Liberals hid gun registry cost

[Hicksey]

Though THIS REPORT says it and I would tend to believe it, I have a couple of questions because its just as easy to overstate one's case is it is to cook the books.

For instance, all the reports about the much maligned program in the last few years have pegged its cumulative cost at around $1.8 billion while the auditor general pegged it at barely more than half that ($946M) up to the end of 2005.

There are a lot of questions to be asked. I ask the following questions:

Does anyone think that the CPC is just taking occasion to beat a dead horse here?

We also have to consider that the Liberals have already lost an election based at least partially on this.

Its just too easy for this to be skewed either way.

Its too easy for this to be dismissed as the CPC continuing to kick a dead horse, and too easy for an AG appointed by the Liberals to find a little more friendly outcome for them.

I don't have proof either way, just a sense that something is wrong about this report. And I can't put my finger on just what. I thought maybe some of you may be able to nail it.

[geoffrey]

I'd hardly look at Fraser as a sell-out to the Liberals, I have a ton of respect for her.

Nope, its beating a dead horse. Who cares? They are out of power now, do something to fix the problem. Last time I checked, the registry is still around costing us millions a day.

Get rid of it then claim some moral victory.

[FTA Lawyer]

If Canadians view revelations of dishonesty and malfeasance by their elected officials as "beating a dead horse" simply because the revelations come at some time after the actual wrongdoing, then we will truly get the government that we deserve and we will continually suffer such outrageous and offensive conduct at the hands of every government we elect no matter what the name of the party.

The Liberals cannot be said to have lost the last election due to this issue because we have just been given the Auditor General's report. For Fraser's conclusions to carry any substantive value, as Canadians we must make the hiding from Parliament of how our tax dollars are being spent a main issue in the next election whenever it may come.

I make it no secret that I am a conservative-minded voter and that I oppose the long-gun registry. That being said, I am a firm believer in the democratic process. If the Liberal government had been open and honest with Parliament about their program, and in spite of the cost overruns and difficulties, the majority of Canadians maintained their support for it, then I would dutifully register my firearms according to law.

Instead, the Liberal government deliberately misled the people of Canada in order to disguise the true economic status of the registry. There are Enron executives in U.S. prisons right now nodding their heads in a manner of empathy and solidarity for the methods used by Cretien et. al. to deceive.

This is a matter with which all Canadians, and I dare say in particular Liberal party members / supporters, should be appalled. An executor of an estate worth mere tens of thousands of dollars is required to accurately account to the Courts where the money is going, millions of employees with expense accounts are required to account to their employers where the money is going, corporations are required to account to their investors where the money is going, every taxpayer is required to account to the CRA where their money is going etc. etc. In each case, the person reporting is required to be honest, forthright and use generally accepted accounting principles to convey their information.

We are not talking about some outrageous concept or outlandish and onerous principle...it is daily f-ing life...those who hold other people's money are required to fairly and accurately account for it. The government's deception regarding the cost of the gun registry is an affront to our political system and an unforgiveable breach of public trust.

No party should be let off the hook for such transgressions by the mere stepping into opposition of a minority Parliament for a few months. Barring a similar bout of fraud by another government, this issue should translate into a decade of Liberals watching from afar trying to RE-EARN the public trust...you don't get it just because you put your name on the ballot.

FTA

[betsy]

It's not only the fact that millions were hidden, but that for several years, the AG had repeatedly reported of mismanagement and dis-organization. It is the fact that nothing was done to change the corruptible system that is galling. The previous government knew about the corrupt system....and they did nothing about it.

It only proved to show that the Liberals had no wish to change the system.

The Gomery inquiry only supported what the AG had reported in the past. The Liberals had been irresponsible and negligent of public funds...to say the least. If millions can be hidden, what more could've been squandered?

A Dairy Queen was able to get a subsidy to extend a take out window. What made it different from a McDonald's or Harvey's to have been approved for that kind of help? What MP is related to this owner....that makes me wonder.

I am interested to see the polling contracts. And everything else...especially from CIDA and other organizations overseas.

[Nocrap]

Seems rather convenient that all of this is coming out so soon after the Republicans give Harper advice on how to keep power.

