That's correct.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: The first deadline was in 2001, six years later, and it still wasn't right. In that six-year period, did no one realize that the assumptions this was based on were wrong? Were they that far out of kilter in six years? In all of those back-and-forth meetings over six years, I just can't believe that a cost-benefit analysis was never done when the assumptions started to be proven false.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: That work had been underway.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Are there copies of it that you could table with us, that we could have a look at?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Based on the same undertaking I gave earlier, I will go back to see what is available in the files.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: All right.

The Chair: And if you can't find anything in the files...?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I will alert the clerk in the same fashion, though I won't personally be searching the files.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: No, I understand.

Mr. Webster carried on after you, so we would be most interested in having a look at anything that happened under his tenure too, under those same parameters.

Mr. Gary Webster: If you're going back to 1995, Mr. Chair, I believe some information was provided to the committee through the clerk last Friday that speaks to this to some degree. Whether it speaks totally to the question you're asking, sir, I'm not sure.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: It's not from that point on.

The Chair: Mr. Webster, the information he's referring to is a document from the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Martin Cauchon, dated May 1. It was circulated at today's meeting. It talks about whether the due diligence study and potential costs of the program were performed before its implementation. It includes an itemized breakdown of the cost of the program from its inception until the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, and all regulatory impact analysis statements on the financial programs. So it's a substantive document that has been circulated.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ritz.

Monsieur Gaudet, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Let us say that after reading the report Mr. Martin Cauchon sent us this morning, I am not ready to say that Ms. Robillard is wrong, because she could not spend all her time dealing with accounts, but let me say nonetheless that she was slightly wrong and that she was not able to follow the project, and neither was Mr. Cauchon because he's new. And now, we are dealing with the Solicitor General of Canada.

Who will be accountable for all these expenses, if we do not lay the blame on successive ministers? Will Human Resources Development or the Department of Justice be blamed for all these expenses, which will soon amount to more than a billion dollars?

In fact, the project probably originated in the Department of Justice with regard to firearms registration. At that time, that department should have suspected at the outset that this would cost a few million more. This is about as much as we understand.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, please, for four minutes.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to thank the people who gave me the opportunity to be here. It's the first time I've been back to a committee dealing the registration program since I fought hour after hour on Bill C-68 in the justice committee. I remember that, back at the beginning of 1995.

One of the things that didn't surprise me was Ms. Flumian mentioning how rapidly the assumptions had been changing over a period of time. I can remember the heated debates we had at the time about how the assumptions had to be completely out of kilter and should be addressed.

Of course, as an MP dealing actively with my constituents ever since this program began, the most frustrating part of it in trying to serve the people in my constituency has been the hundreds and hundreds of people in my one riding who have brought to me documents they have received with false information, including wrong names, wrong numbers, and wrong weapons. I don't know how many mistakes they brought to my attention. Then there was the effort my office made on their behalf to try to phone and contact the people to get some answers as to what they should do. They spent hours trying to get through on the phone, and they could never get through. People became very frustrated quickly, so I can understand why everything went like this. They weren't answering letters, and they were sending money and getting no receipts or responses. It was really pathetic.

But then along came this report recently from the Auditor General. After the report of the Auditor General came out, the Prime Minister said, “Some people have been demoted, some lost their job in the process....” We've asked the Minister of Justice and we've asked the Prime Minister, and I'm going to ask you people here, could you please tell us how many people were demoted? Here's a chance to clear the air.

º (1615)

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, before we have the response, you are quoting the Prime Minister from where?

Mr. Myron Thompson: I don't know where the quote came from; it's in quotes. I think it's a quote from question period.

The Chair: I think you're talking about The Ottawa Citizen on December 19, 2002.

Mr. Myron Thompson: That's where the quote came from.

The Chair: When you make a quotation, you should be able to give the reference of where it's coming from.

Okay, so that's the quotation. Ms. Flumian, do you have a response?

Mr. Myron Thompson: The question is, how many people were demoted and lost their jobs, and what positions did they hold?

The Chair: Mr. Webster.

Mr. Gary Webster: I'm not familiar with the quote.

As you know, I am no longer the chief executive officer of the firearms program. I now have a successor. I was in the position until the early part of February. I'm not exactly sure when that quote was made, but I presume that it was before—

The Chair: I do happen to have it in front of me, from The Ottawa Citizen, dated December 19, 2002. The headline was: “Public servants fired over gun registry: PM Heads rolled after costs mushroomed to $1B, Chrétien says”. And there is a quote in here:

“Some people have been demoted, some lost their job in the process, it's not the same people who are in charge today," Mr. Chrétien told Global Television in a year-end television interview....

So that's the quote and the reference. I think that's what you're talking to there, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson: That's it.

Mr. Gary Webster: Based on the reference, I would not know what information was being used at that point. Certainly, I was still the CEO at the time, and was until the early part of February, so I couldn't be certain about whom the Prime Minister would have been referring to.

Mr. Myron Thompson: But who was fired, and how many people?

Mr. Gary Webster: I wouldn't know that.

Mr. Myron Thompson: What's puzzling to me is that we have known for quite some time, or from the inception of this program in 1995 and onward, that the costs were spinning completely out of control, according to the figures we were presented with at the very beginning on where we were going with this program. I think that was known back in 1995 and 1996.

At that time, were any reports being made from your particular area to anybody that this was happening? I don't recall those things being reported to Parliament. If they weren't, I'd like to know why not; and if they were, please inform me.

The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Flumian.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Mr. Chair, I think it's fair to say that everyone who has appeared before this committee has again acknowledged the logistical, technical, and management challenges facing this program virtually from its inception; and the fact that the assumptions that had been made kept changing; and the fact that the complexities built into the entire system and the process—the joint jurisdiction, the split accountabilities, and so on and so forth—led to many, many, many changes over time.

The fact that our colleagues from the Auditor General's office have commented on the use of the supplementary estimates process is a further indication....The fact is that we've also all admitted that in the process there were many changes undertaken—most of them, unfortunately, being off the budget cycle, which didn't allow us to report in the normal ways. But that supplementary estimates process is one that draws more attention to the nature of those supplementary estimates and the reason those dollars are being voted.

So I don't think there was any attempt on anybody's part to say there were not significant issues and challenges facing this program. Those concerns were felt from relatively early on in the process. Again, I go back to the point that my position was created in response to many of these issues having been raised.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Breitkreuz, please, for four minutes.

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

Ms. Flumian, you said you arrived on the day the provinces were having their challenges heard in the Supreme Court. The Auditor General reported to us that problems had developed. You made the statement that “The oversight committees were set in place before my arrival”. Who was responsible before you arrived in the department to take over?

º (1620)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: The responsibility for the Canadian firearms program was housed under the assistant deputy minister of—I think the title was—policy.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Who was that?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Mr. Rick Mosley, criminal policy.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I think it is imperative, in light of the testimony we have heard, that we call Mr. Mosley. I think it's important to ask him to come before the committee to answer these critical questions and I think that's something we should add on today, to call him.

