When Politics Trump Policy: Long-guns & Tories

Canada is about to lose the long-gun registry, and the rhetorical gymnastics being played by those supporting its demise are almost grimly amusing to behold. Candice Hoeppner, Conservative MP from Manitoba, is the champion of scrapping the registry. Her initial efforts during a Conservative minority failed, largely due to expert testimony – including an internal RCMP evaluation from August 2010 that stated the registry was a useful tool for police. With a solid majority government, the Tories now will be able to stack the committee hearings with their own witnesses, who will surely say that the registry is not useful, and punishes ordinary Canadians.

This is where the logic starts to get lost in the rhetoric. What Hoeppner and her party are trying to convince us of is that, all things being equal, convenience is more of a concern than safety. That is, the difficulty in registering a firearm outweighs any potential safety gains. To bolster this, they have cited a recent Statscan report that claims that out of 179 fatal shootings in 2009, only 24 percent involved long guns. Therefore (so goes the Tory logic) it is not worth the cost to maintain a registry; to reinforce the waste, they continually cite the estimated $2 billion price tag.

Such arguments are flawed and disingenuous. To begin with, the price of starting up such a registry was always going to be large, and arguing start-up costs does not negate its usefulness. While there is no doubt that there was waste and needless bureaucracy, and the price could have been significantly smaller, that is a mistake that has been made and cannot be corrected. Surely if the Liberal government could reverse time and implement a less costly, more streamlined registry, then they would. That $2 billion initial investment is gone and it’s not getting any larger. So to speak of actual costs, and to put things in perspective, the operating cost of the registry for 2010-2011 was about $64 million. While still large, this represents only about 0.2% of the total federal budget for that year. If the registry continued, with appropriate auditing and oversight there’s no reason to believe the annual cost would not eventually level off at a reasonable, agreeable, and federally negligible amount.

On top of this, the Conservatives are in no position to argue fiscal responsibility when it comes to crime prevention. The current government has plans to build new prisons over the coming 5 years at a price tag of over $2 billion, a number the Liberals have said could realistically balloon to as much at $9.5 billion. This plan has been widely criticized as wasteful and regressive, even by our tough-on-crime neighbours to the south. If evidence shows more prisons and harsher sentencing will not reduce crime (crime that has been in continual decline since the 1970s), yet the government will happily throw that money away, why is the same not being said of the long-gun registry?

Next is the argument that the registry punishes ordinary Canadians by treating them like criminals. We require licensing, registration, and insurance for automobiles – does this make the average driver feel like a criminal? It’s inconvenient and time-consuming to renew a driver’s license every number of years, but we accept that as what’s required in order to exercise our right to use public roads. When hunters and farmers argue that my guns aren’t the guns being used in gang violence it sounds to me like my car isn’t the one being driven by a drunk driver. The public is inevitably safer when the police have information on who has access to a potentially lethal weapon – be that a gun, an automobile, or otherwise. With oversight to ensure such information isn’t being abused, it is a potentially powerful tool in law enforcement. There are times when convenience must be set aside for the public good.

Finally, the evidence being cited generally misses the point. The same RCMP evaluation that found the registry was a useful tool also noted that the majority of firearms in Canada are long guns and the majority of firearm deaths in Canada are caused by long guns; this is at odds with the Statscan report noted earlier. If we are to assume that reality sits somewhere in between, then perhaps approximately half of all firearms fatalities in Canada are by long guns. But does it even matter? If we invest in, for example, airport security screening or HPV vaccination – both which also show small gains in health and safety for large price tags – then why not gun registration? Preventing even a handful of deaths by firearms is worth a few tenths of a percent of our federal budget.

But Hoeppner’s rhetoric is lacking in logical argument. For instance, when she says that “[t]he majority of homicides committed in Canada, for example, do not involve long-guns at all … [they] are not the problem” she deliberately ignores those homicides that are committed by long guns. Should we not require licensing for a certain class of automobile that is statistically involved in fewer road fatalities? Further she ignores those homicides that were potentially not committed because the police had information that led to crime prevention, rather than punishment – the darling of the current Conservative government.

Unfortunately, all these arguments are for naught. The registry will be scrapped, despite evidence supporting it, and even more inexplicably the 6.6 million records on non-restricted firearms are going to be destroyed. The Tories don’t want to assist any of the provinces (notably Quebec) in creating their own registries, so like a selfish child, they would rather break their old toys than have anyone else make good use of them.

At the end of the day, the long-gun registry may or may not have saved lives. Without a control group, or wildly imaginative counterfactuals, we will never know. But the fact that we are willing to sacrifice potential safety for concerns over convenience shows that for the Harper government, politics continues to trump policy. Asbestos, prisons, the census, long guns; How much longer will we let this list become before we realize that the only people we are hurting are ourselves?

(Feature photo courtesy of Dunechaser/Flickr)

Le bon Jack

Jack Layton
Jack Layton in 2008

This was news I wasn’t expecting.

In June 2011 I attended my first NDP Convention here in Vancouver, not really sure what I was getting into. I was handed a thick binder of resolutions, and without any contacts to mingle and network with, found an empty table off to one side of the convention floor and got to reading. There were resolutions I agreed with – on asbestos, public transportation, and indigenous rights. There were resolutions I disagreed with, particularly those on the HST. I looked forward to the opportunity to raise my voting card and make a difference. I did so at every opportunity, and it felt good! Despite the fact that I was almost always voting with the majority, this felt like real democracy in action. Some of the resolutions directly edited the NDP Constitution; I felt I had a hand in that.

Yet the highlight of the weekend was Jack Layton. I knew this was a man with charisma, I’d followed him since he took the party leadership in 2004, and I watched with pride as he out-dueled his opponents in the leadership debates. Yet nothing quite prepared me for seeing him in person. It’s true that his speech left a bit to be desired – the same themes of working for Canada’s families, getting down to work, etc. But his strength of character, and the way in which he galvanized the crowd was nothing short of electrifying. A great hall of people shouting and chanting Jack! Jack! Jack! The cynicism that I often feel over politics was washed aside in a wave of positivity – that’s what Jack Layton brought to the party.

During that same convention, I bore witness to some fundamental divides in the NDP. There was tension between the traditional unionists, and the more modern progressive youth of the party. The talk of even discussing a merger brought out vehement support from both sides (for the record, I voted to not rule out discussing a merger, why shut the door so fast?). Now that Jack is gone, it will be up to the party to stand together and not let such divisions weaken this embryonic 21st century NDP; an NDP with a chance for a successful future as Canada’s governing party.

I won’t in detail go into the shock and disappointment I felt when I read that Jack Layton passed away. Though in fact, the feeling was more of anger. This is what I posted on facebook that day:

I know the respectful thing is to mourn, but I’m angry that Jack Layton is gone. Angry. Life just isn’t fair sometimes. He deserved better, and Canada deserved better.

A person like him comes along rarely, and it was only in the last few months of his life that the people of Canada really started to realize what a man he was. Damn it all.

What more can I say? It was a privilege to see the man speak, and it was a privilege to have him make such an impact on our country. It is now up to the rest of us to carry on the work he began, and ensure that we stand up for our values.

(Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, feature photo courtesy of Tania Liu/Flickr)