--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rifle registry; Chretien and the debate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting rampage, former prime minister Jean Chretien has emerged from the political shadows to take a swipe at critics of his government's shotgun and rifle registry. "There's nothing to it ... I don't understand why we're having a hard time getting people to register firearms -- when people register their bicycles and pets," said the former PM recently.

Chretien also said he had little sympathy with anyone who suggests the registry should be scrapped because of cost overruns that are over $1 billion -- and that includes Prime Minister Stephen Harper. "As with any program, there were problems," said Chretien.

And indeed there were problems -- well documented by federal Auditor General Sheila Fraser. Last May, the AG gave the registry a failing grade for financial management and even pointed out that the Liberals hid more than $60 million in program costs from Parliament. When the registry was launched in 1995, the Liberals said the cost of the long-gun registry would only be $119 million, with registration fees covering all but $2 million.

As well, the effectiveness of the registry in stemming gun-related crimes has always been a matter for debate. For example, the registry didn't prevent a terrible shooting spree at Montreal's Dawson College last year that left one dead and 20 wounded. And despite the fact that handguns have been registered since 1934, they still get into the hands of the wrong people.

The bottom line is that the only people who register firearms are law-abiding citizens, including hunters, collectors and other responsible individuals. As a result, they are the ones who have been unfairly targeted by an ill-conceived program that was designed to score votes in urban Canada at the expense of rural residents.

Given that Canadians must register vehicles and even obtain licences to go fishing, city dwellers often fail to sympathize with the plight of Canada's long-gun owners. As a result, Chretien makes the comment that since government regulates everything else, why not guns? That argument might carry weight if not for the fact Canadians -- even before the firearms registry came into effect -- were required to obtain Firearms Acquisitions Certificates and endure background checks before obtaining firearms. Still, the Liberals felt compelled to add another layer of unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy in the form of the universal long-gun registry.

But Bill C-68 didn't change the fact that criminals are still able to obtain firearms and they have no intention of registering them.

Today, the real issue is why the Tories continue to sit on their election promise to get rid of the registry. The answer, it seems, is that they are more interested in working toward a majority government without offending anyone in the process.

But there is a compromise worth looking at, and we'll return to Chretien's comments. Chretien says that police chiefs and the Canadian Police Association consider the registry a useful tool. "Ask the police chief if they like the system. They're all in favour." First, that's a disingenuous argument on Chretien's part, because the police do have a vested interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of as many people of possible -- even if that conflicts with the interests of responsible gun owners.

But if police chiefs and police associations do truly believe that the benefits of the registry outweigh the costs, then the Conservative government should give them this option: Let them take over the cost of running and operating the registry, and do it through their existing police budgets. And, if it isn't worth the investment, then that should convince the opposition parties that it's time to shut down this inefficient and wasteful shotgun and rifle registry as soon as possible.