The Chair: We'll do this after the meeting. In the meantime, continue with your questions.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. I simply want to make sure that's on the records as something we need to do.

Mr. Webster, you said on March 26, with respect to other organizations, that there had by that time, July 1, 2001, ceased to be a day-to-day involvement between the other organizations and the firearms centre. Why did you stop the day-to-day involvement with the other organizations that were responsible for helping you implement the firearms program?

Mr. Gary Webster: I don't think I was that general in my comment. I think what I inferred, if I didn't say it directly, is that we were still maintaining very close contact with the provincial governments who were still working as partners with us in the delivery of the program. We were certainly working very closely with police organizations all across the country, both chiefs of police and the police associations. We were working closely with provincial organizations, such as wildlife organizations and things like that.

At the federal level, we were working very closely with the RCMP, for obvious reasons. We were working closely with the CCRA because of the implications with respect to import-export issues that had arisen within the implementation of the program.

In addition to that, I said a very important series of consultations and discussions were ongoing with the aboriginal communities with respect to the implementation of the program as well. So we were in fact continuing very extensive consultations on that general level.

The point I think I made last time was that a specific question was raised around the report of the AG, who referred specifically, I think--and they may want to correct me if I'm wrong--the National Parole Board and Correctional Services of Canada. In addition to that, there may well have been other areas they had identified. But for all intents and purposes, what I said was that by the time I arrived in July 2001, we still were maintaining a very clear relationship with the federal partners that I mentioned, as well as all of the others across the country.

With respect to those two organizations, by the time I arrived there had ceased to be day-to-day discussions or monthly discussions or ongoing discussions between us and those organizations with respect to the implementation of the program.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: What's the significance of July 1, 2001? What happened on that day?

Mr. Gary Webster: I keep saying July 1; July 4 is the day I started as CEO. I keep referring to July 1, but the beginning of July is when I became the CEO, so I was referring in the March 26 testimony to the point at which I became the CEO of the Firearms Centre.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay.

The Auditor General reports that the centre was designated a single point of accountability for the program, but this was never implemented. Can you explain why?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I think this is one of those areas in which we have an honest difference of opinion with the Auditor General. This has to do with the way appropriations are voted. They're voted department by department, with an accountable minister being responsible for the appropriations they're responsible for. So I think this speaks to the issue of how we were reporting those expenditures to Parliament, reporting for the Canadian Firearms Centre's associated costs. I think since then arrangements have been made to try to report along the lines that the Auditor General has asked for, and I think on a go-forward basis that is the way the department has proceeded.

º (1625)

The Chair: I think the point is you're not reporting costs, Ms. Flumian; you're asking authority to spend the money. There's a significant difference.

Mr. Breitkreuz, your time has elapsed.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have a very brief point.

The Chair: A very brief point, then.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. The centre's status as a single point of accountability was underlined in the 1997 project charter, so that charter was still in effect. So why is the concept of a single point of accountability not in effect? I mean, I think the Auditor General is right.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Again, the moneys aren't voted that way. And one of the aspects of the legislation that was introduced some time ago and has recently passed is to create that single point of accountability in law.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Perhaps the Auditor General could comment on that as well.

The Chair: Do you have a comment, Mr. Ste-Marie?

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie: Yes.

The Chair: My apologies.

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie: Actually, the single point of accountability, as Mr. Breitkreuz did note, was part of the charter. Secondly, these other costs were included in the initial costs of the program, you will recall.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Ritz, four minutes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Following up on my colleague's questions on the firings and demotings that the Prime Minister mused about in December 2002, Mr. Webster, you were still the CEO at that time. Did you receive a memo or anything from the Prime Minister saying this person isn't up to performance, or did you send him a memo saying this person should be fired or demoted? Was there any consultation back and forth between you, as the CEO, and the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Justice, for that matter?

Mr. Gary Webster: No, I never had direct correspondence or dealings with the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: So no one was ever fired or demoted, to the best of your knowledge.

Mr. Gary Webster: I can't say one way or the other. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know one way or the other. I don't know what the Prime Minister may have been referring to.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Were you asked to fire anybody? Did you fire anybody?

Mr. Gary Webster: No, I did not.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: So the Prime Minister was just musing with his homeless friend again.

The Chair: We'll take that as an editorial comment.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: All right.

Ms. Flumian, you talk about the assumptions changing constantly. The same thing happened under Mr. Webster's tenure as well, I'm assuming, that the assumptions get.... Just under yours?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: No. I think assumptions had been changing up until a certain point in time--

Mr. Gerry Ritz: What would that point be?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: They continued to change for a period of time during my time there. As I mentioned earlier, the first issue was to develop some realistic assumptions as to what could be achieved in the licensing phase.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: What time was that done? What year? Could you give me that?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: That was done in the year leading up to the licensing program having to be implemented, which was--

Mr. Gerry Ritz: In 2001.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: The year 2000.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Okay, the year 2000, culminating in 2001.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: That was the first chunk. Stabilize assumptions and actually be able to deal with assumptions and cost assumptions that would lead us to issues having to do with licensing.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: When were those assumptions set, to begin with? You said they changed in 2000. When were they set?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Well, no.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: This program started in 1995.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: They were changing over that entire period of time; they were evolving. If you'd like, I can go into some detail as to what some of those were and how they were changing.

The Chair: Do you need the detail, Mr. Ritz?

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Not at this point, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Having said that, it took us some months to come to some determination about the veracity of some of those views. The first thing we did was launch a fairly extensive consultation program, one with all the provinces, on why the chief firearms officers across those jurisdictions had come to the assumptions and conclusions they had come to and whether those were still holding.

Remember, I had said about 400,000 Canadians were actually licensed by the time I arrived, and we knew there were 2.3 million active firearms owners in this country and we had very few months--

Mr. Gerry Ritz: How did you establish that number of 2.3 million?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We undertook public opinion research to come to that determination.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: If you were called on the phone--

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I'm still answering my question.

That was the first series of assumptions we had to test and nail down, because it was on the basis of those that we had to come to some determinations about costs. This speaks to the point of how this was an off-cycle process.

Having arrived some time in February, we were well into a budget cycle process where we were having to test these assumptions and quickly nail them down, because the licensing phase had to be concluded by the end of December.

We launched fairly significant consultations with all the provincial CFOs. We had to launch fairly significant consultations with, obviously, our colleagues at the RCMP; obviously, with as many representatives of the firearms community as we could; with representatives of those who spoke in favour of the legislation; with aboriginal communities; with the policing community, which had a fairly good idea of what was transpiring across this land, both at the level of the chiefs and at the level of the rank and file; and we had to generally take advice from as many people as we could as to these assumptions, the veracity of these assumptions, and how you could quickly turn those into real-time costs and real-time assumptions about what you thought could be achieved by the end of that licensing phase. That was the first phase of testing assumptions.

