Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Vince Fedorof

REGISTRY CRITIC VISITING – Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner is in Whitehorse to rally support for her private member's bill to scrap the long-gun registry. She will speak this evening at the Mount McIntyre Recreation Centre at a rally organized by the Yukon Fish and Game Association.

Hoeppner invades absent Bagnell's turf

Yukon MP Larry Bagnell continues to sidestep questions on which way he will vote on Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner's private member's bill to kill Canada's long-gun registry.

By Jason Unrau on September 8, 2010

Yukon MP Larry Bagnell continues to sidestep questions on which way he will vote on Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner's private member's bill to kill Canada's long-gun registry.

"Right up to the very end, I need to know what my options are right up until the (vote) unfolds,” Bagnell told the Star today from Yellowknife, N.W.T., where he joined federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on his cross-country tour.

"That's the way things happen; you never know how things are going to unfold, but it doesn't look like there will be any options for me.”

In April, Ignatieff told the Canadian Police Association that the Liberal party wold oppose the Conservatives' plans to scrap the registry, putting Bagnell and eight other Liberal MPs in a difficult position as they have twice voted in favour of Hoeppner's bill.

MPs are generally free to vote their conscience on private member's bills, but on this issue, Ignatieff is whipping the Liberal caucus to vote with the party.

Rural areas comprise fewer seats in Parliament and the impression is that Ignatieff is ignoring the wishes of rural constituents to pander to riding-rich southern Canada.

While Bagnell has previously suggested he would stand with his party, today, he would not answer a direct question on which way he will vote on the crucial day – expected at the end of September, when Hoeppner's bill comes before Parliament for its third and final reading.

This past spring, Bagnell was the target of a slate of Conservative radio ads directed at the Yukon riding, as well as those of Scott Andrews, Scott Sims, Anthony Rota, Keith Martin, Wayne Easter, Jean-Claude D'Amours and Todd Russell, all Liberal MPs who previously supported scrapping the long-gun registry.

Yesterday, the Conservative Party upped the propaganda stakes, depositing Hoeppner in Whitehorse to push her message to Yukoners in an attempt to sway Bagnell.

"I'm going to be there for three days, and if Larry has time to meet, I would be happy to,” said Hoeppner, who speaks tonight at a rally at the Mt. McIntyre Recreation Centre organized by the Yukon Fish and Game Association.

"But I would say Larry is a little cool towards meeting me, and doesn't want to talk with me much.”

Last week, during an appearance on The Current, Bagnell told the CBC radio program's guest-host, Nancy Wilson that he had not asked Ignatieff if he could simply skip the vote.

Asked by Wilson, if he thought of, "... just not show(ing) up”, Bagnell responded that he had not yet explored that possibility.

More than a week later, Bagnell has yet to ask his leader if that is an option.

"I haven't asked Michael Ignatieff that,” he said.

In an interview with the Star in April, Bagnell said he preferred if it were a free vote, adding that, "he may not have a choice.”

And this morning, Bagnell at least remained consistent with that message.

"I've made it quite clear, that I would be exploring options right up until the vote, but it doesn't appear that I've been offered any leeway,” he said.

Bagnell was not the Yukon's MP when the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien installed a national gun registry, but he was roundly criticized for abstaining from a March 2003 vote that provided an additional $60 million to the registry.

Bagnell said he abstained because he would have been expelled from the Liberal caucus for voting against the financial top-up. But with the Liberals still enjoying a majority government, it was a whipped vote Bagnell could afford to miss.

Now faced with toeing the party line, Bagnell is touting Liberal-proposed amendments to Hoeppner's bill that would decriminalize a first offence for failing to register a firearm and another that would waive any costs associated with the registry.

Yesterday, Hoeppner acknowledged Bagnell is in a "bad position,” and called his vote "crucial,” as she expects the tally to be close.

During first and second readings of her bill, 21 opposition MPs (eight Liberals, 12 NDPs and one independent) voted in favour of it. NDP Leader Jack Layton is against killing the long-gun registry, but, unlike Ignatieff, is permitting NDP members a free vote.

But as the politicking heats up, some NDP members who originally supported scrapping the long-gun registry are trickling into the camp of those who want it saved.

In 2002, Auditor General Sheila Fraser reported the registry's cost had spiralled to 500 times the Liberals' original estimate of $2 million.

Currently, the annual cost of operating the registry, which to date has documented ownership of seven million firearms in Canada, is approximately $4 million.

