“ Mr. Breitkreuz, you mention several times that Canadian taxpayers have spent $2 billion on the Registry since 1995. The annual operating costs of the program are reported to be between $15 – $80 million. Doesn't it seem like a bad move to walk away from the $2B investment now that the Registry is up and running, and police forces from across Canada are calling for it to remain in place?

“ Mr. Leblanc refers the regisrtry as an investmment and insinuates that we as Canadians should continue to throw good money after bad in maintaining it because some Police say they want it to stay put. However he misses the fact that equally as many say it is worthless because it continues to be badly flawed and inncorrect.Just because the Police computers are automatically programed to reference the registry when police run a name or address, does not mean that the officers put any weight behind the supposed safety it was going to provide them. After all, criminals aren't registering their illegal guns!This system that is supposed to also be protecting the confidentiality of gun owners has been hacked repeatedly ! Which has now created an itemized shopping list for theives to ensure they know the addresses where these weapons are kept ,further endangering Canadians. So how do we justify supporting the registry which has been proven to continue to not only be unreliable and extremely costly but also providing criminals with details on the weapons contained in it and where to find them !

“ Mr. Tierney makes an interesting point. Although I suggest that it is bad form to presume that I believe that "we as Canadians should continue to throw good money after bad in maintaining it because some Police say they want it to stay put." Asking a question is just that: asking a question. I really would simply like author's position on the matter, given that this issue was ignored in his article. I would also be interested in knowing about the hacking that has been going on, how widespread it is, what has been done to stop it and prosecute the hackers. If law enforcement is doing the "hacking" then it is really a leak and cause for great concern. Could you post some links that we could read some details about the hacking?

“ Actually, Mr. Leblanc, the Registry might be up, but it isn't running. Estimates are that only about half the legal guns have been registered. Of course, not a single criminal's gun has been registered. By definition, an "investment" is something that accrues value over time. That $2B has not been an investment. For its intended purpose, it is a waste. Moreover, it's time to put to rest the falsehood that "police forces...are calling for (the Registry) to remain in place. This misapprehension actually arose from a statement by the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs--the same organization the ethics officer of which resigned. In fact, the CACP is "subsidized" by the computer company that runs the registry. Recently a Canadian police officer surveyed fellow officers across the country. Out of 1443 received responses, only 97 front line officers wanted to keep the Registry. Here's a quote submitted by an active police officer: " I think the gun registry gives people a false sense of security, including police officers. Most people don't realize how confusing and poorly run this system is. I have yet to meet a crack dealer or a murderer who had a registered firearm or license. Two billion dollars would have fed a lot of people, or fixed a lot of roads, or bought a lot of medical supplies for Canadians. It is time the gun registry was scrapped." Numerous active police chiefs have voiced their distrust of the Registry. Hacking? Here's a quote from The Chronicle Herald: "A 13-year-old could hack into the federal government’s online gun registry and have access to the addresses of gun owners, says a former webmaster for the Canadian Firearms Centre. But John Hicks, an information technology consultant in this central Ontario city, said the real concern is what a criminal would do with a shopping list of guns in Canada. "If this were Amazon, Visa, or EBay, they’d be bankrupt," Hicks said. "I have worked with 13-year-old kids who can break into this system." Hicks said he first notified managers at the Canadian Firearms Centre about his concerns over the site’s log-on process in March 2002. Some security measures were improved, but the business site still has gaping security holes, Hicks said. "They run two websites; they only fixed one." A spokeswoman for the Canadian Firearms Centre said no individual firearm information is accessible through the website..."

“ Actually, the only real program of all of the firearms related ones is the POL/PAL system where each person must take and pass a rigorous firearms safety course and pass an extensive background test. This gives the police all the information they need to know to decide whether there is the probability of a firearm in the homes when responding to a call. It also provides an avenue for a persons licence and firearms to be removed if the original evaluation deteriorates. The Liberals wouldn't support this idea though as it was a Conservative initiative.

“ Some new data has come to light about the costs quoted by Mr. Breitkreuz. http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/rss/article/703339 "The $2-billion figure often cited as the cost of the gun registry is a Saskatchewan MP's "fabrication" that took on a life of its own as Conservative MPs and the media repeated it for years, says a new study. In late 2002, a report by auditor general Sheila Fraser said the cost of the federal gun registry tallied nearly $1 billion from 1996-2006. Her figure became political ammunition in the hands of Saskatchewan backbench MP Garry Breitkreuz, an opponent of gun control who was in the Reform Party, then the Canadian Alliance, and is now a Conservative. He began calling the gun registry a "$1-billion boondoggle." But within four months his language had escalated into "a $2-billion boondoggle." The study says Breitkreuz "strategically created" that catch phrase. The study calls it his "fabrication." " It goes on to say: "Breitkreuz said in an interview Wednesday that at one level, the study's authors are "disingenuous" for "quibbling over $1 billion or $2-billion." Quibbling over costs being $1B or $2B is hardly quibbling. The story finishes by saying this: "The registry was begun in 1995. In 2006, Fraser's latest look at it concluded the total net cost up to March 2005 was $946 million. The old registry in place before C-68 cost $30 million a year. The current registry costs $82.3 million a year, according to Treasury Board."