It's not easy defending the indefensible, but the federal Liberal government continued to bull its way forward yesterday after Auditor-General Sheila Fraser's damning report on the exponential cost overruns in the new firearms registry.

Would it be so unreasonable to expect a little more contrition? A little more honest explanation? A program originally pegged to cost $2-million (net) is expected to top $1-billion before it is fully operational. That too may be a conservative estimate; it's unlikely that all the expenses are known. The marching orders for the cabinet, though, seem simple in public-relations terms: The best defence is a good offence.

And so, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon insists the program is working and emphasizes -- thank goodness for small mercies -- that Ms. Fraser found "no wrongdoing at all."

Then there is this retort from Industry Minister Allan Rock, who was responsible for the legislation when it was introduced in 1995: "What value can you put on human life?" His argument seems to be that the registry has already contributed to public safety and that those who wonder about the escalating costs are equipped with eyeshades but no heart. And little sense of national identity, since he adds that the registry is a key way to distinguish "Canadian values" from the gun-toting population to the south.

But surely fiscal responsibility is a redeeming Canadian quality as well. And surely the government's failure to tell Parliament of the rising costs indicates a Liberal disrespect for the "Canadian values" of parliamentary democracy.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has a well-developed tendency for defiance in these circumstances. He displayed it when the administrative practices of Human Resources Development Canada were found to be wholly inadequate. He was more vehement still in defending the sponsorships program that was so poorly run in Quebec. Ralph Goodale, the minister now responsible, is considering whether to end the program. But for the Prime Minister, those who questioned whether value for money was achieved not so long ago were just dupes for the separatists.

Mr. Chrétien was in character yesterday as he addressed Ms. Fraser's findings about the gun registry. The federal government is not at fault; the fault is with those provinces that have fought the registry, and with those gun owners who continue to throw up roadblocks because they consider the requirement to register their guns unjust. "They made it very difficult for us," he said.

The registration process has been marred by an extraordinarily high error rate. About 90 per cent of the forms were filled out incorrectly by the 1.9 million gun owners who are now licensed. But it is unclear whether this was largely accidental or part of a campaign, as Mr. Chrétien seems to imply. Government forms do tend to be more complicated than often seems necessary.

And surely he knew in 1995 there would be trouble with some provinces. The fight over the constitutionality of the law, led by Alberta, went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. It does seem disingenuous for Mr. Chrétien to blame them now. It was Ottawa's responsibility to draw up an accurate budget recognizing the hurdles it faced. Instead, it barrelled ahead and hid the costs.

Ms. Fraser's report should be a warning to the Chrétien government, but it remains unclear whether the Prime Minister is listening. He needs an agreement with the provinces, especially Alberta, if he hopes to implement the Kyoto Protocol against greenhouse-gas emissions in a cost-effective manner.

He can ratify the protocol unilaterally, as he intends to do in a few days, but the country needs to pull together to make it work. That means Ottawa must find a way to bring the provinces and key industries onside. Negotiations continue, and there remains reason to think an overall deal may yet be completed.

Canadians certainly should hope so. They have every right, as taxpayers, to be angered by Ms. Fraser's report this week. They'll be no less exasperated in future years if implementation of Kyoto is achieved at too high a cost.