As our focus was on licensing over that very short timeframe, assumptions were continuing to roll about the registration phase. So after we dealt with the licensing phase, if we were successful in achieving the targets we had set in licensing, it changed virtually all the assumptions that were in place on registration. Having achieved the licensing target, you could then move to make some significant changes to the way the registration process would then unfold, which would also have an impact on costs. By the way, it would be to bring the costs down.

Those were the two key elements of the legislation that had to be achieved. There were others, but those were the two major cornerstones that speak to public safety.

Over and above that, as I said in my earlier comments, the next phase and the second and most important of what I was challenged with undertaking--licensing being the first--was putting in place a restructuring plan that would actually nail down some of those assumptions in a more realistic fashion, given what we knew at that point in time, having come through the licensing phase. We then moved to solidify some of those assumptions, bringing in new cost estimates that would speak to those specific assumptions. We then moved from those assumptions to costing in the appropriate fashion so we could come forward with the costing parameters that we did.

º (1630)

The Chair: I think we're going to stop there, because I'm lost.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Yes.

The Chair: As Mr. Ritz has no further questions, we'll move on to Mr. Thompson's four minutes.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I probably won't need four minutes.

It is a very confusing thing. What I'm hearing is not making it any simpler, in my mind, but then I haven't been as closely involved with the whole process as I would have liked to be. I was called to other positions and was away from it.

I'm capable of making some assumptions as well as other people, so I'm going to make some assumptions. I hope they're not nearly as bad as the initial assumptions I've seen on this program.

I'm going to assume, right from the very beginning, there was a reporting made by the department before you arrived there, Mr. Webster, of the progress and what was happening in terms of the amount of money being required to implement this whole idea. This must have been going on for a fairly long time. You didn't get there until 2001, I understand, so we have about a five-year period.

I'm going to assume the people there prior to you must have been reporting to somebody the information about the costs and how they were spinning out of control. I'm assuming it would have been the minister's office. That's an assumption. I'm going to make the assumption this was done regularly and that your department kept copies of these reports in regard to that.

It blows my mind that we waited almost seven years to get a report from the Auditor General to give us the whole picture. Why weren't these reports made to Parliament? Why weren't they available through access to information when guys like me had no other choice except to apply through access to information to see if there were any reports we could get our hands on--and we couldn't? Why was it so quiet? Then all of a sudden we get this booming report from the Auditor General. It just doesn't make sense to me.

The Chair: Ms. Flumian.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Mr. Chair, I don't remember my time at the centre as one of quietness and solitude and contemplation. I do remember it as one in which this item was forever in the public eye, and on which we were called by many parties on many occasions to go forward and talk about what we were doing.

There was a long period of time when people were aware that the assumptions that had originally been made were not accurate. It's why the position I held was originally created. Lots of steps were made--and I went through them in some detail at our last appearance before you--as to how some of them would be wrestled to the ground, firmed up, and appropriately costed.

We did achieve the public safety dimensions of the licensing program. I'll let Mr. Webster speak to the achievements under the registration program. We did put into place a restructuring plan. This has resulted in lowering the cost of delivery of what has been a complex and complicated program to begin with, where the assumptions were constantly changing.

The Chair: Mr. Webster.

Mr. Gary Webster: I would just add to this the fact that it was around this time--just prior to and post Ms. Flumian's arrival--that it was realized there needed to be some restructuring and this program was developed. It was through Ms. Flumian's efforts that a restructuring plan was developed, both for the licensing and on the registration side.

I think the point is that this was when it was recognized that there were some complexities and some things that could be simplified. One of the outcomes of this recognition was Bill C-10A and the changes that piece of legislation makes clear. This was the culmination of the realization that some of those original assumptions in fact no longer held and had to be changed.

º (1635)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Webster.

Mr. Myron Thompson: The point we are making on this is that there was no reporting of the progress during that time. If there was, it must have been to a minister; we didn't really get the true picture until we saw the Auditor General's report seven years later.

I just don't understand it, I'm sorry. It hasn't been clarified in my mind at all as to why I couldn't get my hands on a document of any kind, being a member of Parliament, since the implementation of this program in 1995. By 1996, this happened.

The Chair: Perhaps we'll come back to that, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'd like to know why we're not getting an answer.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz is next, then you can ask that question again after they've had time to contemplate a response.

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

I'd like to follow up on something I asked in my previous round. Can I conclude that really you're telling us all the mistakes were made by Mr. Mosley?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: No, sir, I never said that. I wouldn't attribute the issues and the challenges of this program to any one place. I would not do that.

We spoke of the issues involving the different views from our provincial partners. We spoke of the fact that several jurisdictions withdrew from what were seen and costed as their responsibilities in the administration of this program.

We spoke of the complexities of the bill introduced in the parliamentary process. We spoke of a regulatory process that introduced other complexities. We spoke of the desire of the police to have active information available to them in real time in the process.

We spoke of the fact that Quebec wanted to have its own processing site. We talked about the fact that B.C. ended up with its own processing site. And we talked about--I think in my opening statements last time around--the fact that the Miramichi central processing site had never been contemplated in the original cost, but at the request of all the provinces, this central processing site was added. There are many very different reasons why the cost of the program increased.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Let me interpret it another way. You're saying nobody is to blame; it all just happened. It all just spun out of control and nobody was really in charge. Look at what the Auditor General said. The main point the Auditor General made in her report was that Parliament was kept in the dark. The reason we're having these hearings is to enlighten us, to shed light on this; and with all due respect, you're not doing that. That's not happening here today.

Just take what the Auditor General said in paragraph 10.82: “The problems identified by the internal audits and their implications were not reported to the Government”.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: No--

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I want to have an explanation as to why they were they not reported to the government. That's what the Auditor General said.

The Chair: Is that a quote?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, it's a quote from the Auditor General: “were not reported to the Government”. This is a direct quote from the Auditor General.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I would have the Auditor General speak to the point. There have been no attempts on any of our parts to answer your questions in anything but a fulsome and truthful manner.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I can certainly speak for myself, and I think I can speak on behalf of all my colleagues, that every time we appeared before a standing committee, every time we appeared before any committee of the House to make any information asked of us available.... Any request for information made directly to me while I was CEO of the Firearms Centre I was always happy to deal with in a forthright manner.

The Chair: Okay.

Let's ask the Auditor General about her own writings.

You are saying that in paragraph 10.82 the Auditor General writes, “The problems identified in the internal audit and their implications were not reported to the Government”. That is a direct quote from the document before us.

º (1640)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It's a Library of Parliament document.

The Chair: Mr. Ste-Marie.

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'll ask Mr. Gilmore to draw from the report, if I may.

Mr. Alan Gilmore: I'd like to try to give you a sense of what is in this report, as perhaps it isn't being interpreted the way we intended it to be when we wrote it.

The information here on the history of the program--how it was developed and the reasons those costs escalated over time--was given in Department of Justice documents within the government. So if you read it, where we say that information was given to the House of Commons, such as in paragraph 10.28, where we say: “In May 2000 the Department told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that it had spent at least $327 million on the Program. However, at about the same time the Department informed the Government”--meaning the internal government, not Parliament--“that it estimated that the cost of development and implementation would be over $1 billion by 2004-05”.

