The Liberal Love-in

[Argus]

It is quite rational, Kimmy, to ask how much of the cost overrun was caused by those who would not obey the law in a timely manner. The completion of the registration was delayed by a couple of years and I don't think even the most rabid of critics (those really grasping at straws) would try to earn political points by pretending that a major government activity cost nothing while large staffs waited for compliance.

This doesn't wash. The program was long-delayed and had vast cost overruns in the implimentation of the sytems, particularly the computer systems needed for registration. They were unable to cope with even the numbers of people who did attempt to legally register. To suggest they could have done better if even more people had registered is patent absurdity. The flaws in the system have been well-documented, and none are related to civil disobedience. The costly work-arounds and fixes for those flaws continue.

[Guest eureka]

Criticism becomes much more credible when it can accept that there may be validity in some counter arguments.

Of course there were huge numbers who would not register until the deadline: and, of course it was the deliberate obstructionism of, in particular, Klein's government that was more than a little responsible.

A scandalous misuse of provincial tax moneys that also cost the federal treasury millions as the program was virtually idled for a considerable time.

[kimmy]

Criticism becomes much more credible when it can accept that there may be validity in some counter arguments.

Holy, eureka, you're probably the last guy on the forum who should be criticizing others on that front.

It is quite rational, Kimmy, to ask how much of the cost overrun was caused by those who would not obey the law in a timely manner. The completion of the registration was delayed by a couple of years and I don't think even the most rabid of critics (those really grasping at straws) would try to earn political points by pretending that a major government activity cost nothing while large staffs waited for compliance.

Ah. The registry cost hundreds of millions extra because the staff were sitting idle for an extended period of time.

Waitaminute. You're saying the cost would not have gone far overboard had the staff not been idle? If they'd been happily registering firearms they'd have cost less? Why is that? Do they get "idle-pay" bonuses on days that they're not registering guns? This is most baffling.

Of course, you modern kids would not know about the cost of anything that does not have a computer tag.

Despite what you might think, attempting to "big-man" someone by bringing their age into the discussion does not bolster your argument or make you look smarter.

I'm also blonde, if you'd like some further ammunition for ad-hominem attacks.

-kimmy

[caesar]

I disagree. The gun control system itself is not particularly affective. This can be easily demonstrated in the wide availability of even restricted weapons to anyone who cares to purchase one. The deepest flaw in gun control is in the law which punishes illegal posession and sale, and in the judges who hand out slap-on-the-wrist sentences for its violation. It is absurdly easy to get an illegal weapon in this country. As long as that is the case the gun control system itself is a waste of time and money.

It certainly is effective. We have much less of the violence with guns that we see in the USA. 8 people dead at a church meeting; would that have happened if guns were not so easily available. A seven year old boy shot himself in the hand at school. Why was a gun so easily found by a child???? Unfortunately, living so close to the USA where guns are sold very easily; many illegal guns are getting into Canada.

[Guest eureka]

So am I blonde, Kimmy, or was. That does not make me humourless.

I also say that I did not say what you say I say. I say that political opportunism, not rationality, denies that the opposition to the Registry contributed to the cost overrun.

[kimmy]

So am I blonde, Kimmy, or was. That does not make me humourless.

I also say that I did not say what you say I say. I say that political opportunism, not rationality, denies that the opposition to the Registry contributed to the cost overrun.

I'm not denying that opposition to the registry contributed to costs. I cited a couple of examples myself: the advertising effort to encourage people to register, and the apparent need to perform "surveillance" of registry opponents. I will even suggest another one: the government presumably had legal expenses in anticipation of legal defense of the registry. None of this, in my estimation, can explain how anything close to the insane cost over-runs has occured.

You, on the other hand, seem unwilling to consider anything beyond your own pet agenda on this topic (or any other.) "Provincialists! Provincialists! The demagogues, children! The demogogues! "

In your effort to tie your ongoing battle with provincialists to the cost over-runs, you've offered up the half-baked suggestion that the over-runs were because the registry staff was sitting idle while the program cleared final hurdles to its implimentation.

