PUBLICATION:            Montreal Gazette

DATE:                             2003.12.21

EDITION:                        Final

SECTION:                      Editorial / Op-ed

PAGE:                            A11

BYLINE:                         GARRY BREITKREUZ

SOURCE:                      Freelance

 

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

 Gun registry fails all seven of Martin's tests: Billion-dollar boondoggle.

New PM signed most of the cheques when he was Liberal finance minister

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

Since the Liberals rammed the Firearms Act through Parliament in 1995, Paul Martin as finance minister has written most of the cheques for this $1-billion boondoggle. Anne McLellan cashed most of the cheques while she was justice minister. To add insult to injury, Prime Minister Martin just put McLellan back in charge of the gun registry.

 Now that Martin has announced a new Expenditure Review Committee, voters will be wondering what he was doing for the eight years he was finance minister. All government programs and expenditures will now be subject to seven tests: a public-interest test, a role-of-government test, a federalism test, a partnership test, a value-for-money test, an efficiency test and an affordability test.  

What will Martin do when he learns the Firearms Act and the Canadian Firearms Program fail all seven of his tests?  

Public-interest test: Failed. The politically motivated policy objectives of the Firearms Act are wrong because the Liberal program targeted almost exclusively millions of law-abiding gun owners instead of violent criminals. The Firearms Act completely ignores the 131,000 convicted criminals who have been prohibited from owning guns by the courts.  

Role-of-government test: Failed. Yes, there is a role for the federal government in trying to control the criminal use of firearms, just as there is a role for the federal government in trying to control the criminal use of automobiles. This means ensuring all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of an offence are thrown in jail for a long, long time. The Firearms Act fails to address criminal use and abuse of firearms.  

Federalism test: Failed. The federal firearm-licensing and registration scheme intrudes into the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. This is why five provinces and three territories refuse to help the federal government implement and administer the firearms program and why eight provinces refuse to enforce the act.  

Partnership test: Failed. Not only did the federal government completely ignore the advice provided by the provinces and territories in drafting the Firearms Act, it also ignored the valuable advice of responsible firearms owners and associations everywhere. Thousands of shooting ranges, gun clubs and wildlife organizations have operated safely, some since before confederation, but the federal government ignored the opportunity to co-operate with them to make their sports even safer. Instead, the Liberals imposed an unworkable regime on them, and used the Criminal Code as a club to force their compliance. This created an adversarial relationship between the government and millions of law-abiding gun owners, with the police in the middle. It's the very antitheses of a partnership.  

Value-for-money test: Failed. The Liberal government's cost-benefit analysis of the Canadian Firearms Program is still a cabinet secret, as is their 115-page report on the economic impact and costs of the program. As of next March 31, the Liberals will have blown $1 billion implementing the Firearms Act. And what ''value'' have taxpayers received? A list of less than half the guns in Canada; a gun registry that's riddled with so many errors it can't even be used as evidence in a court of law; and a list of 2 million licensed firearm owners, most of whom were already safety tested and licensed by provincial governments. 

Efficiency test: Failed. The Liberal government's stated objective was to improve public safety and keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. They have achieved neither. Homicides are up, including domestic homicides, and so is the number of people committing suicide. The RCMP reports 131,000 convicted criminals have been prohibited from owning firearms. In fact, the Firearms Act doesn't even give the police the authority to properly enforce these prohibition orders.  

Affordability test: Failed. Governing is about setting priorities and spending tax dollars where they're needed most. While the government wasted $1 billion on the gun registry, police departments across Canada have been begging for more manpower. Since 1962, the number of criminal-code offences per officer (excluding traffic offences) has more than doubled. Instead of an unaffordable and unworkable firearms program, Canadians could have had many more police patrolling our streets and highways, or 238 more MRIs in our hospitals.  

The opposition told the Liberals nine years ago the gun registry would cost $1 billion. We told them the Firearms Act was a bad law that needed to be repealed and replaced. Paul Martin never listened. It remains to be seen if his new criteria will lead him to a different conclusion today.  

Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative Party member of Parliament for Yorkton-Melville, Sask., is opposition critic for firearms and property rights. 

 

 

ORIGINAL TEXT OF GARRY’S COLUMN

  

FIREARMS PROGRAM FAILS ALL SEVEN

OF THE PM’S EXPENDITURE TESTS

By Garry Breitkreuz, MP – December 19, 2003

 Since the Liberals rammed the Firearms Act through Parliament in 1995, Paul Martin as Finance Minister wrote most of the cheques for this billion-dollar boondoggle, and Anne McLellan cashed most of the cheques while she was Justice Minister.  To add insult to injury, Prime Minister Martin just put Anne McLellan back in charge of the gun registry. 