The report outlines for parliamentarians the reasons given by the department to government ministers, Treasury Board, and other officials. The reference to “internal audits” in paragraph 10.82 is to internal audits conducted by the department's internal audit division. They issued these internal audits, some of which are still on the website of the Department of Justice; some were there and are no longer there--or at least I think they may not be there. The reasons given in paragraph 10.81 were about deficiencies that the internal audit division of the Department of Justice reported.

What we found was that these deficiencies had not been reported within the government; they had also not been reported in Parliament, but they had not been reported to government. So what you see is information that was reported within the government and then, in paragraph 10.81, information that was not reported to the government but was kept within the department and there.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Ritz, please, four minutes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to that point as well?

The Chair: Yes, briefly.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Thank you.

Very quickly, the purpose of internal audit reports, of which there were six conducted on the program between 1997 and 2000, which includes my time there, is to create a management tool to assist management in actually making improvements to programs should improvements be required. Many of the observations made by the Auditor General were picked up directly from those internal audit reports, which were available on websites. Again, there was no attempt to keep this information secret, private, or make it unavailable to Canadians who should chose to look for it.

Again, many of those audit reports and their findings were incorporated in the changes we were making to the program as we went.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Webster, you just left in February, a couple of months ago. Is the program on track now?

Mr. Gary Webster: I think in February the minister made some announcements with respect to an action plan that is now being implemented. The program, as a result of that, has been transferred to the Solicitor General's office.

The program they would now be working on involves the operations required to finalize the registrations that came due on December 31, 2002. I think the former minister laid out some pretty clear plans with respect to how the government is going to proceed. How the new minister will view that, the new minister's interpretation, will have to come in the coming days, I suppose.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I would say the justice minister is breathing the same sigh of relief as you did when you left there in February. It's great to be out from under it.

Six amnesty periods have been named to date, and the last one ends in June. Does that not speak to how this is totally unenforceable at the end of the day?

Mr. Gary Webster: That would not be my take on it. I think, through the course of this whole program, particularly since Ms. Flumian arrived, it has been restructured and refocused in such a way that this would help Canadians across the country seek to conform with the law and the regulations resulting from that law. I think those amnesties were there simply to ensure that the average Canadian--business owners and others--were given every opportunity to comply with legislation and a change in law that was, in and of itself, a departure from the main course. I think those were designed with the sole purpose in mind of encouraging people to comply with the law.

º (1645)

Mr. Gerry Ritz: The government likes to say that the police associations across this country are using the website 2,000 times a day to track and so on. Yet I talk to front-line RCMP officers, to police officers and so on, and they're saying, no, it is not a useful tool for them. The information is so inaccurate and so hard to acquire in a timely manner that it does them no good at all.

Now, these are the front-line officers. I'm not talking about the politicized chiefs of police and so on; I'm talking about the front-line officers who are going up to the doorway. They're saying that they're logging on, they can't get through when they need to--it's the same problem I have with my constituents--and when they do get information, it's not accurate. So at the end of the day, we have a registry that does not speak to public safety.

Mr. Gary Webster: I have a point of clarification there. It's not our website that provides that information. It's the CFRO system.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I understand that. You also feed it.

Mr. Gary Webster: It's in fact ultimately the police who feed that system through the various mechanisms that are in place on the RCMP site--

Mr. Gerry Ritz: From your information....

Mr. Gary Webster: --and their relationship with the policing organizations across the country. I'm sure you could find a number of front-line police officers anywhere in the country who might say exactly what you said.

I think at the same time we've been relying on the leadership both on the chiefs of police side and on the police association side when they have stated very clearly in recent hearings both at the Senate and within the standing committee here that they would not want to see that disappear. It is in fact very useful to police across the country on a daily basis. It is being used upwards of 2,000 times a day. I think the figures there speak for themselves with respect to whether it's of use or not.

Now, the government continues to work in consultation with policing organizations to ensure that all aspects of the implementation side continuously improve as a result of all of the changes, the restructuring, and the plans that have recently been announced by the minister. So that will continue and changes will be made, as required.

The Chair: Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Then how do you square Chief Fantino's line in saying that of the 74 homicides, I think it was, in Toronto, not one of them committed with a handgun, a long gun, or whatever, was solved by the help of this registry? He said that it was a complete and utter waste. Now, this is Chief Fantino, the head of the largest police force in the country. So you don't have him on side.

Mr. Gary Webster: I can't respond in that respect, but I can say that the statistics with respect to how police are using the CFRO line daily, I think, speak volumes about the use to police.

The NWEST organization was put in place two years ago. There are over 3,000 files that policing organizations across the country have gone to NWEST on for advice and assistance; there are 1,800 tracings that NWEST has assisted police organizations on, as well as--

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Over what period of time were there 1,800 tracings?

Mr. Gary Webster: We're talking about the two years just past.

The reality is that the front line out there in the form of police organizations themselves, the municipal police forces, the city police forces, are in fact very significantly using the services of the firearms organization, including the NWEST support organization.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

I want to come back to the report and the question I had about the accounting of the costs.

We received a plans and priorities report from the justice department recently, and that report is full of blanks where the numbers are not filled in. Yet I'm hearing you say we had all of this well accounted for, the costs were clearly spelled out in the audits. I don't see that. We can't get that. In fact, the Auditor General said there was spending taking place that they couldn't trace in a whole number of departments and they gave up. It would have been more than a billion dollars by the end of next year.

º (1650)

The Chair: Mr. Ste-Marie.

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie: Yes, indeed, we did give up because not all the costs were included. We could not find all of them. If you want more specifics, I can let Mr. Gilmore--

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think it's up to Ms. Flumian to answer that question. You're claiming it's all laid out clearly and they're saying it's not.

The Chair: I think that Mr. Ste-Marie has given his answer.

Do you have any comment to make, Ms. Flumian?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I think I've spoken extensively to my answer. And I can't speak to the more recent period that Mr. Breitkreuz is referring to.

The Chair: Mr. Webster.

Mr. Gary Webster: My understanding is that the accommodation that's been reached between the AG and the Department of Justice--and I would appreciate some clarification, if I'm not correct--is that the information to which the honourable member refers is to be published within the fall departmental performance report. If I'm not incorrect, the blanks that you're referring to for this particular report are an indication of what information in fact will be following once arrangements have been reached.

The minister, in his previous deliberations, had indicated he would identify the additional information that would be required and it would be reported in the fall departmental performance report. That's my understanding, to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: There is a single point of accountability. Why isn't that available now?

Mr. Gary Webster: While there was no effort on anyone's part to misinform or mislead Parliament, I think the minister, in his appearance before this committee, did say that information was provided on an ongoing basis in accordance with understood processes and procedures. And he responded that every effort was now being made to ensure that this did not occur in the future. I think he generally recognized that there would have to be adjustments and changes and that fairly much was reflected in his ongoing action plan.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It's my understanding that all of the major additional costs that would be incurred have to be reported with the government's own rules, and it's called their regulatory impact analysis statement. Those mandate that all of these major additional costs should be accountable. You're in fact telling us now that this didn't happen.

