Shock! Horror! American gun lobby group helps Canadian counterparts! -

Shock! Horror! American gun lobby group helps Canadian counterparts!


Last night the CBC reported that America’s National Rifle Association has cooperated with Canadian lobby groups opposing the gun registry. The NRA hasn’t spent any money in Canada, but Canadian gun advocate Tony Bernardo says it has given “logistical support” to a Canadian lobby group and “they freely give us anything else,” although he did not elaborate.

How did CBC’s Senior Investigative Correspondent Diana Swain uncover this scandalous bit of information? Bernardo said so in a published interview a decade ago.

The CBC’s report included a clip from Michael Bryant, formerly Ontario’s attorney general, who said: “I got elected in 1999 and I became aware soon after of the NRA’s involvement in the debate — not in a huge way, but in a significant way.” What significant things did they do, Michael? He wasn’t asked.

Other examples in the CBC report of the NRA’s involvement in Canada’s gun registry debate include former NRA president Charlton Heston showing up at a meeting of the BC Wildlife Federation, also a decade ago; and NRA members coming to meetings of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association as speakers and to provide “political action” training.

It’s a weak foundation to build a story on. I’m pretty sure Oxfam’s head office in Britain gives advice to its Canadian branch, for example. But the whole tone of the CBC’s report — based on publicly available information that nobody had tried to hide — implied they had discovered some sort of sinister plot.

As for the gun registry, I personally don’t like it. I resent the money so far wasted. I’m not convinced by police claims that it’s necessary for them to do their job. And I find arguments linking the need for a gun registry to the Ecole Polytechnique massacre distasteful and insulting.

I own a few guns that were given to me by my father. He grew up in the city but spent several formative years north of Lake Superior as a young man 50 years ago. Everybody hunted up there. My father learned. And the lifestyle planted in him a love of the outdoors that never left him. I don’t think he’s shot anything since, but I spent much of my childhood summers fishing and canoeing with him. They are among my fondest memories.

When he gave me his rifles and shotgun last year I wasn’t in a hurry to register them. I did when I brought the shotgun to a local gunsmith to get it repaired and he wouldn’t do the work without seeing proof of registration. The whole registration process took me maybe 30 minutes on the Internet. I didn’t hear jackboots marching up the stairs when I clicked “Send.”

I guess my point is that while I think the gun registry is unnecessary, emotions-driven legislation, and I do fear that many advocates of the registry will not be satisfied with it but will continue to seek new ways to restrict gun use and ownership, I can’t say registering my firearms was much of an imposition. I just wish I could oppose the registry without watching news reports suggesting I’m an NRA dupe.


Shock! Horror! American gun lobby group helps Canadian counterparts!

  1. Yankee, go home!

    That's the source of all their problems.

    • yes but I'm sure you're all; right with Avvaz sticking thier nose into the free speech debate, course they're the good yankees not the other kind.

      • Well the Sun writers are all screeching and hooting about Avaaz's American connections, while covering up their own like thae canting hypocrites they are.

        • *snicker*

          Who's covering anything up. And I quote:

          "How did CBC's Senior Investigative Correspondent Diana Swain uncover this scandalous bit of information? Bernardo said so in a published interview a decade ago."

          Nobody's covered ANYTHING up. They've been extremely public, extremely candid about it.

      • Not to mention being DIRECTLY involved with the Sun TV debate, WITH American money…

        Yup, it's different. It really is.

  2. Nooos, the Eeeeevil NRA…

    Bet you Tony's guns killed less people than Michael Bryant's car.

    • But Bryant's car was registered, I imagine?

    • That's not a fair comparison.

  3. People don`t need guns to kill people,just ask former Liberal Attorney General Michael Bryant.He killed(allegedly) using a Black Saab Convertible.Perhaps there needs to be a special Registry for owners of those cars and "substantially similar" cars.

    • To be fair, there is a registry for vehicles. Its called a vehicle registry.

      • In the interests of continuing to be fair, you need a licence to operate both. Compare the levels
        of difficulty and clearances to obtain a firearms licence as compared to a drivers licence.

        • A firearm is not a vital part of the lives of most Canadians. Nor does it serve a utility that doesn't involve killing or defense. The vehicle does so the comparison is not really valid.

          I would, however, agree with you regarding the difficulty in attaining a firearms license. If Roy Green's experience is typical, the process is significantly more invasive, and involved, than it should be.