Police chiefs and frontline officers across the country are strong supporters of the long-gun registry because it can alert them of potential weapons in a particular residence which police may be called on to visit.

Comments (24)

Up 0 Down 0

L.Szigety on Sep 17, 2010 at 4:17 pm

Does the registry contain the nearly 17 million unregistered guns in this country? Does the licensing system contain the names of the nearly 5.5 million unlicensed guns owners?

The Liberals were claiming to have 90% compliance for the gun registry back during the Chretien years, but we now know that to be false. Their percentile was based upon the comparison of the known registered guns compared to the results of a 1993 telephone survey of 2341 households where they asked complete strangers if they had a gun in the house or not. The results of that survey determined there were between 6 and 7 million guns owned by 2 million people.

However, in 1976 a report by then Solicitor General Warren Allmand was tabled that detailed the number of guns in Canada. They calculated this number based on imports minus exports, plus Canadian-manufactured firearms, minus lost/destroyed/stolen guns(as per RCMP records).

The number they came up with in 1976 was 18 million guns owned by approximately 6 million gun owners, with a net annual importation rate of 190,000 guns per year.

That net importation rate is consistent with CBSA data to which, the total number of guns in Canada by 2009 was 24 million firearms. Only 7 million of those guns are registered, which leaves 17 million guns out there. And at a 3/1 gun/owner ratio, there could be potentially 5.5 million unlicensed gun owners.

That means that even if the CPIC query comes up with a negative for registered firearms, those front line officers could still face an almost 18% risk of walking into a situation with unregistered guns present.

The only people that want the registry to stay are the Police Chiefs, who just two years ago saw their ethics adviser John Jones, quit over being unable to get the CACP to stop taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from CGI Group; the company with the prime contract for working on the registry system itself.

Randy Kuntz, a 22 year veteran of the Edmonton Police Services, polled 2641 Police Officers on whether they wished to see the registry stay or go...93% of those officers wanted to scrap the long gun registry.

If you are still unsure of the motivations of the CACP, look no further than their own opinion on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, during the adoption of our Constitution back in 1980:

"The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is of the firm opinion that a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined in a Constitution is neither necessary nor desirable" Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, at The Senate/House of Commons Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada on November 27, 1980

That was only 30 years ago.

Still think they are on your side?

L.Szigety

Whitehorse

Up 0 Down 0

Don't know Jack on Sep 17, 2010 at 2:21 pm

Jack,

Hey "cherry picker", even thought I'm thick, I know 38% (against registry) is larger than 31% (for the registry).

No, you are right, 38% is not a majority, but I asked: "Show me one poll where a majority of Canadians and Police associations support THIS registry". You did't do it, you found the opposite.

YOU, I say again, YOU found the Ekos poll. http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/cbc-2009-11-20.pdf

These are my facts. Read your link again. Why do I have find facts, when YOU find the facts that prove my argument?

I have not "twisted" any facts, I have mearly pointed out that YOU dismiss certain facts and use ones that better suit you. i.e. cherry pick.

This debate is about the long gun registry, YOU were the one who tried to deflect attention from your lack comprehension skills by turning/twisting the facts to make this a debate into one about gun control.

Also, CP, your other link: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/f-gun-registry.html#ixzz0zS8EH0EA

The links (highlighted in red) in this link, mostly criticize the the gun registry. So again, well done.

But the worst part is that you, Dear Jack, own guns. That low rumble you heard was the readerships collective "YIKES!!"

On second thought maybe we should have a gun registry......

DKJ

P.S. Joel, you think I'm famous. You're making me blush!!

Up 0 Down 0

philip combs on Sep 17, 2010 at 9:21 am

I'm part of the silent majority that want this gun registry scrapped.

How many criminals shooting people in Vancouver (for example) do you think have lined up to register their long guns so far? Probably none.

Why should I as a law abiding citicen be subjected to one more 'big brother looking over your shoulder' law when it has no way of being enforced for anyone who is up to no good that smuggles/illegally buys these weapons with impunity.

Don't people get the fact that this gun registry doesn't work as criminals with guns who the cops do have to worry about just laugh at it.

Up 0 Down 0

Joel on Sep 16, 2010 at 9:20 am

They always have to assume that in a situation there might be a weapon. What the registry does is give the police a little more knowledge of what they are facing and knowledge is always a good thing.