Huh? What? Why? Was the program more expensive to operate while sitting idle? No? Well then wouldn't it have also gone far overbudget had it been operating?

Nor do "the provincialists! " explain why the program has needed emergency infusions of cash even since it was (supposedly) operating full-steam.

You're the one who is closed-minded. You're the one who seems unable to acknowledge information that doesn't conform to your political agenda. You're the one making a ridiculous reach... don't put out your back, grand-dad.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

Come on, Kimmy! It is unworthy of you to suggest that I said any of that. I have said that opposition to the program contributed to the delays and the cost over-runs.

I have said that it was a gross misuse of provincial tax funds for one leader to take public stands against the Registry: to actually encourage civil disobedience by saying that it would not be implemented in his province. I could say a great deal more on that but I will confine this to the point of cost.

Other than that, I have been critical of the cost of the program and have referred to the cheaper and more effective programs elsewhere.

My grandchild is well, thank you, and, at seventen months, is already showing a greater grasp of meanings and concepts than some I have to deal with!

[Archeron]

I have said that it was a gross misuse of provincial tax funds for one leader to take public stands against the Registry: to actually encourage civil disobedience by saying that it would not be implemented in his province.

At some point civil disobedience is the last resort to counter something you are against and have no other recourse to stop. Someone needs to lead the charge. But in the long run, that was not what I think the motivation was.

What Ralph did was no worse than the federal liberals... he used the passion of the people on this topic as a popularity grab. This is easy to do as many outside the cities see the Gun Registry as nothing more than a tax on rural Canada and political pandering to the scared masses in Canada's biggest cities where the registry's major support comes from. Yet another example of western and rural alienation we keep hearing about. Perhaps some money was lost to the opposition, but it is far from the first and definitely not the last time we will see bad decisions made a bit worse for political gain.

[kimmy]

Come on, Kimmy! It is unworthy of you to suggest that I said any of that. I have said that opposition to the program contributed to the delays and the cost over-runs.

In response to my message questioning the registry's outrageous over-runs, your reply was:

How much of the cost of the Gun Registry is attributable to those who are most vociferous in criticism?

How much cost was incurred in dealing with the near civil disobedience of hundreds of thousands of "refuseniks?"

From from your current tone, I gather you're now conceding that the answer to your questions is "not much."

My grandchild is well, thank you, and, at seventen months, is already showing a greater grasp of meanings and concepts than some I have to deal with!

That's lovely! You must be thrilled to have someone willing to listen to your ranting for at least a couple more years.

-kimmy

[caesar]

That's lovely! You must be thrilled to have someone willing to listen to your ranting for at least a couple more years.

-kimmy

That is a cheap shot and quite uncalled for; I thought better of you Kimmy despite your clouded judgement

[caesar]

How did the critics cause hundreds of millions of dollars of extra costs? Liberal MPs have offered this excuse repeatedly, with no plausible suggestion as to how any expense was caused by the critics, let alone hundreds of millions of dollars of extra expense.

Well Kimmy if you cannot see how and why this opposition and legal wrangling and delaying things costs money; What can I say. ONLY That you only see that which you wish to see.

Why oppose something and throw up expensive road blocks to something that can only help and would harm no one. It does not deny any one from owning a fire arm that has a valid reason for owning one. It is just another tool for the police to work with, trace weapons and confiscate unregistered (illegal weapons) more readily.

[Guest eureka]

I don't think it was a cheap shot, Caesar. Kimmy sometimes is rattled out of the pose of cool intelligence but I have never seen what I would call a cheap shot. It's all part of the give and take.

Kimmy, I am conceding nothing and there is nothing to concede. I asked a question that is not being asked in the welter of political posturing. The question is valid and I feel quite sure that the anounts wasted will be substantial.