          • Swimming pools are not a vital part of our lives either. Yet they kill more kids than guns do. In the US, approximately 100 times as many kids, according to Harvard economist Michael Levitt.

          • There are regulations, and requirements, to own / operate a swimming pool.

  4. It's a weak foundation to build a story on. I'm pretty sure Oxfam's head office in Britain gives advice to its Canadian branch, for example. But the whole tone of the CBC's report — based on publicly available information that nobody had tried to hide — implied they had discovered some sort of sinister plot.

    But let's all never forget, Fox News North is the biased one. And American intrusion from Avaaz to stop that from happening is welcome with nary a word from the CBC.

    • Thanks for bringing that up, John G.

      Avaaz is a multi-national organization, led by a Canadian, with a head office in New York (same as the United Nations). The NRA is a National (says so in their title) American organization.

      But let us assume for just a very brief moment that these two organizations are exactly the same. I am sure you are equally as outraged as Kory Teneycke when he said, "This US based activist group, this American group, is trying to influence policy decisions here in Canada" if he's talking about the NRA as well as Avaaz, right?

      On the other hand, I do have to say that CBCs "Documents and correspondence obtained by the CBC" did come off as rather breathless when I read it. And the line above that, "has been actively involved in trying to abolish Canada's long-gun registry for more than a decade, CBC News has learned." did make it sound like a big secret. (EDIT: Shoot, forgot link

      The problem is, if nobody reports a thing at the time, or reminds us of a report, basically ignored, when the subject matters, it IS for all intents and purposes a big secret. Just not necessarily an evil secret. (If somebody gives me the word I wanted, I'll replace "evil" with it. Sadly, can't think of it at the moment.)

      • Wow, great post Jenn! Good on ya, comparing Kory's remarks to these.

        I see at that Avaaz has retained Clayton Ruby to pursue finding out who owns that Ottawa IP address that "registered" the Canadian journalists for its anti-Sun TV petition.

        I wonder if Kory is squirming? I wonder if it will make any difference?

        • The registration of the Ottawa journalists is irrelevant. The point was clearly to expose the complete lack of controls on the petition site. Anyone could "sign" the petition multiple times in the name of whoever they wanted. Thus rendering any number of signatures on the petition meaningless. Do you have 50,000 signatures? Or 1 person who signed 50,000 times?

      • I'm aware of Kory's statements. Why should I be outraged? It is clearly considered acceptable media practice to present American intrusion into our domestic affairs as though Americans are the boogeyman. I'm sure Kory made his statement in that spirit. Apparently the only caveat which Kory must not have been aware of (lol) is that the intrusion must originate from the American right for CBC to tell Canadians to be "concerned" about it.

        RE: The word you are looking for…nefarious? clandestine?

        • How dishonest of him and of you to pretend vicious smears and screechy hypocrisy are just business as usual.

          • Dear God, I'm going to engage it…

            What vicious smear are you referring to? As to hypocrisy, see Coyne's latest for a textbook example, though I'm sure you'll disagree

            And if vicious and screechy aren't your thing, I'd suggest you do your best to avoid any mirrors.

        • Nefarious! That was it.

          I'm surprised at the rest of your response, though. Specifically because you said, "And American intrusion from Avaaz" instead of just "intrusion from Avaaz" which leaves me with no choice, realistically speaking, but to conclude that you, too, are against American intrusion. At least American intrusion when it's supposedly a leftist American intruder. Now that we've established Avaaz isn't even American, you appear to have no problem with American intruders.

          Perhaps my comment is unfair because I do realize your original comment was more about "liberal media bias" than the particulars of this case, but still you helped perpetuate the talking point.

          • I don't actually feel that strongly about it either way. I believe in free speech for all (including NGOs and thinktanks), but also believe that democratic nations should in general as a matter of respecting sovereignty stay out of the domestic affairs of other friendly democratic nations, unless they have a very good reason to butt in.

            My objection to Avaaz is because they aim to stifle our freedom of speech. The fact that a non-Canadian organization wants to stifle freedom of speech in Canada is odious, and every journalist with an ounce of professionalism should be denouncing this; particularly when they are tipped off to the nature of the petition by being informed of their fradulent signatures.

            But what I do feel strongly about is the blatant and consistent double standard that in particular the CBC shows on this. They have for years raised the spectre of the American boogeyman intruding on our politics, but only ever from the right; they have tried to raise fears about Conservative ties to the Republican party. This NRA hit piece from last night warning Canadians to be concerned.

