PUBLICATION:
DATE:
2004.12.11
EDITION:
Final
SECTION:
Editorial
PAGE:
C7
COLUMN:
Barbara Yaffe
BYLINE:
Barbara Yaffe
SOURCE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayers
deserve a break on the gun registry joke
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There
surely is no human specimen more patient and forgiving than the Canadian
taxpayer.
You
don't need a scientific experiment to back this up; you need only look to the
survival these past nine years of the federal gun registry.
Governments
often do dumb things. They're run by politicians who are generally
well-intentioned but preoccupied with the task of getting themselves reelected.
Such
was the case back in 1995 when then-justice minister Allan Rock conjured up the
gun registry -- a Liberal response to escalating public concern about gun
violence, a concern that persists to this day.
The
National Firearms Program was to cost $2 million and maintain a record of all
those who possess guns. A good portion of the public was prepared to go along
with it, given the effective lobby that followed the murder in 1989 of 14 female
students in
Keep
in mind that handguns have been registered in
It
should also be noted, rifles and shotguns are used mainly by farmers, hunters
and native Indians. Even before the firearms registry was established, there
were legal requirements for the purchase of a long gun. Gun storage laws existed
and hunters had to get a licence.
So,
it's arguable whether we really needed the registry in the first place. But hey,
a government can't be too careful when it comes to reducing crime. And it wasn't
as though $2 million was going to break the federal bank.
But
here we are in 2004 and the firearms registry budget is broken. Costs have
soared to $1 billion and the program won't even be fully operational until 2007.
At
what point does a government say, enough is enough? This initiative no is longer
a federal program, it's a national joke.
And
Ontario Liberal backbencher Roger Gallaway, for one, admits it. He was prepared
Thursday to float a motion to drastically cut the venture's fourth-quarter
funding.
His
motion never came forward because, by Wednesday, Gallaway got the message from
his Grit colleagues that it would be voted down, presumably so the party could
save face.
It
was therefore left to Conservatives to put the motion forward, but there weren't
sufficient votes in support because the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois lined
up behind Liberals to safeguard the billion-dollar boondoggle.
Awkwardly,
this week marked the 15th anniversary of the
As
if the registry would have prevented those murders from taking place. As if the
registry has been effective in reducing gun crime in
It
is in
A
Toronto Star editorial on Wednesday called the registry "a crucial
investment in the safety of all Canadians." Such a statement sounds
wonderfully comforting but it's dubious.
Surely
the time has come to stop throwing around unproven assertions about the registry
and start evaluating it on a genuine cost-effectiveness basis. Sufficient
statistics on crime trends exist and there are plenty of cops with first-hand
experience.
In
other words, McLellan and LaPierre should put up or shut up. Instead of making
self-serving statements in blind support of the firearms registry they owe it to
Canadians, $1 billion later, to show them the beef.
Has
the registry benefited Canadians in tangible ways that justify the enormous
cost?
How
useful is it in the eyes of officers on the front line?
Would
Canadians
don't need rhetoric. At this point, they need hard data, untainted by political
considerations. Nine years on and ten hundred million dollars later, taxpayers
deserve at least that much.