 |
Ottawa June 1, 2006
Dear Mrs. Fraser: Subject: FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS Thank you for your second financial audit of the firearms program and for taking the time to meet with our committee yesterday. I really appreciated your observations that Parliament needs indicators of performance – not activity to determine the program’s usefulness. Unfortunately, as the Committee Chair, I did not have time to ask the many questions I wanted to ask. Please find attached my five key questions that I think will help to identify all the elements of the program’s total costs that have never been properly reported to Parliament. As Parliament starts the process of making our gun control programs truly effective, it is important that these issues are well documented and researched. Please let me know if I can help in any way.
|
GARRY
BREITKREUZ’S QUESTIONS FOR
THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S APPEARANCE
BEFORE THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2006
Before we adjourn for the day, I have a few questions for the Auditor
General. I hope she has time to respond to each and if not I would ask
her to get back to the Committee with her responses.
| 1. | On
June 13, 1995 the government reported in Hansard that in 1993/94 the
firearms program employed 57 federal employees and cost just $15.5
million a year. In last year’s Performance Report to Parliament
the Minister reported that in 1994/95 the firearms program cost the
federal government just $12.8 million. QUESTION: After spending ten years and more than a billion dollars (plus enforcement costs, plus compliance costs, plus economic costs, plus unreported indirect costs to other departments), what evidence have you seen that the new gun control scheme has produced better public safety results and saved more lives than the gun control measures that were in place before Bill C-68 was passed into law in 1995? |
| 2. | In
his 1993 report, your predecessor Denis Desautels, criticized the
government for moving forward with new gun control regulations without
“…important data, needed to assess the potential benefits
and future effectiveness of the regulations,” and recommended:
"…it is essential that the Department of Justice evaluate
the effectiveness of the [gun control] program again.
Mr. Desautel’s findings 12 years ago seem similar to your own.
In section 4.36 of your report states: “In particular, the
Centre has not set any performance targets and has provided few examples
of its outcomes. Instead of reporting the key results achieved, the
Centre describes its activities and services.” Section
4.38 adds: “The Centre does not show how these activities
help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes
such as reduced deaths, injuries, and threats from firearms.”
QUESTION: When are you likely to start your value-for-money audit that would give Parliament the answers it needs about what gun control measures work and which ones don’t? |
| 3. | In
your December 2002 report you revealed that the government had failed
to document “major additional costs”; namely, enforcement
costs and compliance costs. Reports prepared by the Parliamentary
Research Branch show that these costs could easily amount to hundreds
of millions of dollars more than actually reported in your 2006
report. You indicated that disclosure of these costs is required
was required by the government's regulatory policy. |
| 4. | The
government’s Cost-Benefit Analysis has been a Cabinet Secret
since 2003 and their 115-page Economic Impact Study has been a Cabinet
secret since 1999. QUESTION: Have your auditors seen these reports and if so what do they say? If not, is there any way for you or the Committee to obtain these documents so Parliament will know if real value-for-money was ever part of the government’s plan; and also what the Liberal’s gun control scheme cost the economy in lost businesses, lost tourism and lost jobs? |
| 5. | You
recommended in your report that the government should do a better
job of defining and identifying “indirect costs” incurred
by other federal government departments. Through many Access to Information
Act requests I have been able to determine that both direct and indirect
firearms program costs have never been fully accounted for by the
Liberal government nor reported by the following departments: RCMP
Forensic Laboratories (Firearms Section); Treasury Board; Finance;
Foreign Affairs; International Trade; Canadian International Development
Agency; Natural Resources; Environment; and most likely Indian and
Northern Affairs. QUESTION: Did your auditors look at all the departments that were incurring indirect firearms program costs or just the ones listed in the Government’s Performance Reports? |