• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GUN REGISTRY HAS COST RURAL CANADIANS DEARLY:

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    GUN REGISTRY HAS COST RURAL CANADIANS DEARLY:

    column appeared in THE HILL TIMES, Monday, March 22, 2004 – Page 32 – Rural and Urban Affairs - http://www.thehilltimes.ca/

    GUN REGISTRY HAS COST RURAL CANADIANS DEARLY: BREITKREUZ

    Rural Canadians who use firearms have take a big hit, right in their pocket books

    By Garry Breitkreuz, MP – March 22, 2004

    Rural Canada’s culture, heritage and economy have been under a sustained attack by the Liberals since 1976. In a crass attempt to get votes in the big cities, successive Liberal governments have spent billions creating the impression they were getting tough on crime by bringing in gun laws that vainly attempts to track the whereabouts of 2 million law-abiding Canadians but doesn’t even authorize police to monitor movements of the 131,000 convicted criminals that are prohibited from owning firearms by the courts. Maybe if there had been measurable gun control or reduction in violent crime it could be tolerated, but there has been none. If anyone doubts this statement, please call Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino.

    While urban residents have been short-changed by the Liberals in terms of diminished public safety, rural Canadians that use firearms for their livelihood and recreation have taken a big hit too – right in their pocket books. However, Paul Martin’s government is not about to tell us so. The government’s 115-page report on the economic cost and impact of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, was declared a “Cabinet confidence” in 1999 and remains a state secret to this day. The government’s cost-benefit analysis of the gun registry required by Cabinet-approved regulatory policy has likewise been declared a Cabinet secret lest it expose the Liberals’ decades-long attack against law-abiding gun owners and legally-owned guns. Add to this the fact that the federal departments that should be concerned about the economic impact of the government’s so-called gun control laws, aren’t. In 2001, Industry Canada, Environment Canada and the Finance Department all replied that they had “no records” in response to my Access to Information Act requests in this regard.

    This column documents the severe negative impact these laws have had especially on rural Canada by people who can least afford it.


    (1) In April 2000, the government released documents showing that just the “regulatory cost” of purchasing a hunting rifle was $279.00.

    (2) For the last two years, the government has steadfastly refused to provide compliance costs as required in the Auditor General’s December 2002 report. Analysis of licencing and registration compliance costs by the Library of Parliament indicates that compliance with the Firearms Act has already cost law-abiding gun owners between $367 and $764 million.

    (3) Between 1979 and 2001, the RCMP report the number of businesses selling firearms and ammunition dropped by 11,857. That’s a loss of 538 businesses a year and the thousands of jobs and millions in tax revenue that go with them – mostly in rural and northern Canada.

    (4) There are 1.6 million hunters licenced by the provinces. Hunters have always had a keen interest in maintaining a healthy environment in which plants and animals thrive in a healthy balance. Liberal policies have guaranteed that that interest is in decline and this is having a devastating effect on wildlife populations. The government has done nothing to address this problem and the costs are incalculable.

    (5) Since the government started introducing gun control laws targeting law abiding firearm owners, the number of hunters in Canada has been in a steady decline. For example, in 1966 the number of Migratory Game Bird Hunting Permits issued was 380,059 reaching a high of 524,946 in 1978 and as of December 2003 it has dropped to just 168,091.

    (6) As hunters are driven from their sport, wildlife populations are becoming unmanageable. Between 1988 and 2000, the Ontario Road Safety Annual Reports show a total of 90,313 motor vehicle accidents involving wild animals in Ontario – from a low of 3,991 wildlife accidents in 1988 to a record high of 10,388 in the year 2000. Over this 12-year period, there have been a total of 4,813 wildlife accidents resulting in personal injury and 57 human fatalities.

    (7) In 2000, British Columbia recorded more than 4,700 wildlife-related accidents costing the province over $18 million in motor vehicle accident claims; $600,000 in highway clean-up costs; $300,000 in lost provincial hunting licence revenues; and $30 million in lost value to residents and non-residents who view or hunt wildlife.

    ( In 1998, the Ontario government reported that wildlife damages cost Ontario farmers over $41 million. Annually, over $7.5 million and over 800,000 hours were invested by farmers in the abatement of wildlife damages. Big game crop damage compensation in my home province of Saskatchewan for last year alone was $10.3 million. My constituents tell me this amount represents less than 10% of their actual crop damage costs.

    (9) Every year for decades, tens of thousands of American hunters have been coming into Canada without ever being suspected of contributing to gun crime while vacationing in our country. For some reason, the Liberals now think they’re a threat to public safety. Since 2000, 288,000 American hunters have paid $11 million dollars and endured rolls of federal red-tape to bring their legally-owned guns into Canada. However, many more have stayed at home costing the economy far more than the Liberal government took from these hunters’ pockets in futile firearms fees. Outfitters and guiding businesses including some owned and operated by Aboriginals have been the hardest hit.

    (10) Finally, the Liberal government’s ultimate insult to law abiding firearm owners was

    the arbitrary banning of 568,460 registered firearms with the passage of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act in 1995. The Liberals banned them without presenting a shred of evidence in Parliament that these registered firearms were the least bit dangerous in the hands of their law-abiding, government-licenced owners. The Liberals banned these registered firearms violating the fundamental rights of these completely innocent citizens to own and enjoy property. To this day, the Liberals refuse to pay compensation to these tens of thousands of law-abiding firearm owners for the loss in value of their property or for the value of the registered firearms the government ordered confiscated. Once again, the Liberals heavy-handed actions proved to everyone in Canada that registration does, in fact, lead to confiscation.

    The Liberals have already admitted that a billion dollars has been wasted on implementation of the Firearms Act, but the true costs are much, much higher. More than two years after the Auditor General blew the whistle on this boondoggle, Paul Martin’s Liberals are still keeping Parliament and the public in the dark. This may be a new Prime Minister, but he is behaving exactly like the Prime Minister he replaced. Unfortunately, Canada is paying a high price for the Liberals’ useless gun registry – for urban Canadians, higher rates of violent crime; and for rural Canadians a direct attack to their heritage, culture, livelihood, businesses, jobs, economic opportunities and safety.

    Garry Breitkreuz, is the Deputy House Leader for the Official Opposition, Justice Critic for Firearms Issues and Property Rights and the Member of Parliament for Yorkton-Melville, Saskatchewan. For documentation referred to in this column, please visit Garry’s website: www.garrybreitkreuz.com

    _________________

    #2
    The hunters may register their guns when ever they feel the need to. A private individual has no reason to be in possession of a firearm, not even for protection.
    The registry of guns is a good program, it does have it's faults like many programs but the basic idea is welcome to most Canadians. The cost is extreme but the more weapons known and the more waepons confiscated the better.
    A Canada with no guns would be peacefull one.

    Comment


      #3
      Enough,are you implying that if Canada had no guns that Canada would have no crime?My way of thinking is that criminals would find something else to use?

      Your theory has been proven wrong in Austrailia.When they went through the whole gun registration thing their crime rate actually increased.

      Guns don't commit crimes,people do.

      Comment


        #4
        It has now been over 12 months since gun owners in
        >
        >Australia were forced by new law to surrender
        >
        >640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their
        >
        >own government, a program costing Australia
        >
        >taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >The first year results are now in:
        >
        >Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
        >
        >Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
        >
        >Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
        >
        >(yes, 44 percent!)
        >
        >In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with
        >
        >firearms are now up 300 percent.
        >
        >(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned
        >
        >them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still
        >
        >possess their guns!)
        >
        >While figures over the previous 25 years showed a
        >
        >steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this
        >
        >has changed drastically upward in the past 12
        >
        >months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that
        >
        >their prey is unarmed.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >There has also been a dramatic increase in
        >
        >break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY.
        >
        >Australian politicians are at a loss to explain
        >
        >how public safety has decreased, after such
        >
        >monumental effort and expense was expended in
        >
        >"successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
        >
        Sounds real peaceful doesn't it enough??

        Comment


          #5
          It is real peacefull...in a prison cell.
          My idea of gun controll is that you must get a good grip on it so it does't jump out of your hands when you shoot it!
          We live in the counrty...22 miles to the nearest town. One time it took the RCMP 14 hours to respond to a 911 call which was about 13.5 hours after we solved our own problem.

          Comment


            #6
            You mention the secrecy of the expendutures on gun control and that brings to mind the purchase of petrofina now petrocan that the feds are talking of selling thier share as I remember the liberals bought it and woudnt tell who made about 1000% on thier shares( from $7 per to something like 100$) the consertives ran on exposing the scandel but when elected sealed the file . Now that it is to be sold I wonder if we will get a look at just who profited and by how much?

            Comment


              #7
              Am I missing something? Weren't hand guns supposed to be registered forever already? That's sure proven to keep crimes down hasn't it? How in all of God's green earth is having my coyote rifle registered going to make Canada a better place? Please explain that. Wouldn't the billion plus dollars have been better spent enforcing the laws that are there? Of course it's not the registered hand guns that are robbing the stores anyway. Even if there was some effectual control on handguns, rifles, whatever, it seems knives are an awfully common tool in robberies and homicides now anyhow. Listen to the six o'clock news. Do we need to have a national knife registry? Why do you have that large butcher knife, you don't kill cows here? Are you going to make half the housewives criminals for improperly registering thier pearing knives? What next? A baseball bat registry? This billion dollar boondoggle is nothing more than politics trying to show they're doing something to appease some voters. Case in point: Columbine. Two students. Gun law already in place to prevent them from having weapons. Obviously was ineffective. Public outcry. Solution: raise the legal age from 18 to 21. How did that or would that have changed anything? The law that was already in place should have covered it. It didn't. Public perception. Until people actually get punished for the crimes they commit you can take away all the guns and all the knives and all the whatevers and the ones that are going to commit crimes are going to keep committing them.

              Comment


                #8
                Guns don't kill people any more than pens cause authors to write. Or video cameras cause pornography.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Well I don't know...there are a lot of idiots out there who should never own a gun?
                  I got the license and I registered. Now the fact is a farmer needs a gun? Just like he needs a welder or a chain saw?
                  Of course there is no excuse for the incredible cost of this program and I think the registering of guns was not neccessary, but why not a simple license? That way you weed out all the people who shouldn't have a gun. A good stiff jail sentence for offenders would do more than actually registering individual firearms.
                  I suspect a 5 year license at about $50 should pretty well pay for a program?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Like usual common sense never enters into anything our federal government ever does. The important people that live in Toronto decided one night that this was the thing to do and presto three months later Mr. Rock, the dictator was implementing their will. If the country is going to be governed on the basis of doing what is right for one little corner of the country, then that little corner should be responsible for financing this fiasco. Like usual am totally dissilusioned with the reasoning that goes into the operation of government these days.

                    Comment

                    • Reply to this Thread
                    • Return to Topic List
                    Working...