Mr. Gary Webster: No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I think the impact statement to which you refer would have been done early in the program, when the program was being considered by Parliament as a program that should be undertaken in the country. So that information was provided at that time, which would have dealt with those issues.

I may be mistaken here, and certainly there may be other advice you might want to seek, but I don't know of any ongoing requirement for those kinds of analyses. Those results were made available at that time, and all I'm responding to right now is your initial question with respect to--

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay, let me simplify this. The Auditor General said that the additional costs were not all reported. We want to know why. I believe that's what the Auditor General said, and I want to know why.

The Chair: Does the Auditor General have any comment about what numbers were not reported?

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie: We have some areas that were not reported, and perhaps we can go through those.

Mr. Alan Gilmore: The way the audit proceeded is that we asked the Department of Justice to provide us with information on the full cost of the program. We had audit criteria that said that the full cost of the program should be reported in terms of the purposes for which they were obtained.

The department accepted the audit criteria. The Minister of Justice, as we understand it, has agreed to report all the costs of the program, meaning not only the costs of the Canadian Firearms Centre, which is located in the Department of Justice, but also all costs incurred by the government.

The Chair: I still don't quite get it.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm having a hard time.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I think the government has agreed on a go-forward basis that that's what they will do, and I think the document Mr. Breitkreuz was reading from, Mr. Chair, indicates that the government has agreed to do that. Mr. Webster has said that in the fall the reporting will have caught up.

The Chair: So I guess there's going to be a big black hole or gap for the previous years. Am I correct? Is that a wrong assumption or a right assumption that I'm making? The information that wasn't reported from previous years we will never have?

º (1655)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: No, Mr. Chair. I think the advice we're getting is that they are now in the process of realigning those costs so that you can go on a retrospective basis along those lines. It's just taking some time to do that.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Do you have any idea how far over the billion dollars it's going to go now with all these other additional costs?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Finlay, welcome. Do you have any questions, or do you want to wait a little while?

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): No, I won't enter the debate right now, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay.Mr. Ritz, four minutes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As currently as yesterday when we were debating Bill C-10A--that's the son of Bill C-68--the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General claimed that there was a 90% compliance rate at this point. Do you agree with that?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I can speak to the licensing point, which is the time I was there for. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: But Mr. Webster was there up until February, so this Bill C-10A was introduced before your tenure was finished and so on. So you would agree that there's a 90% compliance rate. Is that right?

Mr. Gary Webster: If you're referring to the licensing, that's correct.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Okay.

I'm looking at the main estimates from last year, which were roughly $36 million. Next year they're going to jump to $113 million plus $15 million for the privatization component, to total $128 million. If there's a 90% compliance rate, I'm wondering why you need three times the budget.

Mr. Gary Webster: I'm sorry, I will have to ask you to ask the question again. I apologize.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: You're agreeing that the 90% compliance rate is reasonably accurate.The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General were talking about that even yesterday, when we debated Bill C-10A.

Mr. Gary Webster: Yes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I'm looking at the main estimates from last year. It started at $36 million--

The Chair: Is that 2002?

Mr. Gerry Ritz: For 2002-03, $36 million--rough numbers--and next year, with a 90% compliance rate, you're going to spend three times that. I'm wondering how you square that. Why is it going to take that huge amount of money, three times the amount, when you're already at 90%?

Mr. Gary Webster: The first point I would make is that in reality the annual costs of the program are actually coming down on an annual basis now, and have for two years. We've roughly seen a 50% reduction since the year 2000-01. Those costs, as I say, have been reduced over that period of time.

The reason those reductions were taking place is that we were finally moving through. We have gotten through the lion's share of the licensing side, and that's where the lion's share of the investment so far in program has gone, on the licensing side. As we moved ahead from the licensing into the registration phase, we had developed within the licensing phase the database with respect to, ultimately, the 1.9 million firearms owners out there who had undertaken to licence themselves.

So we now had direct contact with those people who had applied for licences. Obviously, as a result of that, the requirements for resources became less than they previously were because we were now able to deal directly with people as opposed to it being on a very general basis.

With that having occurred, we were then in the position of continuing with the registration. That's in fact what we did. We went ahead with the implementation of the registration. The registration program was now dealing directly with those people who had licensed, so the costs came down. That would have been toward the end of 2001-02 and in the previous fiscal year, 2001-02. I hope I have those correct.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I got it.

Mr. Gary Webster: So there were reductions there as well.

The reality is that this program will continue to reduce costs. However, it has more than only the licensing and the registration components to it. You will always have to maintain it. You have to review licences, both individual licences and business licences, so there are costs associated with that over time.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Not for five years.

Mr. Gary Webster: That's right. In addition to that, you have events that occur on a daily basis in this country that are investigated by police organizations.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: But that isn't part of your budget.

Mr. Gary Webster: Well, yes, it is, although not the investigations. The investigations are undertaken when we are made aware of the fact that somebody who has a licence and is in possession of guns has been reported through the police databases as have having run into some difficulty of some kind.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: You must be looking at a huge amount of investigations, because--

Mr. Gary Webster: It's imperative that the firearms organization, when notified of that fact, make a determination through our provincial delivery points as to whether that person should continue to be in possession of both the firearms and of a licence. You will see costs associated with that as time continues on. Just the conducting of business on a day-to-day basis with respect to people advising firearms officers and chief firearms officers across the country that they require--

» (1700)

Mr. Gerry Ritz: If I may interject, Mr. Webster, you've had those types of investigations going on since 2000-01, so are you now saying they're going to expand to the point at which you'll need three times the budget?

Mr. Gary Webster: No, I didn't say expand. I said--

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I'm talking about the fiscal budget going up three times for next year as compared to the last fiscal year.

Mr. Gary Webster: I don't know where those numbers come from, because the reality is that the numbers are going down.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: No, they're not, not in the main estimates.

The Chair: Would you give me that, so I can quote it into the record? Then we'll know exactly what--

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I'm talking about main estimates, not sups, Mr. Chair. They are your main estimates and that's what they're asking for--

The Chair: All right, for 2002-03, and this is the letter we received from the President of the Treasury Board. For 2002-03, the main estimates were $35,795,000 and for 2003-04, it's $113,100,000. Last year there was a supplementary estimate (B) of $59 million, for a total of $95 million in total that was given throughout the year. And this year in the mains, I see you've already asked for $113 million and who knows about sups (A), (B) and (C)?

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Right.

The Chair: Those are the facts, so I don't think there's a specific explanation at this point in time. Anyway, your time is up, Mr. Ritz.

I want to ask a couple of questions myself.