DKJ....please tell me you don't believe your 5 minutes of fame makes you able to decide what our MP should do in every situation for the next 1-5 years. Personally I base my vote on what I see of the politian, what they have done/do, and the decisions I think they will make based on past experience. I don't think the MP will do everything based on what I would do. I think he should have voted to keep the registry from the start...

This has become a conservative fighting point now where tories attack anyone that doesn't agree with their opinion...typical of that party since their re-birth which is another reason why I will continue to vote for Larry; I can't say I have ever heard him attack someone for not agreeing with his stance on an issue.

This is it for me since it is useless talking to anyone who believes the registry has to be wasted to prove their point.

Up 0 Down 0

wayupnorth on Sep 16, 2010 at 7:55 am

Most of the writers here feel that Larry should slavishly follow their ideas.This is real misunderstanding of representative democracy.A M.P. is free to follow his or her own judgement.

Edmund Burke noted in his 1774 Speech to The Electors of Bristol,"Your representative owes you not only his industry,but his judgement,and he betrays you instead of serving you,if he sacrifices it to your judgement."

Up 0 Down 0

Jack Malone on Sep 16, 2010 at 4:19 am

@ don't know jack. I guess when you don't have any facts or persuasive agreements, you resort to childish insults and comments. Common sense, yah, right. Perhaps you don't understand elementary math: 38 percent of Canadians who oppose the registry does not mean that a majority of Canadians oppose the registry (ie. a majority means more than 50 percent of the population). Man, you are thick as a brick.

FYI - I don't hug trees and I own guns.

Up 0 Down 0

Don't know Jack on Sep 15, 2010 at 6:31 am

Joel,

Wow, please tell me you not old enough to vote. Every 4 years we can remove an MP. The leader of a political party can never remove an MP. So we are the bosses, simple really.

DKJ

Up 0 Down 0

bobby bitman on Sep 14, 2010 at 10:32 am

The police should always assume there is a gun in the house. Saying this is a 'valuable tool' tells ME that they intend to treat registered gun owners differently than anybody else when on a call out. Therefore, the safety of gun owners who register their guns may well be jeapordized by jumpy RCMP officers.

Up 0 Down 0

Don't know Jack on Sep 14, 2010 at 10:18 am

Jack et al,

What are you talking about?

Are you talking about gun control or the long gun registry?

I used the facts you provided.

You are flailing in the absurd, because you are now confusing two completely different things. You are silly.

Keep hugging trees.

Good try,

DKJ

PS I don't own any firearms, I'm a fan of common sense.

Up 0 Down 0

Joel on Sep 14, 2010 at 9:22 am

Based on the fact that you think we are his bosses, Larry will never be able to vote for anything because each person has their own ideas....I think the registry can be useful, you don't...therefore our MP cannot vote since his 30000+ bosses in the Yukon don't know what he should do.

It sickens me that some people in the riding believe their MP should do exactly as they say because they think they are right. You are not his boss, nor am I. You vote him in to get his job (if you voted for him which I have a feeling you didn't) Once he is there, he works for Canada and his party leader and his constituents (not necessarily in that order).

Don; no MP ever has a guaranteed seat.

Up 0 Down 0

Don McKenzie on Sep 14, 2010 at 7:24 am

With Larry winning the Yukon by a HEALTHY margin in the last election, I think he could pretty much tell IGGY to kiss his butt, and not worry about getting kicked out of the Liberal caucus. Has ANY Liberal been elected recently with the percentages that Larry pull off? Iggy would do well not to peeve off someone who pretty much has a guarenteed seat in Parliment.

Up 0 Down 0

Jack Malone on Sep 14, 2010 at 5:20 am

@ don't know jack. I don't "cherry pick" facts. The facts speak for themselves. You may not like facts since they may not be consistent with your personal agenda or view and, as a result, it seems that you try to dismiss, discredit or twist them.

I suggest that you should get some facts rather than mumble on about generalities. I guess that our MP should only vote as you direct him? Prove to us that a majority of Yukoners or Canadians oppose gun control? You asked me to provide facts and I did - but where are your facts?

@ Yukon Dsl. Yes - I suspect that there are some FN gun nuts as well. But, like it or not, they have a treaty right to use "traditional and contemporary methods of and equipment for" harvesting: section 16.4.3 of the Final Agreements. In other words, Yukon first nations can make the argument that they have a treaty right to use firearms for harvesting under their treaty and any federal law would be subject to that right. Therefore, I can see the sensible argument that they have made opposing gun control.

