THE OUTCOMES OF BILL C-68 ARE VERY CLEAR!

By Garry Breitkreuz, MP – June 5, 2001

  20 Reasons to Audit the Gun Registry

  C-68 has failed because it has already cost one life: One murder in Nain, Nfld is already attributable to the “sustenance variance” provisions in Bill C-68.

  C-68 has failed to receive the support and cooperation of the majority of provinces: The governments of eight provinces and two territories opposed the constitutionality of Bill C-68.  The governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have completely opted out of the administration of all federal gun control laws and Ontario has opted out of the registration component.

  C-68 has failed to meet cost estimates as promised to Parliament: On February 16^th, 1995, the Justice Minister promised Parliament: “We say that it will cost $85 million.  We are confident we will demonstrate that the figures are realistic and accurate.” [Hansard, Page 9709].  The total costs have easily exceeded $600 million and the registration program is still one and a half years from full implementation!  The government has used the “Cabinet confidences” excuse to hide 172 pages of cost information.  The government has not even made public the total expenditures for fiscal year 2000/2001.

  C-68 has failed to meet the cost-recovery plan as promised to Parliament: In 1995, the Justice Minister promised Parliament the registry would only run a deficit of $2.2 million over five years.  The actual deficit exceeded $310 million over the first five years.  On July 19, 1999, The Toronto Star published a letter from Justice Minister Anne McLellan that stated: "user fees will cover the entire cost of the [gun registry] program."  Responses to Access to Information requests from the Department of Justice show that as of August 11, 2000, they had collected only $17 million in user fees and owed refunds of approximately $1.2 million.  Furthermore, the Minister of Justice has refused two of my Access to Information requests to provide copies of her detailed cost-recovery plan to show how she will keep her promise.  The Minister’s insistence that there are now only 2.46 million gun owners in the country further erodes any hope that the government will meet the CPA’s demand for cost recovery. 

  C-68 has likely cost more than $300 million in fiscal year 2000/2001 alone:  The Department of Justice has admitted to spending $151,054,510 in fiscal year 2000/01 but this fails to account for $96,148,000 allocated to the Firearms Control Program by Governor General Special Warrants and the $49,831,000 allocated to the program by Supplementary Estimates (A) and the $60,302,919 yet to be announced allocation in Supplementary Estimates (B).

  C-68 will cost the economy far more than it will cost to implement the program:  The government has used the “Cabinet confidences” excuse to keep secret an entire 115-page report on the economic impact of the gun registry.  No other government department has yet admitted doing any studies to assess the cost to business, jobs, tourism, wildlife populations, etc.  The economic cost is an obvious “outcome” that must be quantified before we proceed any further down this trail of broken promises.

  C-68 has failed to enlist the support and cooperation of responsible firearm owners:  At least a million responsible firearm owners failed to apply for a firearms licence by the January 1, 2001 deadline.  The government’s non-response to this massive display of non-compliance has guaranteed that millions of gun owners will never be licenced and that many millions of guns will never be registered in the system, thereby, defeating the entire premise and all the feeble excuses the government gave for the program in the first place.

  C-68 has failed because non-compliance will lead to an increase in black-market firearms trade:  In June of 1999, the Justice Minister’s own User Group on Firearms warned her that the governments onerous approach to licencing and registration would lead to an increase in the black-market gun sales.  This is the opposite “outcome” than the promise made to Parliament and the people.

  C-68 has failed to convince Aboriginal persons to participate in the program: So few Aboriginals have applied for a firearms licence, it can only be described as a “boycott”.  Aboriginal leaders across Canada have publicly defied the licencing and registration provisions.  In January of this year, CFC officials were forced to renege on secret deals being negotiated with the Assembly of First Nations after we called on the RCMP to conduct an investigation into a possible criminal conspiracy – the investigation is ongoing.  Aboriginal organizations have also publicly announced their intentions to challenge the law in the courts because it violates their aboriginal and treaty rights.  The Territory of Nunavut has already launched a court challenge.