I'm referring to a letter dated February 26, 2003, to me from the Auditor General, which was circulated to all members of the committee, and it deals with major crown projects. I'm reading from the letter:

The Treasury Board's policy on major Crown projects states: “A project is deemed to be a Major Crown Project when its estimated cost will exceed $100 million and the Treasury Board (TB) would assess the project as high risk. A May 1998 Treasury Board document indicated that the Board recognized that the Canadian Firearms Program would cost more than $100 million and that the Canadian Firearms Program was a high-risk initiative.

That's a direct quote. There has been some debate ever since about this notion as to whether it was or was not a high-risk project. It seems to me definitive. Over $100 million designates a high-risk automatic certification. It is a major crown project.

Did you ever consider this a major crown project, Ms. Flumian? If not, why? And I'll ask the same question of Mr. Webster. It doesn't have to be a long answer.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I'll make it relatively short since I think I've spoken to this issue at both of our appearances. It was never officially designated, to my knowledge, as a major crown project. We did have ongoing dialogue with officials from major crown projects--

The Chair: So the answer is no.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Correct.

The Chair: Mr. Webster.

Mr. Gary Webster: That is the same answer I would provide, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: It seems the Treasury Board document indicated the board recognized that the Canadian firearms program would cost more than $100 million. So it was a Treasury Board document, not from the program.

Back on March 17, Madame Fraser indicated there were many more documents in addition to some she had listed that indicated the firearms program was a major crown project. So what do you say, Mr. Ste-Marie? Do you have anything to back up Ms. Fraser's point?

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie: Mr. Chair, that is correct. We do have further documents on that point that we could table with the committee. Alternatively, we could summarize what's in those documents for you.

The Chair: Give me a brief summary, and perhaps we could table them, yes.

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie: All right. I'll let Mr. Gilmore give you the summary and then we can table them.

The Chair: So what is the summary?

Mr. Alan Gilmore: I know it by heart.

I should point out that the Treasury Board policy says that a project or program is deemed to be a major crown project if it is high risk and high cost. In addition to the documents we have summarized for you in a letter to the committee, there is a 1998 submission to Treasury Board from the Department of Justice that contains a risk assessment for the program. That risk assessment says it is a high-risk overall project. By that time it was already a cost of over $100 million, so that was not the issue.

In November 1997, there was an integrated project management plan prepared stating that the Canadian firearms program is classified as a major crown project by the federal government. Those are approved by the Treasury Board decisions. We've told you about the preliminary project approval submission, which indicates that the project or the program was to be managed as a major crown project.

We've told you that submission was approved in April 1998. There is a progress report to ministers in May 1998 that says that the program is being administered as a major crown project. We've told you about the--

» (1705)

The Chair: Do you have any documentation, Mr. Gilmore, that would indicate that the CEO of the Canadian firearms program would be aware of the designation? Could one assume that they should have been aware if it was provided by the Department of Justice?

Mr. Alan Gilmore: These are documents that are being prepared by the senior officials in the Department of Justice. We would have assumed that the CEOs, whoever was responsible at the time, would have been part and parcel of preparing the documents.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Flumian, were you aware of the documentation that Mr. Gilmore is talking about?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: No, sir. My answer remains the same. However, I would also like to say that on all of the issues on which there seems to be disagreement, on a go-forward basis, the government has already said that lots of improvements can be made and will be made in reporting.

The Chair: I'm not worried about the improvements. I'm concerned because the President of the Treasury Board and others in the House have said that it was not designated.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: It was not, sir.

The Chair: Mr. Gilmore is suggesting otherwise. There seems to be correspondence to the Department of Justice indicating a designation per se. Therefore, you have said that you're not aware of this documentation.

Mr. Webster, are you aware of this documentation?

Mr. Gary Webster: No.

The Chair: Okay. That's straight.

Okay. Are you going to table the documentation, Mr. Gilmore?

Mr. Alan Gilmore: I think that if we could write you a letter in the format that we used to the committee previously, it would be appropriate.

The Chair: Okay. Since it is now a public situation, I would insist that the letter be delivered to my office tomorrow.

Mr. Alan Gilmore: That's possible.

The Chair: What is tomorrow? It is Thursday, okay.

I'm going to change the subject now to the computer. I understand that hundreds of millions of dollars went into the computer. If I recall the last time we heard testimony, there was something like 1,200 items of changes. Was it 1,200 items or reconfigurations, or whatever the terminology is, for the computer program? It kept changing, and that's where all the money went down the drain. We don't even have hardware that we could sell. It went into computer programming ad nauseam.

Am I right in saying that?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes. There were many changes having to be made to the system because the program was evolving.

The Chair: We are talking about a simple registration system. Each province has a licence registration system. It means that you send out the form, then you get it back. You license a car. You license the individual.

I know it's more complex for the gun registry because of criminal records and so on. They have drivers' records for licences. I would imagine that would have been a good template for a computer program.

Why were there hundreds of millions of dollars in computer programming that went in the garbage?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: The original estimates for what was required, as we said earlier, didn't bear fruit. The assumptions kept changing, the elements of the legislation kept changing, and the regulatory aspects of the legislation kept changing. They all had to be tracked in the system that was being created to “perceive” it.

As part of the restructuring plan, one of the elements that was identified is a simplification of the entire process, and the moving to an alternative service delivery model that would take those issues into account.

The Chair: That's all fine and dandy. What I'm trying to say is that when you had a politically sensitive program, and this was politically sensitive from the time it was announced, surely you would sit down, figure out your parameters, and give instructions to the computer programs. All this changing environment has never been justified to me. It's fine to say that, but the cost to the taxpayers has been phenomenal. No one has ever justified why it would be that way.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Mr. Chair, I don't think anyone is trying to justify it. I think we're agreeing that as part of the restructuring plan, those elements were further scrutinized and determinations were made to change it.

The Chair: Okay.

» (1710)

Mr. Gary Webster: Mr. Chair, may I add that as a result of those investments there is now, in reality, an existing database both on the licensing side in terms of who is in possession of licences and on the registration side. There is a result, and there is a database as a result of that.

The Chair: Let's acknowledge the great cost to the taxpayer. The Department of Justice is not a program delivery department. It doesn't, as far as I'm aware, have any other program that interacts with the citizens of Canada. It is primarily a legal department that supports the Government of Canada and all its departments.

I presume the decision was made long before either of you became involved with the registry. During your term, did either of you ever think it was appropriately sited in the Department of Justice? Should it have been moved elsewhere? As we know, it has now gone to the Solicitor General's department.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I'm aware of the fact that this was always an issue of hot debate and discussion as people identified that it may have been one of the contributing factors.

The Chair: Do you have any comment, Mr. Webster?

Mr. Gary Webster: Certainly when I became part of the program the issues being discussed were to ensure that Canadians generally felt comfortable in approaching...particularly at the sensitive beginning stages of the program and given the controversy and concerns being expressed by Canadians, that this be seen as an administration of the program and nothing more than that. This was simply trying to ensure that a database was developed. It was on that basis that we undertook the implementation of the program.

The Chair: Yes, but my point concerns the Solicitor General's department versus the Department of Justice. The Solicitor General staff run our prisons, our police, CPIC—goodness knows what all they run; I don't know—they run all these types of things, including databases. And this one ended up in the Department of Justice, which has no experience of any kind in running a program.