Up 0 Down 0

Yukon Dsl on Sep 14, 2010 at 1:40 am

"Despite the howling of the gun nuts"

"A minority of loud gun nuts have been wailing and trying to bully Canadians. "

Jack, do these gun nuts include the First Nations of Canada who have been against the long gun registry since it's inception?

Up 0 Down 0

Don't know Jack on Sep 13, 2010 at 5:21 pm

Joel,

Sorry almost forgot about you.

Make no mistake, WE ARE LARRY'S BOSSES. It sickens me that voters have to be reminded of this.

DKJ

Up 0 Down 0

Don't know Jack on Sep 13, 2010 at 5:10 pm

Jack,

You are a classic "cherry picker" of the facts. You only believe what you want to believe, even when the facts show you are wrong. The EKOS poll (you provided) shows 38% of Canadians want the registry abolished, 31% want to keep the registry.

What is the argument?

54% want gun ownership outlawed.

Really, I'll bet if EKOS asked Canadians: "Would you be in favour of receiving $1000 cheque from the government tax free?", the outcome would be 99% yes, 1% didn't understand the question.

Guess what, BOTH won't happen, lets keep it real.

As for the three nation police associations: google: CACP CGI.

You all be the judges. It literally took me 15 seconds to find this information, so Jack, don't use corrupt organizations as the backbone of your argument.

As for democracy and Larry and Iggy and the Liberals, Jack, you and I just have different opinions on how to vote, you vote for the party, I vote for the person.

DKJ

Up 0 Down 0

Jack Malone on Sep 13, 2010 at 8:05 am

@don't know jack. Your comments seem typical. A minority of Canadians, who shout about gun control, do not have the support of a majority of Canadians.

Democracy. I point out that our MP is a member of the Liberal Party which established the gun registry. The registry is part of the policy for the Liberals. Therefore, it should not be a surprise that Liberals support the registry. Larry should support Liberal policy and not switch to fit his personal agenda.

See the following facts.

May 6, 2010. Three national police associations — The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards — come together for the first time on Parliament Hill to defend the long-gun registry.

"This should not be about us versus them. Or rural versus urban, or even police versus politicians," said Charles Momy, who is the president of the Canadian Police Association, which represents rank-and-file officers. "The firearms registry represents a valuable tool in assisting police in doing their job. It is a valuable tool, which has significant preventative and investigative value in keeping our communities safe." The story: Police unite to defend long-gun registry. See: www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/f-gun-registry.html#ixzz0zS8EH0EA

Never mind that only a little more than one-third of Canadians would vote to abolish the registry - an Ekos poll in November, 2009, revealed that a majority of Canadians believe that gun ownership should be outlawed (54 percent)! - see Ekos poll (November 2009). See: www.ekos.com/admin/articles/cbc-2009-11-20.pdf

Up 0 Down 0

Joel on Sep 13, 2010 at 7:15 am

I support it. It is an extra piece of information that can be used by police in Canada, the more information the better. I can think of many useless expenditures (in my opinion) that the governemnt makes (over 100 mil for a week of government talks last summer). If this saves 1 life for a billion dollars, I am sure that person's family and kids might think that it is an acceptable cost. I am not for all types of registries or bans either. Law abiding gun owners simply have to register their weapons, you are not a criminal due to the fact that you have to register. I can use a car as a weapon...but I have to register it once a year or two and am not a criminal because I have to do so.

In Canada, we have a party system of government. We vote for an MP and a party. We voted for Larry and got the Liberal party. You can do what your boss asks you or you can quit I guess and I can not bash Larry for listening to his boss on something like this whether he personally agrees with the legistlation or not.

Up 0 Down 0

Don't know Jack on Sep 12, 2010 at 8:48 am

Jack,

Show me one poll where a majority of Canadians and Police associations support THIS registry. I'm sure if you asked the uninformed, they would support all types of bans, and registries. If you gave the average Joe, or Jack, the facts of, and the costs of this registry, there would be no way they would support it.

Plus you didn't explain democracy. Every 4 years or so we vote for a MP. MPs go to Ottawa and vote on our behalf. I say again, a majority of MPs are against the long gun registry, but Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is calling for a whipped vote, or dictating how a Liberal MP shall vote.

Up 0 Down 0

Jan Webb on Sep 11, 2010 at 3:37 pm

Jason Unrau needs to do some homework. No wonder most of us turn to the internet for news. I can see the media all repeating their inaccurate, unresearched talking points. THE REGISTRY DOES NOT COST 4 million (see below). It costs 76 million annually. The Conservatives are right. This tax-payer money could be used to actually PREVENT CRIME!!

From the RCMP REPORT

Table 2: Direct and Indirect costs incurred by the CFP/RCMP and federal partners in the administration of the CFP. [page 15]

Actual Past Total Expenditures '95 to ‘07: 1.106.1 Million $ [direct & indirect costs, the latter being costs incurred by other federal depts & reimbursed by CFP]

Actual Total Expenditures '07 – ‘08: 63.4 Million $

Actual Total Expenditures '08 – ‘09: 67.5 Million $

Planned Total Expenditures '09 – '10: 76.5 M$

Planned Total Expenditures '10 – '11: 76.5 M$

What the pro-registry lobby, including the media, focussed on however, is this passage found on page 66 of the report:

"An overview of the government's expenditures on Firearms throughout the entire program existence, found below, highlights some interesting facets. Expenditures on the CFP have decreased since it has come under the RCMP and are expected to continue in this downward direction. This serves to validate the rationale given in 2006 for moving the CFP to the RCMP, with a $10 million reduction in the overall budget. An exercise that was recently completed to separate out the costs of registration from its supportive link with licensing has demonstrated that portions of the program are actually operating at a much lower cost program than first presumed, even by the RCMP itself.

For instance, the gun registration portion of the CFP has been determined, by independent sources, in terms of cost savings to the CFP, at a range of $1.195-$3.65 million for the initial year, and subsequent years will range from $1.57-$4.03 million depending on the classification certification that will still be required. …”

In other words, unless I did not understand that paragraph …

• the cost of running the registry has decreased since the RCMP has been mandated to do it.

• the actual and projected costs of running the registry are given on page 15 of the report (see above)

• the savings — the difference between what it used to cost to run it and what it now costs under the RCMP — range from 1 to 4 million $.

THAT is what the media has interpreted as what it costs to run the registry — i.e. they cited the cost savings rather than the actual costof running it.

Canadace Hoeppner's bill changes nothing in the context of the registry, EXCEPT the removal of long guns. All licensing and transportation, storage, etc. remain the same. On Sept. 22, the Liberals (aided by the NDP and Greens) will attempt to eradicate this bill. It will not make it to a third reading if they succeed. What is important is to send a message that law-biding long gun owners are not "paper criminals". Even if a first time offence is waived, it remains a criminal offence not to register your guns.

Up 0 Down 0

Jack Malone on Sep 11, 2010 at 5:21 am

@ don't know jack. Despite the howling of the gun nuts, poll after poll over the past decade has confirmed that a clear majority of Canadians support the registry. I suspect that a majority of Yukoners, including the "silent majority", also support the registry. Every police association in Canada also supports the registry. A minority of loud gun nuts have been wailing and trying to bully Canadians.

Up 0 Down 0

Don't know jack on Sep 9, 2010 at 3:38 pm

A majority of MPs passed the bills first and second reading, Iggy it going to call for a whiped vote, Happy Jack won't even do this his caucus. JM how is this "democracy"?

Up 0 Down 0

Jack Malone on Sep 9, 2010 at 9:27 am

As others have pointed out, unless there has been a referendum of Yukoners, some are making a bold assumption that a majority of Yukoners want to abolish the registry. Although a number of people have been asserting that they speak on behalf of Yukoners and loudly proclaiming that we want to get rid of the registry, I am not convinced that is true. without a doubt, this is a difficult issue for many Yukoners, including our MP, but Canadians clearly want a registry. That's democracy. I fail to see any value for Hoeppner's visit to the Yukon - what a waste of money and time. Does she think she will convince Yukoners or is she simply trying to put Larry in a difficult spot? Whatever - this is why most Canadians have so little respect for MPs. She should have stayed in Manitoba.

Up 0 Down 0

Al Fedoriak on Sep 8, 2010 at 1:27 pm

The only way Larry can claim to be and continue to be a representative of Yukoners is by voting to abolish the registry. If Ignatiaff can kick out of the caucus for voting to keep the registry then voters should be entitled to remove Larry from being their representative for not voting to abolish the registry..

Vote to abolish gthe regisyry and join the conservatives Larry.

Up 0 Down 0

JC on Sep 8, 2010 at 8:34 am

Larry could vote to scrap the bill. If he is kicked out of the caucus, he could join the Conservatives. He would still get a good majority in Yukon. He might even get a portfolio.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.