Tories get tips on keeping power

Elizabeth Thompson, CanWest News Service; Montreal Gazette

Published: Sunday, May 07, 2006

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should do its best over the coming year to

dig up embarrassing information on the former Liberal administration and portray it as

corrupt, a prominent Republican pollster counseled an influential group of Conservatives

Saturday.

Speaking a day after meeting with Harper, Frank Luntz described the Conservatives as

allies of the Republicans and urged them to discredit the Liberals so thoroughly that it will be years before they make it back into power.

His appointment of Fortier is a sponsorship scandal in the making, so he'd better be careful

"New questions have arisen over Senator Michael Fortier's appointment as minister for

public works because he reportedly accepted donor cheques on behalf of the Conservative Party from supporters in Quebec during the election campaign.

A senior party fundraiser told the Ottawa Citizen that "one or two" party supporters

informed him they had sent donation cheques to Fortier, whose appointment is being

widely criticized because he'll be unaccountable to elected MPs in the House of Commons.

Fortier was a national co-chairperson of the Conservative election campaign.

His acceptance of donor cheques in that role would not have been extraordinary.

But because he is now public works minister, which awards $13 billion in procurement

contracts annually, it could be sensitive politically for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and complicate existing problems surrounding Fortier's appointment.

Harper has campaigned for nearly a decade for an elected Senate. But he not only

appointed a senator to cabinet to represent Montreal as the city's political minister, but has also given Fortier, a longtime party organizer, responsibility for the department at the centre of the fundraising scandal that brought down the Liberal government."

Fortier Appointment

Don't think I won't be watching to see who gets the lucrative contracts.

The NDP are looking better all the time.

[scribblet]

It's not only the fact that millions were hidden, but that for several years, the AG had repeatedly reported of mismanagement and dis-organization. It is the fact that nothing was done to change the corruptible system that is galling. The previous government knew about the corrupt system....and they did nothing about it.

It only proved to show that the Liberals had no wish to change the system.

The Gomery inquiry only supported what the AG had reported in the past. The Liberals had been irresponsible and negligent of public funds...to say the least. If millions can be hidden, what more could've been squandered?

A Dairy Queen was able to get a subsidy to extend a take out window. What made it different from a McDonald's or Harvey's to have been approved for that kind of help? What MP is related to this owner....that makes me wonder.

I am interested to see the polling contracts. And everything else...especially from CIDA and other organizations overseas.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3080

"Majority (54%) Feel Current Gun Registry Should Be Scrapped And Most (56%) Blame Liberal Politicians, Not Bureaucrats (37%), For Bungling.

But Majority Of Canadians (67%) Also Support Idea Of Having Some Type Of Gun Registry Put In Place By Harper Government"

The first part of the Ipsos poll was buried. The second part was siezed on and misquoted.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's also keep in mind the difference between 'corrupt' and 'inept'. Having politicians manage a project like this is a recipe for disaster. And.... since the CPC isn't going to fire the civil service, a lot of the same problems will persist.

[scribblet]

This is a great article on gun controllers, or those who wan civilian disarmament.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentD...ay.asp?aid=7862

What Gun Controllers Don't Want You to Know

Written by Howard Nemerov

Friday, June 11, 2004

I used to support gun control, meaning civilian disarmament. There was no reason, the rationale went, for a private citizen to own a gun. The only ones who wanted guns had small genitalia, were paranoid crazies, and criminals.

All this was assumed, without any empirical or statistical research to base it upon. Due to the influence of one of my clients who is a person of great honor, I began to research the issue of gun control on my own. Having been a college boy who loved library research, I knew how to ferret out fact from fiction. It was interesting to find that the claims of the NRA, John Lott, et al., were easy to verify from neutral or even slightly pro-gun control sources.

More ominously, I found that the gun control groups consistently lied or twisted minor factoids taken out of context in their articles. This begged the question: if they are lying to advance their agenda, can we really trust the utopian outcome they promote as true?

The Utopian Thesis of Gun Control

The philosophy behind gun control is that by limiting access to guns, the public is made a safer place. (1,2) This is a noble undertaking, and all persons of conscience should support this. If it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt that disarming the law-abiding public would enhance public safety, save children’s lives, and enhance or preserve our civil rights, I would be in favor of gun control.