Mr. Gary Webster: As the program continued to be developed, there was not a separation between the Justice implementation and the police organizations or Solicitor General. There was still a very close working relationship, very extensive consultations, and it was seen as a partnership by everyone working on the program at that time.

The Chair: But again you're getting off the track. My question is, why have this program sited in Justice and not in Solicitor General?

Mr. Gary Webster: I can't answer that question, because I arrived on the scene in July 2001 with a very specific mandate that I identified earlier in the proceedings.

The Chair: I'm going to come back to paragraph 10.82 of the Auditor General's report and the problems, and their implications, that were not reported to the government.

Ms. Flumian, you made a specific comment a while ago that you thought all this information was on the website. Mr. Gilmore is saying—or the Auditor General in her report is saying—that they were not reported to the government. I presume you, by implication, are saying, if it's on the website, anybody could have read it, so the government was informed. Is that a correct assumption, Ms. Flumian?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: What I was speaking to specifically as being on website were the audit and evaluation reports—seven of which had been undertaken up until the year 2000, as far as I'm aware—and the fact that the Auditor General had drawn many of the same conclusions the internal audit of the department had drawn, and that many of those internal audit recommendations had already been incorporated in changes we were making to the program.

The Chair: I know another situation where we're dealing with audits. It's only in 2001 or 2002 that the Treasury Board brought out a policy that audits be made public at the earliest opportunity. I'm quite sure that audits were not, as a general rule, being put on the website prior to that Treasury Board policy change. Are you saying these were on the website way back when?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I'm saying many of those would have been, and I think Mr. Gilmore in his comments said the same thing.

The Chair: Did you say the same thing, Mr. Gilmore?

Mr. Alan Gilmore: I was saying that at a point in time some of them were on the website. We don't know when they were put up or how many of them, at any given point in time, were available.

Mr. Chair, the issue from our perspective is that there is a formal recording mechanism to Parliament: departmental performance reports. From our perspective, we don't feel parliamentarians should have to search around trying to find the information relating to a program. That's our concern, that Parliament should have been given the information straightforwardly and in a format that could be accessed.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

I tend to agree with Mr. Gilmore that putting it on a website is not the same as informing Parliament. But you actually said in your report, Mr. Gilmore, “informing government”, which is a little different from Parliament. I didn't have it quite clear in my mind how the government firearms program could inform itself, being the larger institution.

Mr. Alan Gilmore: What we were distinguishing between was this. There are documents we get as part of our audit mandate that allowed us to see what information was being given outside the Department of Justice, through Treasury Board, to Treasury Board and to ministers as a whole. We could see that information. When we looked for whether this specific information had been reported within government to Treasury Board or to other ministers, we didn't see it; that is, it stayed within the department.

That's the distinction we're trying to draw: between information that went out of the department but stayed within government—it went to Treasury Board and to ministers—and information that stayed in the department and did not go outside the department.

» (1715)

The Chair: There seems to be a problem with information from outside the department going to the department and still not making it to the firearms program by virtue of this designation of a major crown project, because they are not aware you seem to say--and we'll see the documentation--that there was a clear determination that it was a major crown project. It seems to me that with $100 million, and a decision made saying it's high risk, this is not something that's debatable; it was a stamp of approval and $100 million is a mathematical thing. We all agree it was more than $100 million. It would appear, from what you tell us, there was a specific decision by the Treasury Board that it was a high-risk program. There was automatic certification, is that correct?

Mr. Alan Gilmore: What we have, just to be clear, are documents from the Department of Justice and submissions to Treasury Board indicating that it was to be managed as a major crown project. The issue of the formal designation doesn't arise until the hearings here, when the Deputy Minister of Justice raised that issue. So we had not pursued this at that point in time because we had what we thought were more than substantial enough documents to indicate the program, at a minimum, was to be managed as a major crown project. We think that's what the President of the Treasury Board has agreed with us.

The Chair: And I don't think you just issue a certificate to hang on the wall that this is a major crown project; it's just a bureaucratic thing that we all go by these types of decisions.

We're now at 5:16 p.m. Mr. Finlay, do you have any questions?

Mr. John Finlay: No, I don't.

The Chair: Ms. Phinney is going to wrap up. We have a few more minutes.

Mr. Breitkreuz, you seem to be indicating you have something to say, so we'll give you four minutes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have one more question, and we really haven't touched on this today, but I think it's a very important part of the explanation as to how things spun out of control.

In the Auditor General's report, page 14, paragraph 10.67, under the heading, “The program became excessively regulatory”, it says “the Program's focus had changed from high-risk firearms owners to excessive regulation and enforcement of controls over all owners and their firearms”. Repeating that, the focus went from high-risk firearms owners to all owners and their firearms, and the department said the excessive regulation had occurred because some of its program partners believed that the use of firearms was, in itself, a questionable activity that required strong controls.

Could you explain to us how this belief by those in the department--including you, possibly--helped to unnecessarily increase registry costs? I think it's a very key part of the explanation we need, that there was a belief within the department that would have driven up the registry costs in this area.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Mr. Chair, the member is referring to paragraph 10.67?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: And paragraph 10.68, under “The program became excessively regulatory”.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Perhaps you would just give us one second to read it.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I quoted you the part I feel is most relevant, that there was a belief in the department that they should focus on all gun owners, not just the criminal or high-risk gun owners.

» (1720)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I'm going to have to say, if I go first, that these are opinions expressed by the folks at the Auditor General's office.

I think the record would clearly show, certainly from my time there and my relationships with all those who were responsible in the consultation process that we conducted, that I always viewed, and said on many occasions--publicly and otherwise--that firearms owners, like all other Canadians, are law-abiding citizens until actions occur to prove otherwise.

So this is editorializing on the part of someone else.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Ste-Marie, I'll quote you here:

In February 2001, the Department told the Government it had wanted to focus on the minority of firearms owners that posed a high risk while minimizing the impact on the overwhelming majority of law-abiding owners. However, the Department concluded that this did not happen. Rather, it stated that the Program's focus had changed from high risk firearms owners to excessive regulation and enforcement of controls over all owners and their firearms. The Department concluded that, as a result, the Program had become overly complex and very costly to deliver, and that it had become difficult for owners to comply with the Program.

Ms. Flumian says you were editorializing. Do you consider this editorializing?

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie: No, I'm sorry, we don't, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to explain that, if I may. I'll let Mr. Gilmore explain, but I want to say that it's not simply that we've come up with an opinion we expressed. It's based on our audit work.

The Chair: Mr. Gilmore.

Mr. Alan Gilmore: When we say that the department told the government, we literally mean that. This is taken from departmental documents provided to ministers and others. We discussed this with the Department of Justice during the audit, and we showed them the documents we were referring to and citing.

The Chair: Ms. Flumian, are you still of the opinion that the Auditor General was editorializing?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I wonder why the relevant section that was determined is in quotation marks, so I have to assume that they're representing someone else's opinion.