This week, Paul Martin announced his new Expenditure Review Committee.  Voters will be wondering what he was doing for the eight years when he was Finance Minister.  All government programs and expenditures (including the Canadian Firearms Program we’re told) will be subject to seven tests: A Public Interest Test, a Role of Government Test, a Federalism Test, a Partnership Test, a Value for Money Test, an Efficiency Test and an Affordability Test.  

What will Mr. Martin do when he learns that the Firearms Act and the Canadian Firearms Program fails all seven of his tests? 

Public Interest Test – Failed: The politically-motivated policy objectives of the Firearms Act are wrong because the Liberal program targeted almost exclusively millions of law-abiding gun owners instead of violent criminals.  The Firearms Act completely ignores the 131,000 convicted criminals who have been prohibited from owning guns by the courts; the 9,000 gun owners that have had their firearm licences revoked; and the 36,000 violent individuals on whom restraining orders have been placed. 

Role of Government Test – Failed: Yes, there is a role for the federal government in trying to control the criminal use of firearms just like there is a role for the federal government in trying to control the criminal use of automobiles.  This means ensuring that all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of an offence are thrown in jail for a long, long time.  The Firearms Act fails to address criminal use and abuse of firearms at all – it is focussed entirely on millions of completely innocent firearm owners. 

Federalism Test – Failed:  The federal firearm licensing and registration scheme intrudes into the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces guaranteed them in the Constitution.  The federal government abused their criminal law powers when they passed the Firearms Act in 1995.  This is why five provinces and three territories refuse to help the federal government implement and administer the firearms program and why eight provinces refuse to enforce the Act. 

Partnership Test – Failed: Not only did the federal government completely ignore the advice provided by the Provinces and Territories in their drafting of the Firearms Act, they also ignored all the valuable advice of responsible firearms owners and associations everywhere.  Thousands of shooting ranges, gun clubs and wildlife organizations have operated safely since before Confederation, but the federal government ignored the opportunity to work cooperatively with them to make their sports even safer.  Instead, the Liberals imposed an unworkable regime on them and used the Criminal Code as a club to force their compliance.  This created an adversarial relationship between the government, the police and millions of law-abiding gun owners – the very antitheses of a partnership. 

Value for Money Test – Failed:  The Liberal government’s cost-benefit analysis of the Canadian Firearms Program is still a Cabinet secret as is their 115-page report on the economic impact and costs of the program.  As of March 31, 2004, the Liberals will have blown a billion dollars implementing the Firearms Act.  According to a Library of Parliament study, the Act has cost gun owners an additional $367 to  $764 million in compliance costs, and the government isn’t even keeping track of enforcement costs.  And, what “value” have taxpayers received?  Nothing but: (1) a list of less than half the guns in Canada; (2) a gun registry that’s riddled with so many errors that it can’t even be used as evidence in a court of law; and (3) a list of two million licensed firearm owners most of whom were already safety tested and licensed by provincial governments.  Nothing of value here for our billion-dollar Firearms Act. 

Efficiency Test – Failed: The Liberal government’s stated objective for the Firearms Act was to improve public safety and keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.  They have achieved neither!  Homicides are up, including domestic homicides and so are the number of people committing suicide.  The RCMP report that 131,000 convicted criminals have been prohibited from owning firearms.  The government admits that it does not know if police have seized all the firearms from these criminals or checked to see if they have acquired more guns illegally.  In fact, the Firearms Act doesn’t even give the police the authority to make such checks.  Instead of demanding that these known criminals report their change of address to police, the Firearms Act regulations require two million law-abiding gun owners to report their change of address to police within thirty days or go to jail for up to two years.  No efficiency here. 

Affordability Test – Failed:  Governing is about setting priorities and spending tax dollars where they are needed most.  While the government wasted a billion dollars on the gun registry, the police departments across Canada have been begging for more police officers.  Since 1962, the number of criminal code offences per officer (excluding traffic offences) has more than doubled.  Instead of an unaffordable and unworkable firearms program, Canadians could have had 10,000 more police patrolling our streets and highways or 238 more MRIs in our hospitals.  This is the legacy of Liberals’ three terms in office. 

We told the Liberals nine years ago that the gun registry would cost a billion dollars.  We told them it was that the Firearms Act was a bad law that needed to be repealed and replaced.  Paul Martin never listened.  It remains to be seen if his new criteria will lead him to a different conclusion today.