  C-68 has failed to collect accurate data on guns: The RCMP Registrar of Firearms has already admitted to an error rate of 90% on gun registration applications.  RCMP sources also verify that there is a 40% error rate in the Firearms Reference Table (FRT) database.  The government was never able to correct these errors in their 65-year history of operating the Restricted Firearms Registration System and they will never be corrected in this one.  The gun registry has become the government’s biggest garbage collection system.

  C-68 has failed to collect accurate data on firearm owners: Treasury Board documents reveal error rates of 50% on firearms licence applications.  The errors don’t stop with the applicant.  The Privacy Commissioner of Canada is investigating a number of complaints of firearms licences being issued with the wrong photograph.

  C-68 has failed to gain the support of front-line police officers: Despite political statements of support by some police chiefs and some police union bosses, the vast majority of front-line police officers fail to support the gun registration scheme.  Every survey ever taken of front-line police officers prove this point. 

  C-68 has failed because it has driven a wedge between law abiding citizens and the police: On March 10^th, 2001, Grant Obst, President of the Canadian Police Association said this about Bill C-68 to delegates attending the Western Canadian Firearms Summit in Saskatoon: “It bothers me that the public would not support me in my line of duty.  We’ve never been at odds with the public before.  This issue has done this.” 

  C-68 has failed because police are now counseling citizens to break the law:  Not only do front-line police officers oppose government’s gun registration scheme but also they are so sympathetic to the plight of law abiding citizens that they often counsel people how to circumvent the Firearms Act by breaking the law.  Counseling people to commit a criminal offence is itself a criminal offence.  This is not a healthy development for our criminal justice system as it diminishes both police and public respect for the real criminal offences in the Criminal Code of Canada.

  C-68 has failed because the government introduced 22 pages of amendments to it:  The tinkering amendments proposed by the government in Bill C-15 are only an acknowledgment of a few of the drafting errors and public policy mistakes in Bill C-68.  If implemented these amendments will guarantee even more errors in a gun registry that’s already rife with them.

  C-68 has failed because it has violated the privacy rights of millions of law-abiding citizens:  RCMP and Surete du Quebec sources verify that there is a 50% error rate in the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) database.  In December of 1999, the RCMP confirmed that there were more than 3.5 million persons in their FIP database.  The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has confirmed the nature of these errors and is investigating.

  C-68 has failed every evaluation conducted so far:  PricewaterhouseCoopers have conducted at least three evaluations of the gun registry and listed an extensive list of program failures each time.  The department responds by saying the problems have been fixed, however, the next evaluation is worse than the previous one.  The gun registry’s problems are compounded over time because of poorly drafted legislation, flawed public policies, and undue complexity.  These outcomes despite the hundreds of millions spent and the hundreds of person years deployed.  These program failures were obvious to the bureaucrats in charge from the outset.  Just ask Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, Richard G. Mosley, Q.C. who advised the Minister accordingly in 1994.

  C-68 has failed so badly the government has had to fabricate statistics to make it look like they succeeded: The government ignored 11 previous polls on gun ownership in Canada, arbitrarily lowering their estimate of the number of gun owners to give the appearance of success.

  C-68 has failed so badly they had to establish “Oversight Committees” at Treasury Board:  There are only two “Oversight Committees” in Treasury Board and both of them are to address failures in the Firearms Program.

  C-68 has even failed to gain the support of the general public:  In January of 1997, the Mackenzie Institute published a report titled, "Canadian Attitudes Toward Gun Control: The Real Story." When respondents were asked: "Do you agree or disagree that all firearms should be registered?" 75.7% Agreed Strongly. Then respondents were asked: "If it would cost $500 million over the next five years to set up and maintain a firearms registry, would you still agree?"  Only 32.4% Agreed Strongly.  Please note that every poll conducted and paid for by the Department of Justice never asks such a clearly worded question.

  NOTE:  More details are available in Garry Breitkreuz’s April 24, 2001 letter to the Canadian Police Association.