The Chair: So you withdraw the editorializing comment?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I would further go on to say that--

The Chair: I was asking if you withdrew the editorializing comments, because--

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I may, in light of.... You're describing it that way, but I'm saying the section's in quotations. Under paragraph 10.68, it also speaks to the program partners.

The Chair: So it's paragraph 10.68, which reads:

The Department said the excessive regulation had occurred because some of its Program partners believed that the use of firearms is in itself a “questionable activity” that required strong controls, and there should be a zero-tolerance attitude towards non-compliance with the Firearms Act.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Right. And the question, as I understood it, was does the department believe that?

The Chair: It seems to be that the Auditor General is saying that it was the department's opinion.

Am I correct, Mr. Gilmore?

Mr. Alan Gilmore: Yes, it's the department's opinion. These are citations from departmental documents provided to ministers. What's in quotes is actual words that were in those documents.

Mr. Gary Webster: I would want to say as well that around the time again that my colleague Ms. Flumian arrived, those realizations were being made and were continually being addressed on an ongoing basis.

The Chair: So...?

Mr. Gary Webster: It was precisely for some of those reasons that a restructuring, a reformatting, a new licensing program, and a new registration program were being conceived.

The Chair: So you're saying, Mr. Webster, that you are aware of this kind of debate within a department.

Therefore I come back to your point, Ms. Flumian. You said that the Auditor General was editorializing. Are you standing by that quote or are you going to withdraw it?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I told you earlier that in the light of the way you've described it, I had withdrawn it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think we need--

The Chair: This will be your last question, because we have others who wish to speak.

Mr. Finlay.

We're down to--

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: One question.

The Chair: One question.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Let me say I believe, Mr. Chairman, we need the report that contains this, because I think it will do more to explain why these costs have spun out of control. If our two witnesses agree that the gun ownership is a questionable activity--

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We do not, and that is the exact point I was addressing earlier.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I didn't want to open up another--

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: No, but I do not believe that owning a firearm in this country is a questionable activity, nor does the Department of Justice believe that, in the timeframe that I can speak to.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We need that report, Mr. Chairman. That's going to be a key part of the report that we have not ever had access to.

The Chair: Since the report has been referred to here, I presume the department may release it without the formalities. But if you have to, you'd have to apply--

» (1725)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: How do I go about applying for this as soon as possible?

The Chair: File an access to information, but you can talk to the department--

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We have already done that and we can't get access to that. The Auditor General did.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Breitkreuz, but I find we get documentation from some departments on an informal basis. We get some on a formal basis, and when we don't get them on a formal basis, we have to file a request with the access to information commissioner.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Can the Auditor General provide it for us?

The Chair: I'm not sure. No.

Mr. Gilmore, can you provide it?

Mr. Alan Gilmore: No.

The Chair: No, you can't. They're bound by their confidentiality agreement, so they can't really give out anything.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: So it's application 263 for access to information.

The Chair: There we are.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We do not believe that owning a firearm in this country is a questionable activity. We do not.

The Chair: So we're going to bring this to a close.

You raised earlier, Mr. Breitkreuz, bringing in Mr. Mosley. Unfortunately there is no quorum here, so the committee is unable to make a decision at this point in time. I will take that under advisement and I'll take it to the steering committee, and we'll go from there.

Ms. Phinney, I said you would have the last word.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes. I had a little short question, because it came up since you told me I could have the last word.

I'd like to ask Mr. Gilmore what the difference is between a major crown project and a crown corporation.

Mr. Alan Gilmore: A crown corporation is a body set up by statute, such as the CBC or the Export Development Corporation. Those operate at arm's length from the government by design and by statute.

A major crown project is a project that is being managed by a department of government and is directly responsible to a minister as opposed to an arm's-length relationship. A major crown project is, in terms of Treasury Board policy, high risk and $100 million or more. So it's a project or program within a department that a department of government is administering.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you.

I would like to thank the witnesses today. I know this is the second time you've been here. I'm not sure that we accomplished much more than the last time, but I thank you for your comments, and I refer to the chairman's comment that we are talking about the cost of implementing at this meeting, not the merits of the program.

I'd like to make a wrap-up statement, and maybe Mr. Ste-Marie or Mr. Gilmore could comment on whether my comments are correct or not.

The Auditor General stated several times when we were here before in March that no money has been misappropriated. The Auditor General is concerned about how information was made available to Parliament, and justifiably so. Some 70% of the increased costs of the program were funded through supplementary estimates, which the MPs don't look at too clearly, and the Auditor General would prefer that new bills should be passed in the House if money is required, and that clear explanations should be provided to Parliament with reasons why this money is needed. This would make it transparent, so that everybody knows what's going on.

That's the summary I got out of this. I'm wondering if I'm close to summarizing what the Auditor General is saying to the department.

The Chair: Mr. Ste-Marie.

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie: Yes, Mr. Chair. I think we agree with the statement that there is no misappropriation. That is true. On the information to Parliament issue, I think we're on record as to what that stands for. On the 70%, the way the supplementary estimates were used, if you will, yes, we agree on that again.

In terms of the bill, I'm not too clear on the issue of the legislation you're talking about.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I think yesterday or today we voted on money to go for this...? Didn't we have a bill yesterday or today when we did that?

The Chair: No.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Rather than requests for money going to the Treasury Board and then going through estimates, and they receive the money that way--some people are complaining that's not very visible--if this department wants more money for the management of the gun registry, there should be bills passed in the House of Commons to ask for that money. This would make it very clear what the money is required for and not have it slip through that way. That would make it clear to all parliamentarians, here's the money we need; we need an extra $200,000, or we need an extra $4 million, or whatever it happens to be. We should make it very clear and put a bill through the House of Commons.

» (1730)

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie: Yes, I would agree with that.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: One final point is that I'd ask you to get that documentation you referred to to the clerk as early as possible, and he will immediately distribute it to all committee members. If it's only in one language, perhaps this time, since it is somewhat public, I would like it out in the public as quickly as possible. So just have it delivered it to the clerk and he will distribute it.

Thank you all. Again, I thank our witnesses.

Mr. Ste-Marie, you had a closing comment. I tend to forget.

Mr. Jean Ste-Marie: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We were glad to appear before the committee during the past weeks to discuss issues raised by our audit. We would like to take this opportunity to stress certain matters one more time.

First, we believe that the Department of Justice was clearly the only one in charge of the Canadian Firearms Program and that it should have given full financial information to Parliament.

[English]

Second, we welcomed the President of the Treasury Board's agreement that the Canadian firearms program was to be managed as a major crown project with the required reporting to Parliament.

Third, we welcomed the agreement the Minister of Justice has made, that all costs related to the firearms program will be reported to Parliament in the future.

Thus, overall we are pleased that the Minister of Justice and the President of the Treasury Board agreed with the findings of our report and our recommendations. We are encouraged that they are committed to taking corrective action.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Again, we thank all our witnesses.

The meeting is adjourned.