            But never do we hear a peep of concern from the CBC when, for example, the Liberals invite Democrat guest speakers to their conventions such as Howard Dean (imagine if the Conservatives invited Newt Gingrich to speak to their base!), or when Michael Moore tells Canadians not to vote Conservative. Nancy Pelosi the far left kook can suggest that the government should launch an investigation into those who oppose the ground zero mosque(!), but despite what a polarizing figure she is and her abysmal approval ratings, she is treated with absolute reverence by the CBC, while this is how the CBC treated a visit from Sarah Palin (to say nothing of this piece of excrement which the CBC was happy to run on

            But still, must always remember, Fox News North is the biased one.

          • I disagree that Avaaz is trying to stifle free speech by trying to stifle SunTV from getting 'must carry' status. That makes it speech I'm forced to pay for, LOL.

            I also never thought of Nancy Pelosi as a 'far left' kook (or kook of any kind) although I hadn't heard she wanted to investigate those who oppose the mosque (you are right–that is kooky!)

            I can't really disagree with your take on CBC, though. I truly wish they didn't do that. And I fear that it is only going to get worse while they react to the far right reporting of SunTV (instead of the not-so-far right reporting of CTV).

          • I disagree that Avaaz is trying to stifle free speech by trying to stifle SunTV from getting 'must carry' status.

            Read the petition, and the email that they suggest you send to your friends to get them to sign. That's not what it's asking for. It does not mention "must carry" once. They are trying to shut it down altogether. The fact that they call it "Fox News North" in the petition instead of its official name Sun TV tells you everything you need to know about it.

            I also never thought of Nancy Pelosi as a 'far left' kook (or kook of any kind)

            Exactly. Why would you, when you never hear of such odious things? Question for you…have you ever heard the CBC identify anybody or anything as "far left"?

          • I did read the petition, and while I probably have the wording wrong (it isn't must carry status, it's something else with the same basic meaning) it certainly isn't saying SunTV must be banned by any means. As to the email, I suspect I did read it and then went to the petition to see if progressives really were that stupid as to try to stifle free speech. This was several days ago, however and I haven't gone back to check my memory (which I should because my memory is notoriously bad–involving that dream thing again) As you can imagine, I have not sent that email around to get people to sign the petition. I don't think I even signed it myself, but more because online petitions must be done a very exact way to have any relevance, and I don't think this one does that.

            I confess that the amount of CBC watching I do is probably ten to fifteen minutes of Power & Politics per day (except most of the time I miss it altogether) while switching back and forth with CTVs whatever-they're-going-to-call-it-now political show. I do read the political section of their website from time to time. No, I don't recall seeing 'far left' anywhere, really.

  5. If the gun registry, as has been suggested, makes gun owners more responsible with there guns, then it's worth the cost.

    • Agreed. We don't want or need the American 'gun culture' here.

      • Careful Emily, were not allowed to agree… JK!

      • Perhaps of interest, many US States have as strict or stricter gun laws than Canada.
        We are fortunate in having effective possession and storage/handling laws at
        a federal level and firearms owners/associations strongly support these laws.
        Perhaps less media & more objective study…..

        • Yes, Americans are free to pack heat in a Starbucks. Very strict, I'm sure.

          Perhaps they should ask themselves what it is about their country that makes them feel the need to carry guns to a coffeeshop, or a grocery store.

          They didn't need to do that even when there WAS a frontier.

          • Not every jurisdiction in the United States has the same rules. In most states, concealed firearm permits are granted by superior courts after local and federal background investigations.

            In every jurisdiction, a business has the right to demand that its customers be unarmed on their premises, even if the courts in that state have granted an individual carry permit.

            So, Americans are and aren't "free to pack heat" in the local store. It depends on the state, it depends on the courts, and it depends on the store.

          • Yes, we know it's a crazy quilt of regulations….but the constitution applies everywhere.

            The question remains…what kind of country would need such a thing?

          • Emily, the US Constitution gives private citizens the right to own…not to carry…firearms. And recent Supreme Court decisions underscoring law-abiding citizens' right to own firearms also have underscored federal, state, and local governments' right to apply reasonable standards of control for public safety.

