PUBLICATION: Edmonton Journal
DATE:
2002.11.26
SECTION:
Opinion
PAGE:
A18
SOURCE:
Ottawa Citizen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun
law clarity a long shot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An
Ottawa Citizen editorial: Even as
parliamentarians focus on Kyoto, the Jan. 1, 2003 deadline for registering all
long guns approaches. This means we're in for another round of often-emotional
debate. But how can anything
intelligent be said, or any conclusions be reached, if the government case for
the registry is a constantly moving target?
In
1994, then-justice minister Allan Rock declared, "The only people in this
country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
The proposition is debatable; but precisely because it caused debate, he
stopped saying it. He neither retracted it nor defended it. He simply moved on.
If
gun registration has a significant impact on violence, it's worth paying a lot
for. That's another good topic for debate.
But it's not what Canadians were told to debate. We were told to debate a
registry that would cost $85 million over five years to get started, then $50
million to $60 million a year. By July 1999, Justice Minister Anne McLellan
admitted the startup had cost over $120 million, and the operation was projected
to cost over $100 million for the year. By February 2001, her parliamentary secretary, John Maloney,
was telling Parliament it had cost $227 million over five years (and she was
telling the Canadian Press $489 million).
What
to do? Rock had promised gun owners in Arnprior, Ontario, he'd cancel the
registry if total cost exceeded $150 million.
Instead, McLellan switched to saying nearly half a billion was a bargain
-- even as Treasury Board figures suggested the cost was now approaching $700
million. In Question Period, Tory MP Peter MacKay said it was projected to hit
$1 billion, and she replied: "Mr. Speaker, yet again the honourable member
just does not get it. Gun control is about public safety ... ."
There
are many points one might wish to debate in this statement, but none that one
can. When the question was about disarming citizens, the answer was about cost.
But ask a question about cost, and the answer is about public safety. And so on.
Whatever
you think about gun registration, we expect that when our MPs debate it, they
should be straight shooters.