[Michael Hardner]

More ominously, I found that the gun control groups consistently lied or twisted minor factoids taken out of context in their articles. This begged the question: if they are lying to advance their agenda, can we really trust the utopian outcome they promote as true?

Howard Nemerov himself twists the facts by not mentioning the lies provided by the other side, including NRA based researchers.

If it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt that disarming the law-abiding public would enhance public safety

Interesting question: Would there be shootings if there were no guns ?

[geoffrey]

If it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt that disarming the law-abiding public would enhance public safety

Interesting question: Would there be shootings if there were no guns ?

Only criminals would have them then. Gun's aren't just going to disappear. The biggest falisy of the gun control lot... ban them and gangsters will turn them in too.

How foolish.

[betsy]

Another fallacy is the reasoning that "law enforcers check the registry before going to a house to see if they've got guns." What a load of crap.

Law enforcers treat ALL OCCUPANTS of any houses as possibly armed! Whether they are in the registry or not! That's how it should...and how it must be. And that's what a law officer indicated.

That woman cop in Lavalle got shotgunned by someone who was NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A GUN!

So this registry is not only ineffective...but it also have a dangerous effect. It gives a semblance of FALSE SECURITY. It could lull enforcers to put their guard down.

[betsy]

Now I understand why the Liberals were persistent in painting Harper as "scary, scary." It was no made-up joke.

In truth, the Liberals were really scared of him. They know he's "tenacious, tenacious".

[Temagami Scourge]

I say solve the problem by getting rid of guns period. Only police and armed forces personnel can access guns period.

...and I hunt.

Having dealt with people toting guns, it is my opinion that a gun is like rum....it gives people instant courage. get 'em back where you have to go toe-to-toe to take out someone and you'll see how small people get, and so fast!

People can hunt with bows and arrows if they are desparte to hunt, and if folks are scared of getting eaten by a bear, then either learn to get away from them or stay in the city.

otherwise, anything else to do with guns is a waste of time and money.

[southerncomfort]

Now I understand why the Liberals were persistent in painting Harper as "scary, scary." It was no made-up joke.

In truth, the Liberals were really scared of him. They know he's "tenacious, tenacious".

A representative from the Toronto Police Force was on the Ted Woloshyn show on CFRB this morning and said that there have been some Toronto police injured by rifles but most of the gun crime is with hand guns and gangsters don't register their weapons anyway. So removing the long gun portion would not be much of a factor.

I think that a lot of people in general think that all gun registration may be scrapped. I heard Stephen Harper speak once on the issuein a campaign and he was specific saying "long gun registry." But what people in general hear is talk about scrapping the gun registry and I think that leaves them with the notion that guns may not be registered at all, which is incorrect.

Hence the support for some form of registry but people realize that this one has been fraught with problems.

If people are wondering where Stephen Harper may be headed with the government on more than this topic they should find text of what he actually SAID and then draw their judgement from that.

[FTA Lawyer]

I say solve the problem by getting rid of guns period. Only police and armed forces personnel can access guns period.

...and I hunt.

Having dealt with people toting guns, it is my opinion that a gun is like rum....it gives people instant courage. get 'em back where you have to go toe-to-toe to take out someone and you'll see how small people get, and so fast!

People can hunt with bows and arrows if they are desparte to hunt, and if folks are scared of getting eaten by a bear, then either learn to get away from them or stay in the city.

otherwise, anything else to do with guns is a waste of time and money.

That's a great idea, why don't we get rid of cars while we're at it...that way we can eliminate the over 400 deaths per year on Alberta highways alone.

See, the thing is that even with recent shootings in Toronto and elsewhere, Canada does not have a gun violence problem. The number of gun-related deaths per year is miniscule compared to workplace accidents, car crashes etc.

Scrapping the gun registry does not mean scrapping gun control. Prior to the doomed from conception registry, Canada had one of the most stringent set of gun laws in the world. We can quit wasting hundreds of millions on a useless program and still have first-rate gun control.

I think many people who still argue in support of the registry think that with it gone, we'd be left with no gun laws at all...couldn't be farther from the truth.