How much it will be, though, is probably not directly quantifiable. However, what is "sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander."

[kimmy]

That's lovely! You must be thrilled to have someone willing to listen to your ranting for at least a couple more years.

-kimmy

That is a cheap shot and quite uncalled for; I thought better of you Kimmy despite your clouded judgement

ha ha, no, caesar! See, it's all part of the new give-and-take relationship that eureka and I apparently now have.

I wouldn't want to be accused of being humourless, after all.

-kimmy

{"The jocularity, children! The jocularity!"}

[kimmy]

Kimmy, I am conceding nothing and there is nothing to concede. I asked a question that is not being asked in the welter of political posturing. The question is valid and I feel quite sure that the anounts wasted will be substantial.

How much it will be, though, is probably not directly quantifiable. However, what is "sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander."

Sauce for the gander? The sauce you're serving up has been slung around Parliament Hill for several years by ganders, or turkeys as the case may be, on the government side of the house as well as those in the civil service whose competence is under scrutiny over this matter. It has been phrased not as questions which need to be asked, but as facts which stand on their own. The question needing to be asked is: how valid is this excuse?

Our friends at the CBC have put together a nice little summary.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/guncontrol/

First of all, a pertinent figure:

At the time, the government says the registry would cost about $119 million, but the revenue generated by registration fees would mean taxpayers would only be on the hook for $2 million.

Let us keep this original cost estimate of $119 million in mind as we proceed.

In a report released early in 2000, the Canadian Firearms Program notes that implementation costs are rising, and cites the following as contributing factors:

    * major backlogs in registration, largely as a result of firearm owners waiting until the last minute to apply

    * general increase of costs

    * fee waivers for early applications

    * high error rates in applications submitted by firearm owners

Now, first off, it is worth mentioning that there is a vast human tendancy for people to wait until deadlines to do anything. File taxes; homework assignments; term-papers; return those videos to Blockbuster... people wait until deadlines. H&R Block and Revenue Canada understand the phenomenon well and make staffing decisions accordingly. Why was the Firearms Registry unable to do the same?

Nevertheless, we press on.

By December 2001, the cost rose to an estimated $527 million. The CFP says that, in addition to reasons already cited in the 2000 report, a major factor behind the ballooning costs was the difficulty it had keeping track of licence fees collected. This was blamed, in part, on the computer system used to process applications. And, according to the audit, that problem could not be resolved without "massive change," including "significant investment" in the computer system.

So while everybody from procrastinating farmers to Ralph Klein has been tarred with the blame brush, a major factor in the mushrooming costs was that they set up an inadequate computer system which they later had to scrap and replace.

April 2002

An estimated $629 million has been spent on implementing the gun registry program. Here is a breakdown of the costs:

    * $2 million to help police enforce legislation

    * at least $60 million for public relations programs, including television commercials ($18 million of which went to controversial ad agency GroupAction)

    * $227 million in computer costs. Complicated application forms are filled with personal questions, slowing processing times and driving costs higher than anticipated

    * $332 million for other programming costs, including money to pay staff to process the forms.

Finally, some numbers.

First off, I've got to point this out:

and I can't imagine how a few TV promos could have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, unless they were handled by Quebec ad firms...

uh...

at least $60 million for public relations programs, including television commercials ($18 million of which went to controversial ad agency GroupAction)

enough said. That's beside the point. The more important part:

"$332 million for other programming costs, including money to pay staff to process the forms."

Ok, so this is after the deadline, after the backlog, and they've put the cost of processing applications as a *part* of the $332 million.

So in response to your question of how much of the cost has been because of the "refuseniks", the answer is uncertain, but it is less than $332 million.

As far as blaming Alberta, I'll mention that Alberta was not the only group to challenge the legality of the gun registry. Alberta was joined by Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the Territories in asking for a Supreme Court opinion. As well, native groups have challenged the registry.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

Give and take is something I extend to anyone, Kimmy, until they violate respect!