            What kind of country would "need" such a thing? A possible answer: A country with government that is still subservient to the express will of the majority of the people would "need" to satisfy popular demand for firearm ownership. American popular support for firearm ownership has grown, not subsided, in my lifetime.

          • Maybe because your daughter has a right to defend herself against a violent attacker.

  6. It's a weak foundation to build a story on.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh, Petrou.

    • I have to admit I smiled a little.

  7. What a joke. Strangely enough, groups with similar issues often work together. Even across borders!

  8. It's a weak foundation to build a story on. I'm pretty sure Oxfam's head office in Britain gives advice to its Canadian branch, for example. But the whole tone of the CBC's report — based on publicly available information that nobody had tried to hide — implied they had discovered some sort of sinister plot.

    Petrou, you've taken the position that is normally taken by Paul Wells or Andrew Coyne: advocating honest reporting, journalistic standards, a fair attempt to remain non-biased, and even plain ol' common sense. Even though you are actually on the same side with respect to the underlying issue!

    Hopefully this rubs off onto other journalists as well, perhaps even at the CBC.

  9. That naive concerned look on the face of Diane Swain, and then the "expert " commentary from Michael Bryant ( guns kill, cars don`t ) and then the zoom back to wise old Mansbridge, tell us everything we need to know about a tired old network just trying to make the news.

    Do you think it would be a good idea to have the choice of watching a fresh new network and it won`t even cost us a billion plus dollars a year ?

    • No.

      • Sorry – Yes.

        • No, you just want reassurance, and confirmation of your opinions. That's not the job of a news organization.

          • And it's not your job, Emily, nor is it anyone else's to prevent free citizens from getting their news from the source they choose.

            I realize the authoritarian impulse is strong on the left, and its only because you care so much for us rubes that you want to help us select the correct news source. Thanks, but no thanks.

    • Well cars have a main purpose of transportation. And while you can claim to shoot guns only at targets or just leave them inert and collect them, they only exist to put big holes in things to stop those things from doing things like living.

      They say more people die from cars than guns each year, but those numbers aren't adjusted for use. Someone who drives 10 hours a week is a light to moderate driver, somebody who uses a gun 10 hours a week is a die hard enthusiast.

      • Rather obvious you oppose firearms so I question how you come up with the
        10 hours a week classifications?

        • I weight the pros and cons of any situation.

          I based 10 hours on a one hour work commute five days a week.

      • if one of the guys in the classroom at polytechnique had had a gun on him, Gamil Gharbi (aka Marc Lepine) could not have killed 14 women. that's harsh, and I realize its no comfort to the victim's families, but it is also undeniably true. that's why states in the US with right-to-carry laws have lower crime rates than other states.

        • How absurd. There isn't a single campus in the US that will allow you to bring a gun on campus, with or without a permit.

          • I didnt say it was possible or legal. I said that IF ("if" is an english term used to introduce a hypothetical condition) one of the guys had a gun, he could have saved 14 lives. try to argue around that within the parameters of my hypothetical condition.

          • if aliens had been there they may have prevented it too. Try coming up with a even remotely plausible 'if' and I'll consider responding, but when your 'if' is so outlandish it approaches comical I won't bother.

          • right. aliens/someone carrying a gun are just as implausible. i guess you cant argue the logic that if someone had a gun when Gamil Garbi showed up, that person could have saved 14 lives. so you bring up aliens. nice.

          • Texas A & M., owned

        • Yes, we will all be safer when everybody thinks they are batman. Jeez. I CAN BE A VIGILANTE NOWi is probably the absolute worst argument for gun ownership.

        • That assumes that everyone carrying a gun is sane and trained enough to handle a weapon in an emergency situation.

  10. The amount of time, money and resources spent on this issue could have been applied to fighting crime, gangs and illegal firearms and we would, perhaps, have achieved the goal of reducing gun violence. Being complacent on this issue by saying that I disagree but it is not a big deal is not the way to go; Canadians should be proud of our culture and our traditions and tell the politicians that we want action on criminals and not restrictions/regulation on our recreation. I believe the support of the registry gives the politicians a ‘pat on the back' for doing something about a crime but in reality we should be giving them a kick in the pants for doing nothing!

    • A truly balanced TV network would have allowed you to tell your story and offer your opinion about the Registry and the fact that we don`t have a U.S.A. gun culture to balance out the scare tactics used by the CBC by invoking the letters NRA.

