PUBLICATION:
The
Chronicle-Herald
DATE:
2004.01.29
SECTION:
Opinion
PAGE:
B2
BYLINE:
Tony Rodgers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunning
for common-sense legislation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE
VIEWS expressed in THE JAN. 23 editorial "Gunning for Control" cannot
go unchallenged for a number of good reasons, but most of all because the people
who read this paper deserve a better view of what is really happening around the
country in recent days concerning the gun registry. That is, since Paul Martin
became prime minister.
As
a subscriber, I read this paper every day and I know that very little has been
reported about the gun-control debate since the beginning of the year; that is,
until the great coverage given to the police chiefs' press conference last week
and a follow-up editorial.
The
prime minister has indicated that he wants to take some very positive steps
toward addressing the spending habits of government, with Canadian taxpayers'
dollars. What he has decided to do is look for cost-benefit analysis of a number
of government programs. One of them is the gun-control legislation. He has
tasked Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan to review this program, that has
gone 500 times past its original cost estimates under the former prime minister.
She, in turn, has assigned the file to Minister of State Albina Guarnieri to do
the groundwork on the review. This review by Ms. Guarnieri is still active.
Canada
has always been a country of government reviews and studies. We like to study
the devil out of everything before making a decision. Well, after 10 years of
debating this firearms issue, that is now the law of the land, it has failed to
go away and it is back on the table being reviewed.
I'll
deal with the recent studies. A $60,000 KPMG study was underway a year ago when
Martin Cauchon, the minister then responsible for the registry, announced an
additional $92,000 review. These two studies were to add to Auditor General
Sheila Fraser's December 2002 report that confirmed the overspending of tax
dollars, and another 115-page economic impact study of the Canadian Firearms
Program by government that has since become a "cabinet secret."
We
in the firearms community feel comfortable with government doing another review
because we feel secure with the position we have taken and know that if all of
the evidence surrounding this fiasco is on the table for all Canadians to see,
then something good will be done to change the gun legislation.
On
the other hand, groups like the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the
Coalition for Gun Control are starting to circle the wagons. Even through Bill
C-68 is now in law, they appear to be not as secure in their position. They are,
as the chiefs did, preaching worn-out misinformation about the benefits of a gun
registry to try to prop up and justify this inefficient failure.
I
have read the press release from the chiefs' news conference. It's ironic that
most of what they were calling for was in the old legislation, Bill C-17,
brought in by then justice minister Kim Campbell. It was never given a chance to
be tested before being replaced by the more expensive Bill C-68.
Crime
in this country has dropped steadily for the past 10 years. That's long before
C-68 had any effect on it. Crime continues to drop. This fact makes it even more
interesting that, according to Statistics Canada's Homicide Report, less than
three per cent of violent crimes in Canada involve firearms and it's the known
criminals who are committing most of the violent crimes, not law-abiding gun
owners. So, why spend a billion dollars and frustrate the innocent?
The
chiefs' press release admits that they don't represent all of the police chiefs
of Canada. As a matter of fact, the police chief of Canada's largest city,
Julian Fantino of Toronto, has called for the gun bill to be scrapped. Since the
beginning of the new year, the Calgary police officers association has added its
name to the growing list of police unions that have called for the bill to be
scrapped.
Maybe
the solution to the problem of the misuse of guns by criminals is just under our
noses. Justice statistics from 65 countries show that Canada is No. 1 when it
comes to letting criminals off with short sentences. There would be little need
for government to disguise its attempt to fight crime by hiding behind such
programs as gun control if the justice system in this country got down to work.
Stop all plea bargains. Today, if a person is caught robbing someone with a
firearm, he or she pleads guilty on the robbery and gets the gun charge dropped.
Our suggestion would be to charge such a person with the use of a gun in the
commission of a crime, and drop the robbery charge. The penalties are harsher,
and deliver a message about gun use.
Judges
should stop accepting plea bargains from Crown and defence lawyers and impose
the full sentence for any gun crime. Police need more help keeping criminals
behind bars and off the streets, and who in society can do that better than a
judge?
Please
don't encourage government to waste another billion dollars on this program.
Yes, it's been estimated to cost another billion over the next eight years.
Let's put more officers on the streets and give them the equipment and tools
they need to fight crime. I have always had a great deal of respect for police
and the job they do. However, on this issue, they have been given a false sense
of security - a gun law that was designed for the ideal world. This is not an
ideal word. All guns in this country will never be in this registry system;
therefore, police can never rely on it as a crime-fighting tool.
It's time for a clean piece of paper, some common sense,
controlled emotions and the writing of new legislation that will come close to
satisfying everyone but the criminals.
Tony Rodgers is executive director, Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters.