Editorial: The best ‘review’ of the gun registry is to scrap it entirely
Date: Jan 8, 2004 8:38 AM
PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun
DATE: 2004.01.08
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Editorial
PAGE: A8
SOURCE: Vancouver Sun

——————————————————————————–

The best ‘review’ of the gun registry is to scrap it entirely: That makes the most
fiscal and political sense for the new PM

——————————————————————————–

Given the amount of money wasted on the gun registry, and the absence of any evidence
that it will improve public safety, The Sun has long called on the federal government
to scrap it.

But we also recognized that the program would not likely be dismantled because that
would amount to the Chretien government admitting it made a mistake.

However, now that the Chretien government is no more, Ottawa no longer needs to
save face. So we call on Prime Minister Paul Martin to put an end to this debacle
once and for all.

The registry was, of course, doomed from its inception. Then justice minister Allan
Rock introduced the program in 1994, even though a briefing note from his own ministry
raised serious doubts about its effectiveness. The note read, in part:

“There are real questions about the extent to which these proposals [gun registry]
would improve public safety and whether the high costs could be justified.”

Undeterred, Mr. Rock went ahead with the registry and the Liberals have championed
it ever since.

Even after the original cost estimate of $2 million was found to be a gross underestimate.
Even after auditor-general Sheila Fraser predicted that the registry would cost
500 times as much as originally estimated — that’s $1 billion — by 2005.

And even now, when it appears the $1 billion will be reached this year instead of
next, and when the registry’s annual operating budget is more than $100 million.

That money could have been used to hire more police officers and equipment to help
police deal with serious problems like organized crime, drug trafficking, auto theft
and child abuse.

Instead, it has gone to a program that appears not to have increased public safety
one iota.

Even the police chief of Canada’s largest city, Toronto’s Julian Fantino, has expressed
doubts about whether the registry would help him to combat gun crime: “The
difficulty, of course, is that we haven’t yet come across any situation where the
gun registry would have enabled us to either prevent or solve any of these crimes.”

To be sure, some police forces have expressed support for the registry, but the
evidence weighs heavily against the supposition that it will improve public safety.

After all, those who are intent on committing crimes aren’t about to register their
guns. It’s only the law-abiding citizens — the weekend hunters or sport shooters
– who are likely to obey the law.

Further, Canada has maintained a registry of restricted firearms, including handguns,
since 1930. And handguns, rather than hunting rifles, are the weapons of choice
for serious criminals.

The other weapons of choice for criminals — semi-automatics and submachineguns
– are typically obtained through smuggling rings and any criminal with even a modicum
of intelligence isn’t going to run to a government office to register them.

Moreover, 90 per cent of all violent crimes in Canada don’t involve firearms and
80 per cent of firearm-related deaths are suicides. So there’s no reason to believe
the registry will improve public safety.

And there are few political reasons for Mr. Martin to keep the registry alive. Certainly,
the new Conservative party and the NDP will rake the Liberals over the coals if
the registry is scrapped, but then they’ll do the same thing if Mr. Martin keeps
it alive.

Although Mr. Martin was a part of the government that introduced the program, it
was never really his idea — it was the brainchild of Jean Chretien and Mr. Rock
– and he wasn’t part of the government that kept it going. So the prime minister
won’t have to worry about critics who say he’s breaking his promises.

In fact, Mr. Martin has said his administration will be very different from his
predecessor’s, and he’s mandated that all federal programs be subject to a review
to ensure they’re cost-effective and necessary.

What better way to prove his sincerity than by scrapping a useless program?

In addition, since most provinces have spoken out against the registry — B.C. Attorney-General
Geoff Plant called the program an “unmitigated disaster” — Mr. Martin
is likely to get greater provincial support if he kills the registry now.

Further, since western Canadians and those in rural areas are most opposed to the
registry, Mr. Martin can also expect greater support from the West — something
that’s crucial given his commitment to reducing western alienation. And he needn’t
worry about losing votes in central Canada because the Liberals already enjoy overwhelming
support in Ontario.

There is, therefore, little reason to keep the registry alive. And it appears the
Martin administration is prepared to make some changes: Albina Guarnieri, a minister
of state, is reviewing the program and is said to be planning major changes.

That’s a good sign, as long as Ms. Guarnieri and Mr. Martin recognize the only change
that makes fiscal and political sense is to finally put the registry out of its
misery.