You are, it seems, finally coming to the point. Substantial sums were wasted by the delays and much of the delays was through political motivation. This is what no one is talking about in the rush to score points off the federal government.

I single out Klein, not as the only political opportunist, but as the one who threatened not to have the law enforced in his province thus causing something far more serious than any human tendency might.

Do by all means keep the original cost estimatre of $119 million in mind as the discussions proceed. It was never the $2 million that is bandied about everywhere.

And another part of the cost overrun is in the waiving of fees.

[kimmy]

You are, it seems, finally coming to the point. Substantial sums were wasted by the delays and much of the delays was through political motivation. This is what no one is talking about in the rush to score points off the federal government.

The government's figures for staffing costs of the program are apparently included in the $332 million "other" expenses. Even if *all* of the staffing expenses were cause by the backlog (and obviously they weren't) and *all* of the "other" expenses were staffing expenses, that puts the damage from delays at a maximum of $332 million. But that's only about 15% of the costs of this program!

I single out Klein, not as the only political opportunist, but as the one who threatened not to have the law enforced in his province  thus causing something far more serious than any human tendency might.

Nonsense.

Do by all means keep the original cost estimatre of $119 million in mind as the discussions proceed. It was never the $2 million that is bandied about everywhere.

And another part of the cost overrun is in the waiving of fees.

The waiving of fees is why we are considering $119 million instead of $2 million. The $2 million figure was arrived at by estimating that registration fees would raise $117 million to offset costs almost entirely. Let us just look at the $119 million figure and dispense with discussion of fees.

And even in 2002, when the cost was pegged at "only" $629 million, we find that the computer system alone, the computer system which they had to buy even if everybody cooperated and nobody objected in the least, that computer system alone had cost twice the $119 million that the whole program was supposed to cost.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy, I have no idea why this argument is continuing in this way. My purpose was to point to the hypocrisy that jumps on the cost while ignoring the, possibly, hundreds of millions that were created by opposition.

Now that is in the open, perhaps there can be a more accurate perspective on how much is real and how much is political grandstanding.

I won't get into the economic benefits and spinoffs; revenues and economic activity since they were an unintended benefit.

Oh, though, it is not nonsense about Klein.

[kimmy]

Kimmy, I have no idea why this argument is continuing in this way. My purpose was to point to the hypocrisy that jumps on the cost while ignoring the, possibly, hundreds of millions that were created by opposition.

Now that is in the open, perhaps there can be a more accurate perspective on how much is real and how much is political grandstanding.

I won't get into the economic benefits and spinoffs; revenues and economic activity since they were an unintended benefit.

Oh, though, it is not nonsense about Klein.

I didn't concede that the delays and backlogs cost hundreds of millions. I proposed a cap of $332 million as the absolote highest number which could have been caused by backlogs, delays, and Klein. Out of $2 billion that's not much. While you may be concerned about that under 15%, I'm much more interested in the over 85% of which very little seems to have been accounted for.

While it might be politically appealing for you to blame Klein and last-minute registrations for the backlogs, the government's own information indicated that their computer system was unable to cope and had to be completely replaced. So which seems like the real reason for the backlog and which seems like a desperate excuse?

And information now appears to indicate that gun registry costs are approaching 2 billion dollars... the last update we've had from the government had costs at a still-scandalous $629 million. Why haven't we gotten a new accounting of costs for 3 years?

But as usual this is just another opportunity to bang your favorite drum. "The provincialists, children! The provincialists!" You go ahead and do that, I won't trouble you any further.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

You are becoming a disappointment. I have made it very clear that my interest in this was to see the political grandstanding reduced. It was to bring out that substantial sums were wasted by the opposition. Everything else is in your fertile imagination.

[Michael Hardner]

After reading the arguments, it still boggles my mind as to how so much money could have been spent on this.

Opposition (which by the way, it supposed to be a good thing in a pluralistic society) may have added some costs as Kimmy pointed out but nothing like the huge outlays that apparently have occurred. This program was clearly a huge waste of resources.

So, the Federal government has shown that they are incapable of managing new projects such as this - what are the alternatives ? They probably aren't much better. Private firms bidding for computer contracts will demand large payouts to build these systems. Part of this is due to the continual political interference that a government will inflict on any project. ( See the Ontario PC Government's overruns on their Welfare computer system for a similar story. ) Another part of this is due to the fact that there are only a few firms that can undertake projects of this size, and the players know this. $$$.

I think in the long term we need to destroy these huge bureaucracies, gut the management, and set them up as new entities. But the political willpower and capital necessary to do so is daunting.

[kimmy]

You are becoming a disappointment. I have made it very clear that my interest in this was to see the political grandstanding reduced. It was to bring out that substantial sums were wasted by the opposition. Everything else is in your fertile imagination.

Is it in my imagination that huge sums of money have been wasted and that the opposition to the registry appears to account for only a small portion of it, even if one believes the rationale offered?

Is it my imagination that while in 2000 the registry program blamed backlogs on last-minute registrants, their own actions since then indicate that inadequate computer systems and overly complicated registration forms were the real problem?

Is it my imagination that the government could clear up this issue and end this controversy simply by having an external audit performed and making the results public? Is it my imagination that the most likely reason they haven't already done so is that they're worried about what might be revealed?

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

What is in your imagination is the argument you are trying to have with me. It is not about my statements on the Gun Registry.

[kimmy]

What is in your imagination is the argument you are trying to have with me. It is not about my statements on the Gun Registry.

Your statements have been simply that politically-motivated opposition to the registry contributed substantial sums to the cost overruns.

I will grant you that much, subject to a couple of disclaimers:

* the sums are substantial in raw dollars, but not very substantial in relation to the overall amount of the cost overruns. Politically-motivated opposition might have been an aggravating factor, but it is far from a complete explanation for what has gone on.

* the effects being blamed on political opposition-- the delays and backlogs and higher cost of processing applications-- are likely in large measure a result of the registry's self-admitted problems with their computer system and unwieldy application forms, not opposition.

-kimmy

[Argus]

How did the critics cause hundreds of millions of dollars of extra costs? Liberal MPs have offered this excuse repeatedly, with no plausible suggestion as to how any expense was caused by the critics, let alone hundreds of millions of dollars of extra expense.

Well Kimmy if you cannot see how and why this opposition and legal wrangling and delaying things costs money; What can I say. ONLY That you only see that which you wish to see.

Or in the context of this forum she can only see the legitimate arguments you make.

And you haven't made any.

She has presented facts and figures, citations and logic. You have responded with nothing but suggestions that somehow or other the rising costs must be due to those evil gun types. Gee, she can't see how? Well, too bad for her because you sure as hell aren't capable of demonstrating it.

[Argus]

QUOTE]I disagree. The gun control system itself is not particularly affective. This can be easily demonstrated in the wide availability of even restricted weapons to anyone who cares to purchase one. The deepest flaw in gun control is in the law which punishes illegal posession and sale, and in the judges who hand out slap-on-the-wrist sentences for its violation. It is absurdly easy to get an illegal weapon in this country. As long as that is the case the gun control system itself is a waste of time and money.

It certainly is effective. We have much less of the violence with guns that we see in the USA.We have a lower temperature than them, too. Is gun control responsible for that?

Almost all countries have less gun violence than the US. Even countries with less gun control than them. You have done nothing to demonstrate that our gun control policies have done a single thing to lower our gun violence rate, especially given the absolute fact that is is childishly easy to get your hands on a gun in this country, laws or no laws.

[ 8 people dead at a church meeting; would that have happened if guns were not so easily available.

Guns are easily available here.

Unfortunately, living so close to the USA where guns are sold very easily; many illegal guns are getting into Canada.

That, of course, was my point, one which you have railed against even while supporting.