RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli testified before the House Standing Committee on Justice on November 4, 2004. He told the Committee that there was no DNA case backlog.

Shooting Sports Ambassador Garry Breitkreuz, MP, didn't believe that, so he asked the Public Safety Minister, Anne McLellan, for the facts in the House of Commons. In reply, the Minister tabled documents showing that there were 1,217 unopened and unprocessed DNA service requests for analysis just SIX DAYS after the Commissioner testified that there was NO backlog.

DNA analysis is used primarily in the most serious of cases--rape, murder, and other very serious crimes. If the police cannot identify the person they suspect--and DNA is about the most positive identification available--they usually cannot arrest the suspect, so he goes back out on the street while the police wait for an answer to their request. EVERY DAY A VIOLENT CRIMINAL IS OUT ON THE STREET IS A DAY THAT HE IS A THREAT TO OUR LIVES AND FAMILIES.

Perhaps the government has some explanation for wasting $1 to $ 2 BILLION dollars of our tax money on gun control laws that do not disarm criminals or identify criminals, while starving the DNA analysis facilities of the small amounts that would end this unacceptable backlog. What is it? Why doesn't our government want to put criminals into cells instead of back out on the street?

Why is the government spending $100 to $130 million tax dollars every year just to operate its failed gun control system, instead of properly funding the DNA analysis facilities at a fraction of that cost?

In the latest Statistics Canada reports (for 2003), StatsCan tells us that we had 22,906 robberies in 2003. Many victims were injured or killed in those robberies. But--and this is the interesting bit--95 per cent of those injured victims were injured with a weapon THAT WAS NOT A FIREARM.

THINK about that. It's important! It's a demonstration of gross incompetence in the business of writing laws. The government uses law to attack criminals who use guns--but not criminals who use other weapons. The facts are very clear--the criminals who use other weapons injure 19 times as many victims as those who use guns.

The National Firearms Association has been advising the government to modify their laws against FIREARMS use in crime, and change the word from "firearms" to "weapons." We've been telling them that since 1984, when the NFA came into existence. As it is, they are missing the point. People are not being killed and injured ONLY with firearms. The criminals are mainly using other weapons, and the government is either ignoring that problem, or just does not do the research that proves that "other weapons" are the MAIN problem.

So--the government's horribly expensive C-68 firearms control system can only help the police if the criminal:
(a) is using a gun to commit his crime,
(b) is not caught at the time of the offence,
(c) leaves his gun behind when he leaves the scene of the crime,
(d) has that gun registered in his own name, and to his home address, and
(e) has not made the serial number unreadable.

Not many violent criminals are going to make all five of those mistakes--and they MUST make ALL FIVE mistakes before the gun control system is going to be useful for catching them.

WHY does our government think gun control is worth the $1 to $2 billion dollar startup cost, and the $100 to $130 million per year operating cost? Personally, I'd rather have DNA facilities that can produce answers quickly, more police officers, or better-equipped police officers--and that much tax money could supply all of those. What do YOU think? Write Anne McLellan, DPM, House of Commons, OTTAWA ON, K1A 0A6, and tell her what YOU think. You don't even need a stamp on your letter, and politicians count every personal letter as the voice of 500 angry voters.