PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE:
2003.02.18
EDITION:
National
SECTION:
Editorials
PAGE:
A21
SOURCE:
National Post Parliamentary bills; Closure; Auditing; Costs; Reports;
Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun-shy
in the House
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadians
have wanted Ottawa to rethink its disastrous gun registry since late last year,
when Auditor-General Sheila Fraser first revealed how the program's net cost had
ballooned to $1-billion, 500 times the government's original estimate. But the
Liberals held firm -- insisting that not even Ms. Fraser's revelations could
derail their plan to bury Canadian duck hunters and gun collectors under tedious
paperwork.
On
Monday, gun registry opponents made their presence felt in the House of Commons.
Don Boudria, the Liberal House leader, wanted to close debate on Bill C-10A, a
legislative package that enacts various cosmetic changes to the registry's
structure. It creates, for example, a new sinecure to administer the program --
a "Commissioner of Firearms." If Mr. Boudria had succeeded, the bill
would have come to a vote with minimal discussion. But at the last hour, Mr.
Boudria realized that backbenchers in his own party might not give him the votes
he needed. So he backed down, and the vote was never called. It's a small
victory in the grand scheme. But at least it shows that some small fraction of
Canada's contempt for Grit waste has filtered through to the floor of
Parliament.
Martin
Cauchon, who oversees the gun registry, still believes it can be saved; indeed,
11 days ago, the Justice Minister claimed he had an "action plan" to
reform it. Unfortunately, it turned out his scheme consisted of replacing the
registry's chief executive officer. For metaphorically minded Canadians, the
announcement immediately summoned images of the Titanic's reshuffled deck
chairs.
No
"action plan" can redeem this catastrophe. Nine years after Ottawa set
up its gun registry program, its record reads like a case study in public
bungling. In 1994, Justice Department bureaucrats assured the government that
the registry would have largely paid for itself by 1999-2000. In 1996, Justice
admitted its estimates were off, and claimed the registry would be
self-financing by 2005-06. In 1998, the bureaucrats told us the registry
wouldn't break even until 2012-13. All the while, it turns out the Justice
Ministry was actively hiding the real numbers in hopes the scandal could be
passed on to successors. And there is no end in sight: An independent report
commissioned by the department and released at the beginning of February says
this utterly pointless program could cost another $500-million over the next
decade.
When
most people find themselves in a hole, the first thing they do is stop digging.
Could someone please explain to us why Mr. Cauchon hasn't dropped his shovel?