When former Prime Minister Paul Martin asked Justice John Gomery to head the now-famous investigation into the Quebec sponsorship program, the move came in response to Auditor-General Sheila Fraser uncovering widespread rule-breaking and possible corruption. Alarming as the auditor's revelations were, she could go only so far. Judge Gomery, on the other hand, had powers to probe much deeper. As a result, he discovered illegal activities within the administration of the program -- involving the misuse and misdirection of public funds -- and his findings have been used as a basis to reform a variety of government policies.

This begs an obvious question: Shouldn't the Auditor-General's recent findings surrounding the federal gun registry trigger a similar inquiry?

In 1995, the government estimated the long-gun registry would cost $119-million to implement, but recoup $117-million through firearms license fees -- for a net cost to taxpayers of just $2-million. Despite this assurance, the dream of a low-cost registry quickly became a nightmare for taxpayers.

In December, 2002, the Auditor-General pegged the cost of the gun registry at $688-million. But that was just an estimate: In a damning indictment of Ottawa's management abilities, Ms. Fraser reported that she was incapable of determining the full cost of the program because "the financial information was unreliable and did not fairly present the net costs." A more accurate cost assessment, we now know, is over $1-billion.

Then, in a second report tabled earlier this month, Ms. Fraser reported additional firearms-registry cost overruns. Software development is "significantly over budget" and government officials continue to flout the law. Most alarming is the conclusion that $40-million in spending was not authorized or reported to Parliament.

Hiding these costs broke at least one federal law, the Financial Administration Act. It also violated Ottawa's accounting policies. And it meant Parliament's constitutional power to decide how tax dollars are spent was usurped by bureaucratic fiat. What is not known is if political masters directed the scheme. This question must be addressed.

The Conservative government's response to Ms. Fraser's recent report was to promise legislation to repeal the requirement to register non-restricted firearms. The program's annual $83-million budget was also cut by $10-million. This is all well and good, but does not go far enough.

Shadows of the sponsorship program hang over the gun registry. Some might scoff at this comparison. But in fact, the amount of money wasted by gun registry officials might prove to be several times that frittered away by Adscam.

Taxpayers are seeking answers on the awarding of contracts to consultants. Paragraph 4.82 of the A-G's report concludes: "The [Canada Firearms] Centre misused contracting tools to retain the services of information technology contractors." And paragraph 4.83 reveals the system used to award contracts was rigged and "made directed contracts appear to have been awarded competitively." In addition, "the end result [of contracting tools] was a non-competitive process and did not meet the objectives of the Treasury Board Contracting Policy."

The audit also found that "on average, the cost to the Centre for each consultant increased by about 25% under this supply arrangement." Costs skyrocketed as excessive -- and needless -- commissions were paid to well-connected consultants.

Sound familiar?

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has decided to investigate who is responsible for hiding the rising costs of the registry from Parliament. Yet the committee chairman has already conceded it will not be possible to remove "politics" from the examination.

A wider investigation is necessary. Given what Ms. Fraser has told Canadians about the operations of the federal firearms registry, there is ample reason for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to establish an independent inquiry into this program. He should do so without delay.