      But no, Mansbridge, Swain, Bryant, and the Liberal Party influence on the CBC thought it could scare the uninformed citizenry by implying that the mention of NRA in an obscure 10 year old interview means the USA gun culture is waiting at the border.

      That is unprincipled and sloppy journalism on the part of the CBC. I think this new Sun Media will be very well received by Canadians.

      • Sun media is a joke to Canadians before it's even started.

        • Judging something before you've seen it is usually the mark of a great mind. :)

          • I'm judging it on the editorials and articles Sun puts out now.

  11. To be fair, the police don't say it's "necessary", they say it's useful, and provide solid reasons for it.

    • To be fair, which police? The CACP as an association supports it however there is public disagreement
      in their ranks as there is within the CPA. There is some evidence that the 'rank and file' PO's are not so
      convinced as to it's validity.

      Possession of a firearm's licence should be sufficient to indicate that there is a potential
      for firearms to be present. A simple check confirms this.

  12. Petrou has guns. If I was an Irani Islamic jihadist (there being no other kind) I'd be very,very afraid.

  13. Well said.

  14. "To be fair, there is a registry for vehicles. Its called a vehicle registry. "

    To be fair there is one Vehicle Registry with the same rules that apply to all vehicle owners.
    There isn`t a "special" Registry that applies only to to owners of certain Vehicles and "substatinally similar" vehicles.

  15. Great piece, Petrou. Very revealing of how the Mother Corp. sometimes torques and sensationalizes stories to fit a particular worldview.

    • The CBC piece was absolutely pathetic. They come out with unbalanced crap like that, and then their supporters seem to wonder why some people in Canada have a problem with the CBC. Go figure.

  16. And there is a good reason why we DON'T have a US gun culture.

    • Yes there is, we are Canadian and I am proud of our differences. I am simply stating that the registry is a waste of resources and if the goal is to reduce violent crime we should be less concerned about the registration, the NRA and focus our resources on combating criminal activity.

      • Just being born on one side of the border rather than another doesn't make a culture.

        It's a matter of belief and values….and we believe in registering hand guns, and now long guns in order to prevent the importation of a gun culture.

        The money it cost to set up the registry is gone forever…it's a sunk cost.

        The cost of maintaining it could be reduced or eliminated by fees if we wanted to do so.

        Crime has been declining in Canada for years, so we aren't in any trouble with resources.

        Probably legalizing drug use would eliminate most of the rest of it. Get rid of the sellers and pushers.

        • The point is that 'we' don't believe in registering long guns, the polls clearly indicate that the majority of Canadians oppose the LGR. Murder rates with handguns have continued to rise and this is directly related to gang crime. Reduce costs by adding fees? I don't want to be taxed for participating in activities that founded our nation and have no ill effects on our society. I feed my family with wild game that is harvested legally, safely and ethically. My activities support conservation efforts throughout Canada, I pay for the priveledge of my activities through hunting and fishing licences and volunteer my time to work on habitat rehabilitation projects. I am an active member of Canadian society and culture and see no reason that I should be penalized by paying money for a program that has done nothing to prevent gun violence.

  17. This is a bit of a dishonest post itself, isn't it John?

    "and I do fear that many advocates of the registry will not be satisfied with it but will continue to seek new ways to restrict gun use and ownership,"

    One thing commenters here at Macleans have proven is that there are always wingnuts on any side of a given issue. I don't expect all Conservative supporters to take ownership of Cats or Dennis F, for example, just as I refuse ownership of Emily.

    So, "many" advocates of the registry are complete morons and freaks. So what? Why does it then follow that the registry will ever beget new ways to restrict gun use and ownership? Or should I stay up worrying into the night because Bergkamp thinks the US and Russia are about to go to war against each other.

    • wtf?

    • Well that's good, because Emily isn't up for ownership, being a political atheist ….

      • Yeeeaaaah just go on thinking that. Whatever works for you.

    • If it were indeed true that every registrant is a closet ban-imposer, you think they'd point out far more often that people's concerns with ineffectiveness could be readily solved with a ban – which actually would reduce crime and save lives. Albeit at considerably more inconvenience to gun owners.

      • A ban!! GENIUS. Now all the criminals will be like "damn, we cant have guns, they're banned". You should get a nobel prize or something.

        • It's not so much that you missed the point, but more how far over your head the point seems to have sailed.