FTA

[Temagami Scourge]

That's a great idea, why don't we get rid of cars while we're at it...that way we can eliminate the over 400 deaths per year on Alberta highways alone.

I disagree. Why, because cars are made for transportation and occasionally get involved in accidents that take lives. Guns are tools whose sole purpose is to kill. If you miss by an inch, you wound.

We have no true need for guns in private homes, but we do have needs for cars. I see the difference.

The only link between gun and car-related deaths is how drunk the shooter/driver is.

See, the thing is that even with recent shootings in Toronto and elsewhere, Canada does not have a gun violence problem. The number of gun-related deaths per year is miniscule compared to workplace accidents, car crashes etc.

Again, we need jobs, we need motorized transport, but why do we need guns? This is a non-argument.

Scrapping the gun registry does not mean scrapping gun control. Prior to the doomed from conception registry, Canada had one of the most stringent set of gun laws in the world. We can quit wasting hundreds of millions on a useless program and still have first-rate gun control.

yeah, but the CPC won't scrap the registry because it has a political price tag that they never considered in terms of employment.

I think many people who still argue in support of the registry think that with it gone, we'd be left with no gun laws at all...couldn't be farther from the truth.

I'm sure they would, but I've handled many a gun and I've come to the conclusion that guns are little more than another male penis extension for guys who don't feel powerful enough at their day jobs. Hammers can build buildings and can be used to kill people. Guns kill people and aren't designed to build buildings.

[Wilber]

I'm sure they would, but I've handled many a gun and I've come to the conclusion that guns are little more than another male penis extension for guys who don't feel powerful enough at their day jobs. Hammers can build buildings and can be used to kill people. Guns kill people and aren't designed to build buildings.

The same might be said of a Porsche, Corvette, Ferrari, Viper, Harley, fast boats, etc, etc. No one needs any of them either. Should they be banned as well and we'll all have to drive Prius', Yaris', Smart Cars and Lambrettas? So what if guns are another penis extension. Is that a reason to ban them?

We have had a handgun registry since 1934. Since most shootings are now done with handguns that entered the country illegally and never will be registered, how do you propose to get rid of all guns? What do you think your chances are of stopping illegal guns coming across the border? Better than we have done with drugs? I doubt it.

[FTA Lawyer]

That's a great idea, why don't we get rid of cars while we're at it...that way we can eliminate the over 400 deaths per year on Alberta highways alone.

I disagree. Why, because cars are made for transportation and occasionally get involved in accidents that take lives. Guns are tools whose sole purpose is to kill. If you miss by an inch, you wound.

We have no true need for guns in private homes, but we do have needs for cars. I see the difference.

The only link between gun and car-related deaths is how drunk the shooter/driver is.

See, the thing is that even with recent shootings in Toronto and elsewhere, Canada does not have a gun violence problem. The number of gun-related deaths per year is miniscule compared to workplace accidents, car crashes etc.

Again, we need jobs, we need motorized transport, but why do we need guns? This is a non-argument.

Scrapping the gun registry does not mean scrapping gun control. Prior to the doomed from conception registry, Canada had one of the most stringent set of gun laws in the world. We can quit wasting hundreds of millions on a useless program and still have first-rate gun control.

yeah, but the CPC won't scrap the registry because it has a political price tag that they never considered in terms of employment.

I think many people who still argue in support of the registry think that with it gone, we'd be left with no gun laws at all...couldn't be farther from the truth.

I'm sure they would, but I've handled many a gun and I've come to the conclusion that guns are little more than another male penis extension for guys who don't feel powerful enough at their day jobs. Hammers can build buildings and can be used to kill people. Guns kill people and aren't designed to build buildings.

I am obviously not arguing that we ban cars, but what I am saying is that guns attract unwarranted attention as something which needs tighter laws and even calls for outright bans when the "problem" of gun deaths is largely manufactured by alarmist media trying to sell papers and increase ratings.

The problem of automobile related deaths on the other hand is one which, if even a tenth of the attention that guns get was devoted to it, we could substantially reduce the number of dead Canadians. A billion dollars toward better driver training, better roads, better policing would have been money well spent.

Just watch...count how many people are killed this long weekend by guns and compare that to how many are killed by cars. Sure, the ones that are shot have more seductive story lines, but they are no more no less dead with no more no less suddenness and tragedy than the ones that are run over.

We are stupidly wasting our resources fighting a battle which simply doesn't need fighting.

FTA

[betsy]

I say solve the problem by getting rid of guns period. Only police and armed forces personnel can access guns period.

How can that solve the problem? Criminals will still have their guns. And they're the ones causing the problem.

[Nocrap]

Comparing cars to guns is like comparing apples to oranges. However, since you brought it up; cars are registered to death. When they are involved in an accident in most cases the owner can be traced through the registration of his or her vehicle.

That's what the gun registry is for. It makes it easier for law enforcement to track down the gun's owner if the weapon is involved in a crime.

Yes, just as many people drive without a license or insurance, many guns are off the black market; but many are not. Most law enforcement agencies like the gun registry and since we are asking them to put their lives on the line, we can surely grant them this request.

[scribblet]

Yoking wishfulness to vast expenditure

May 16 2006

The gun registry and the Kyoto Protocol are, at least in one respect, twins. They both illustrate the uselessness of piety pretending to be policy, of half thought mixed with full-bore emotion substituting for a rational response to a perceived public problem.

-snip

And then there's the gun registry. Whatever the gun registry was supposed to do, beyond raising a cloud of vague righteousness that something was being done, what has it specifically done for places like Toronto, say, with its year of the gun?

Where real gun crime exists, it almost always is handguns, stolen, smuggled, and unregistered, that are causing havoc.

Where's the registry in that picture? And today Sheila Fraser pounded a few dozen more 9-inch nails into the coffin of the gun registry. That other response to a problem which over the five years of its life has been an epic catalogue of unimaginable expense, was going to cost $2 million net and cost $1 billion instead.

She told us of computer systems whose costs ballooned, amounts in the tens of millions not recorded, and even more damning, added that the information these wonderful systems so expensively collected can either be (a) incorrect or ( incomplete, and at a press conference that the data cannot be relied on. So it can't be relied on; its information is incomplete or incorrect, and it costs more than the tar sands.

Well, not the tar sands.

-snip

The gun registry accomplished negatives, however, by the bucket load. A cost overrun that yet will make "Ripley's Believe It or Not", antagonized whole swatches of harmless citizens, from duck hunters to farmers, who found themselves hectored and harassed to fill in its unreliable forms, pay its useless fees, or wind up listed as criminals if they did not.

-snip-

Keep the gun registry? Only if they open a museum for monumental illustrations of how to waste public money. And in that museum, the registry will occupy the same place in public policy that the private sector has long ago given the Edsel. For "The National", I'm Rex Murphy.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_060517.html

[Wilber]

When it comes to a good rant, Rex is hard to top.

[geoffrey]

Well said by the Rex.

[geoffrey]

Comparing cars to guns is like comparing apples to oranges. However, since you brought it up; cars are registered to death. When they are involved in an accident in most cases the owner can be traced through the registration of his or her vehicle.

That's what the gun registry is for. It makes it easier for law enforcement to track down the gun's owner if the weapon is involved in a crime.

Yes, just as many people drive without a license or insurance, many guns are off the black market; but many are not. Most law enforcement agencies like the gun registry and since we are asking them to put their lives on the line, we can surely grant them this request.

Can you find any crime that has been solved using the gun registry... can't? You want to know why?

Because the gun registry has not aided in any investigation yet in Canada. At a cost of a few billion this ineffective tool doesn't sound too hot anymore eh?

[KrustyKidd]

Because the gun registry has not aided in any investigation yet in Canada. At a cost of a few billion this ineffective tool doesn't sound too hot anymore eh?

I can name a whole bunch Geoffrey. Today, 600 cops in Toronto raided somethng like a hundred gang members residences in a pre dawn raid and confiscated 78 weapons. 78 GUNS!!!!!!!!

Now, how do you think they knew where those registered guns were? From the registry of course! They didn't go raid farmers houses in Alberta or Saskatchewan, they went to where they knew where the guns were. And, how did they know the guns were there?

Thank the Liberal gun registry.

Moderator, close the thread please.