McLellan kept mum on gun registry cost:

McLellan kept mum on gun registry cost:
Date: Nov 2, 2006 8:06 AM
PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: 2006.11.02
SECTION: News
PAGE: A1 / Front
BYLINE: Kathryn May
SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen
WORD COUNT: 789

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

McLellan kept mum on gun registry cost: MPs say ex-minister didn't
disclose huge budget overrun to Parliament

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

A parliamentary committee blamed former Liberal public safety minister
Anne McLellan for not informing Parliament about the true cost of the
firearms centre and blasted the senior bureaucrats who came up with the
accounting scheme to hide those costs. "Evidence suggests that the
minister knew, and she did nothing to ensure Parliament was fully
informed and for that she must accept responsibility," concluded a
majority report by the public accounts committee tabled this week.

The Liberals, however, disagreed in a dissenting report and pointed
instead to the bureaucrats who gave Ms. McLellan "flawed" advice and
decided to carry $22 million in computer development costs over to the
next fiscal year rather than record it like they should have.
Bureaucrats testified they briefed Ms. McLellan about the cost overruns
and the prospect of asking Parliament for more money, but there was no
evidence that she or her office interfered in the decision.

"The former minister's duty was to refrain from interference, to rely on
the expert advice of her officials. ... That the advice was flawed is
not acceptable grounds for a personal indictment of the minister," said
the Liberal report.

The panel launched its investigation last spring to determine who was
responsible for the decision, uncovered by Auditor General Sheila
Fraser, to keep Parliament in the dark about the rising costs of the
Canada Firearms Centre. At the heart of the probe was the accounting
treatment of computer development costs, which allowed the centre to
dodge recording them in 2003-04 and avoid asking Parliament for more
money in supplementary estimates.

All the parties agreed on a package of eight recommendations, many aimed
at ensuring bureaucrats make decisions or provide advice based on the
rules and policies rather than "political implications" or what they
think their ministers want.

The MPs said "it's not the role of public servants to make political
decisions" for ministers. They concluded the decision to use an
accounting treatment that avoided going to Parliament and avoid a
political controversy should have been made by ministers.

Bureaucrats have faced criticism in recent years about being
politicized, not in the partisan sense, but by being too accommodating
to ministers or too sensitive to the political implications of
decisions.

"We like to think we have an apolitical public service, but when things
get dicey they circle the wagons around the government of the day and
that does not bode well for the public service," said Tory MP John
Williams.

"Here we had a situation of perhaps the bureaucracy was taking the fall
for the minister."

In an unusual move, the report recommended that Treasury Board publicly
agree with Ms. Fraser's findings on how the computer development costs
should have been handled and issue a clarification so a similar
accounting scheme could never happen again. Other recommendations
included:
- Accounting policies and standards trump legal opinions. All decisions
on accounting issues must be based on accounting rules not legal
opinions.
- Strengthen the role of the comptroller-general, who must have "final
word" over deputy ministers on accounting issues.
- That Treasury Board develop a protocol for handling accounting
disputes between the comptroller-general and deputy ministers.
- Bureaucrats who don't keep records of meetings and key decisions
should face sanctions, including dismissal from the public service.
- The government accelerate its move to require all departments and
agencies to produce separate financial statements.
- Give the auditor general the mandate and extra money to audit
departments and agencies' financial statements.

In her report, Ms Fraser said it was difficult to piece together how the
decision was made because of scant records and personal notes on key
meetings.

She concluded the firearms centre "misinformed" Parliament about the
costs racked up to develop a computer system for the registry -- $39
million in 2002-03 and $22 million in 2003-04. She took particular issue
with the accounting treatment of the $22 million not recorded in the
books as the rules required.

Testimony showed bureaucrats sought two legal opinions. The first
concluded the $22 million should be booked that year. A few days later,
Margaret Bloodworth, deputy minister at Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness, asked the Justice Department for a legal opinion to
clarify confusion about whether the cost incurred was a liability or a
debt. The centre relied on that legal opinion and put off booking the
$22 million until the next fiscal year.

The decision to delay recording the $22 million came as the Martin
government was gearing up for the 2004 election. In fact, then
comptroller-general John Wiersema, who opposed the accounting treatment,
testified bureaucrats were concerned that going to Parliament could
affect the election.

The committee, however, didn't buy the bureaucrats' explanations for
seeking a second legal opinion and called their arguments for not asking
Parliament for more money in the supplementary estimates "not tenable."

Rather, the committee concluded bureaucrats went out of their way to
find a way to avoid the political embarrassment of asking for more money
for a project as controversial as the firearms centre.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------

REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS - OCTOBER 2006
GOVERNMENT DECISIONS LIMITED PARLIAMENT'S CONTROL OF PUBLIC SPENDING OF
THE 2006 REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/pacp/reports/rp2447467/
391_PACP_Rpt09_PDF/391_PACP_Rpt09-e.pdf




The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !