Another quarter billion for gun registry?

[Argus]

I'd post a link to this but I don't see it on any news site. Nor did I hear about this before reading it on a usenet news group. But I think it's certainly a topic worth discussing, particularly if anyone else has heard anything about this. Reposted below:

$273 MILLION GUN REGISTRY CONTRACT: WHAT'S THE BIG SECRET?

"After the Auditor General told them not to, why are the Liberals

still keeping Parliament in the dark about the true cost of the

firearms program?"

Ottawa - Saskatchewan M.P. Garry Breitkreuz and the Conservative

Firearms Critic, is fuming over the secrecy surrounding a $273 million

dollar contract amendment awarded by the Canada Firearms Centre. After

being alerted by a public servant about the contract awarded to two

private companies, Breitkreuz asked the Library of Parliament for

details, but the Library was stonewalled by the Canada Firearms

Centre. "Here's a private contract worth more than a quarter of a

billion dollars and the bureaucrats in charge of the firearms fiasco

tell the Library of Parliament that they would have to file an Access

to Information Act (ATI) request to get any details at all about the

contract. Usually, the Liberals announce such major spending programs

with a major news release and a photo-op. Why not this time?" wondered

Breitkreuz.

"Even though this contract was awarded in March 2005, the government

failed to report it in this year's Estimates documents tabled in

Parliament," reported Breitkreuz. "Nor was it reported by the Canada

Firearms Centre (CFC) or Treasury Board on their Disclosure of

Contracts websites." The CFC's Report on Plans and Priorities provided

a revised estimate of $73.9 million for the Information System

Redesign Project and planned spending for 2005-2006 was reported at

just $16.5 million but nothing for the next two years. "Every

Parliamentarian should be up in arms until we find out where this $273

million contract fits into the Liberal's grand gun registration

scheme."

WHAT LITTLE WE KNOW SO FAR

(1) Contract Amendment #19162-000860/002/XI - 004 in the amount of

$273,169,216, awarded on March 23, 2005, to CGI Information Systems

and Management Consultants Inc. and BDP Business Data Services Limited

[now known as Resolve Corporation], a Joint Venture, awarded by the

Department of Public Works and Government Services for the Client:

CANADA FIREARMS CENTRE.

(2) This contract was found only in the Contracts Canada database.

contracts canada

(3) This contract isn't listed in the Disclosure of Contracts reports

for the CFC.

CFC Canada.

(4) This contract isn't listed in the Treasury Board of Canada's

Disclosure of Contracts reports.

Treasury Board

(5) On October 14, 2005, Mary-Anne Ruedl of the Canada Firearms

Centre, told the Library of Parliament that information on the

contract between CFC and CGI-BDP/Resolve must be requested through an

Access to Information Act request.

"Until we see what kind of response we get to our ATI requests and

Order Paper Question, I guess we'll just add this contract to the

growing list of Liberal secrets on the firearms file including:

enforcement costs, compliance costs, economic costs and the

cost-benefit analysis," concluded Breitkreuz.

October 18, 2005 - Breitkreuz's Order Paper Question Q-223

Hansard

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

It is a shame that this is coming out so late. When I first heard about the gun registry numbers (inflated to 1 billion from 2 million) I thought "Someone should hang" for such obvious theft and/or mismanagement of the public's money. then came Adscam, and captured the headlines, even though the monies involved were far less. Now this.

I am almost beginning to think Canadian voters might be complacent enough to accept a coup and a junta.

[shoop]

I am almost beginning to think Canadian voters might be complacent enough to accept a coup and a junta.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Better than than a 'scary' Prime Minister!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear shoop,

Actually, I was thinking Canadians might breathe a sigh of relief at a coup by a junta, thinking "Thank God, no elections for a while!"

[Toro]

Is there any evidence at all that this program has done anything to reduce crime?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Toro,

Is there any evidence at all that this program has done anything to reduce crime?

To the best of my knowledge, none whatsoever. I am sure that the gov't would be flaunting any such report as a 'tremendous victory', but no such thing is heard.

[Shakeyhands]

It sure has upped the civil disobedience numbers however. All the money aside, I still don't see the reluctance of gun owners to register their firearms. Hardly seems a big deal to me.

[fellowtraveller]

Here are the stats as they relate to homicides with guns:

a slight dip, then right back up in recent years

Homicides by method 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

homicides

All methods 546 553 582 549 622

Shooting 184 171 152 161 172

Stabbing 149 171 182 142 205

Beating 128 122 126 121 136

Strangulation 39 47 66 64 63

Fire (burns/suffocation) 5 8 9 12 13

Other methods 32 26 24 27 20

Not known 9 8 23 22 13

Note: Includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide.

Last modified: 2005-10-06.

Looks like we need some knife control legislation.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Shakeyhands,

All the money aside, I still don't see the reluctance of gun owners to register their firearms. Hardly seems a big deal to me.

It wasn't. It was supposed to be a 'mail-in registration', the cheapest form of gov't registries known. I would not be surprised that great many guns that are in Canada are owned by relatively few people, and many of these guns are probably 'illegal', dating back to days before mag limits, etc, plus the collectors of assault rifles, and whatnot. Most of these owners are 'good gun owners', but technically criminals for possessing 'grandpa's shotgun' that held 5 or 8 rounds instead of the now mandatory maximum of 3. ('plugs can be bought to use up extra magazine capacity, mind you)

A cost over-run of even 50% would have been understandable. However, if it is going to cost me (the taxpayer) a million bucks for every gun they register, I say drop the program.

[Riverwind]

A cost over-run of even 50% would have been understandable. However, if it is going to cost me (the taxpayer) a million bucks for every gun they register, I say drop the program.

I wish it was possible to have some independent anlysis of what went wrong with the gun registry. The only commentary available seems to come from either the gov't or people who wish to discredit the registry.

I suspect the cost overruns were not really cost overruns but the true cost that the bureaucrats estimated before the registry was set up. The Liberals knew that they could not sell the registry to the public if it was going to be that expensive so they pressured the bureaucrats to come up with politically acceptable but unrealistic budget estimates.

A second factor which likely affected the cost would be gun onwers who deliberately attempted to sabotague the system by not following procedures correctly. I am sure Revenue Canada would experience astronomical cost overruns if a large number of tax payers suddenly decided to deliberately submit bad paper work.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

A second factor which likely affected the cost would be gun onwers who deliberately attempted to sabotague the system by not following procedures correctly.

Eureka also claimed that this was a factor, and I agree, but do not think it was the main factor.

I am sure Revenue Canada would experience astronomical cost overruns if a large number of tax payers suddenly decided to deliberately submit bad paper work.

No, it would have no bearing, but might bring down a lot of audits on our head. RevCan does taxes their way, no matter what you say. (as told to me by my former employer worked for RevCan for almost 20 years.)

I suspect the cost overruns were not really cost overruns but the true cost that the bureaucrats estimated before the registry was set up.

No way. Not that much. As I said, I could see 50% over, maybe even 100%. Maybe even double that, or at a stretch, triple. Definitely not 750 x the cost.

[tml12]

Dear Sparhawk,

A second factor which likely affected the cost would be gun onwers who deliberately attempted to sabotague the system by not following procedures correctly.

Eureka also claimed that this was a factor, and I agree, but do not think it was the main factor.

I am sure Revenue Canada would experience astronomical cost overruns if a large number of tax payers suddenly decided to deliberately submit bad paper work.

No, it would have no bearing, but might bring down a lot of audits on our head. RevCan does taxes their way, no matter what you say. (as told to me by my former employer worked for RevCan for almost 20 years.)

I suspect the cost overruns were not really cost overruns but the true cost that the bureaucrats estimated before the registry was set up.

No way. Not that much. As I said, I could see 50% over, maybe even 100%. Maybe even double that, or at a stretch, triple. Definitely not 750 x the cost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am so tired of Liberal underestimating. I mean they underestimate the cost of their programs, such as the gun registry, and then they claim they have no extra money for anything because the surplus isn't as big as it will be (because it has been underestimated...)

Not that I don't think Martin and many Liberals are well-intentioned overall, but I mean I don't think they seem caring to common people who don't have the financial ability to overestimate...

[FTA Lawyer]

A cost over-run of even 50% would have been understandable. However, if it is going to cost me (the taxpayer) a million bucks for every gun they register, I say drop the program.

I wish it was possible to have some independent anlysis of what went wrong with the gun registry. The only commentary available seems to come from either the gov't or people who wish to discredit the registry.

I suspect the cost overruns were not really cost overruns but the true cost that the bureaucrats estimated before the registry was set up. The Liberals knew that they could not sell the registry to the public if it was going to be that expensive so they pressured the bureaucrats to come up with politically acceptable but unrealistic budget estimates.

A second factor which likely affected the cost would be gun onwers who deliberately attempted to sabotague the system by not following procedures correctly. I am sure Revenue Canada would experience astronomical cost overruns if a large number of tax payers suddenly decided to deliberately submit bad paper work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've hit things pretty good I'd say.

But...the intentional sabotage was unnecessary in most instances. The problem was no one listened to any gun owners about practical issues. Sure, lots of irrational spew was thrown around (from both sides of the issue) but certain practical truths existed and were simply ignored. For example:

- The number of firearm owners and firearms owned was grossly underestimated;

- A huge conflict existed due to zero consistency of serial numbers on many guns;

- Oh, and then there is the fundamental flaw with the registry...criminals don't comply with voluntary regulatory legislation...(when I say voluntary, I mean since they don't know who has the guns in the first place, it's an honour system to comply)

In my own case, I have a WWII training rifle made by Sprinfield Arms. Springfield bought Marlin and Sako and someone else bought someone else and so on throughout history.

In the end result, there are guns made by Springfiled and Marlin and others that have identical serial numbers. My gun, as a military issue, has no serial number at all. You can imagine the fiasco of trying to get some telemarketer in Miramichi to resolve the difficulties and advise me how I was even supposed to register!

My dad registered guns and got wrong certificates returned to him in the mail, gun shops had massive inventories that all needed to be registered in short order, people w/ no licenses got guns left to them in wills etc etc.

The gov't had no idea what it was getting itself into...but it sure satisfied the Marc Lepine protesters.

FTA Lawyer

[FTA Lawyer]

Dear Toro,

Is there any evidence at all that this program has done anything to reduce crime?

To the best of my knowledge, none whatsoever. I am sure that the gov't would be flaunting any such report as a 'tremendous victory', but no such thing is heard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hate to be crass, but ask the Mayerthorpe, AB detachment of the RCMP what their view is of the effectiveness of the gun registry.

Those mounties were killed by a lunatic with a bad criminal history, who had a current court-ordered weapons prohibition and a prohibited firearm.

My point is, the registration of legal guns by law-abiding citizens (because criminals don't register) does nothing to prevent the bad guys from doing bad things.

A billion dollars into the Justice Dept. or the RCMP might have been a much better investment.

FTA Lawyer

[FTA Lawyer]

Here are the stats as they relate to homicides with guns:

a slight dip, then right back up in recent years

Homicides by method    2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

  homicides

All methods 546 553 582 549 622

Shooting 184 171 152 161 172

Stabbing 149 171 182 142 205

Beating 128 122 126 121 136

Strangulation 39 47 66 64 63

Fire (burns/suffocation) 5 8 9 12 13

Other methods 32 26 24 27 20

Not known 9 8 23 22 13

Note: Includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide.

Last modified: 2005-10-06.

Looks like we need some knife control legislation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the point highlighted here is that Canada always had some of the best (and most strict) firearm control legislation prior to the "long-gun registry"...it's been a 100% waste in my mind...it simply wasn't necessary.

Keep in mind, the multi-billion dollar registry we are talking about could only possibly reduce shootings with long-rifles that were otherwise lawfully owned (because someone who already illegally possessed guns was not going to sign up to the registry).

So, from the 172 shooting homicides in 2004, we would have to subtract:

1)Lawful shootings (by police or citizens defending themselves)

2)Handgun shootings (as handguns have been registered for decades prior to the current registry)

3)Long-rifle shootings where the gun was illegally possessed in the first place.

None of these shootings could be reduced by the positive effects (if there were any) of the long-gun registry becuase these types of shootings are not with guns that are the subject matter of the registry.

Unfortunately, we don't have stats to tell us just how few such gun deaths we would be looking at, but it is likely less than 20.

FTA Lawyer