    • Actually Jenn, I think he makes a good point. He wasn't saying that all registry proponents are nutters. But there are those out there who view the registry as bringing us one step closer to the complete banning of all firearms, including some of the registry's earliest champions. You can't write Wendy Cukier off simply because she's an extremist. An extremist she is, but her influence on the previous government was very real. The Coalition for Gun Control was instrumental in torquing the Ecole Polytechnique tragedy into a public relations campaign that eventually brought us the gun registry legislation. I don't see why we shouldn't worry about the Coalition for Gun Control or any other group continuing to make the regulatory regime for legal gun owners more and more onerous and restrictive. Why would they stop at the success of the registry?

      • Let me try this a different way. There was a time when someone had the bright idea of running an ad suggesting if Stephen Harper became Prime Minister, there would be "troops roaming in our streets." Because, you see, the guy is such a control freak and clamps down so hard on dissent, it is only a matter of time before he invokes the troops to maintain order.

        See, that was a ridiculous stretch by some with extreme views. What makes it a good example is that Canadians saw it as such. I'm a partisan Canadian, but I haven't lost my mind or my ability to think more or less rationally. In a perfect world, I would like to ban guns in Canada. BUT, in that perfect world where guns don't exist, ALL guns don't exist–including those smuggled in for the criminals. Also in that perfect world, bears are of the Teddy variety, a certain segment of the deer population voluntarily commits suicide so the whole herd doesn't have to starve to death over the winter, and wolves are just big happy dogs who would much rather power a sled than go after chickens.

        This isn't that perfect world. In our REAL world, farmers need to protect their stock, hunters need to cull the herd and northerners need to protect themselves from bears and other animals. I trust that Canadians can see the truth of that, just as they could see the truth of the soldiers thing.

        What does worry me is that you've bought into this fearmongering to such an extent that you no longer trust Canadians not to do something that stupid. And that, as we've seen, results in people doing something stupid–like invading Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction and were responsible for 9/11–without anyone even questioning the veracity of those statements. If reaonable people as I believe you are keep this up, I fear there will be troops roaming in our streets.

    • jen makes a good point. i have no issue with petrou making fun of the CBC for running an empty story about how the NRA is taking control of the Canadian gun lobby. in fact i am quite happy he did (to be clear if the cbc actually had something of substance that is a different matter and i am sure Petrou would agree). i also have no problem with him dumping on wasted money, questionable 'evidence' of effectiveness, and/or the use of crass arguments. These are all valuable roles of a journalist.

      But, Petrou changes his narrative after appropriately castigating the cbc for broadcasting empty, sensationalistic hysteria revealing that "I do fear that many advocates of the registry will not be satisfied with it but will continue to seek new ways to restrict gun use and ownership". you can't as CR says above criticie others that "sometimes torques and sensationalizes stories to fit a particular worldview" then apply the broad brush strokes that suggest that folksthat support the registry are likely looking to pry the guns from the owner's 'cold dead hands', as per what we would expect from, well, NRA talking points.

      • Thank you, sea-n-mountains. You said it much better than I did.

        • thank you for making the point! any improvements made were minor.

  18. I have often bewildered at the logic of the CBC and lefty's in general. They froth at the mouth about the NRA but will support Hamas, the Tamil Tigers etc.

    • Really? I've never met any 'lefties' who support Hamas or the Tamil Tigers etc

      I've met normal people who advocate for fair treatment of everyone though.

      • I've met lots of lefties who strenuously argue that Hamas is a benign, even beneficent, social service organization, nothing more.

      • Bob Rae

  19. Oh, I think many of the advocates of gun control, back in 1995, would have preferred that there be a complete ban on guns, but were told by the government of the day that would be unrealistic.
    So they proposed a Registry. They probably knew it would be useless, but what the heck, it showed them to be compassionate, solidified their base support, and the police always like more info and power in their hands.
    So now we`re stuck with a mess and CBC are still making up stories.

    • If that were really the choice, you'd think more gun owners would be on board with the registry.

    • We've done the same thing with handguns for most of a century now. It works quite well.

    • This is NRA 'they're going to take away our guns' nonsense. They might not be here, but their influence sure is.

    • In 1934, in the age of common sense, a law was passed that handguns should be registered because they were easy to conceal and use in a crime.
      In 1995, it was determined by the gov`t of the day that, even though 99.9999% of the long guns were not used in criminal activity, it would be a good idea to have every long gun registered in an effort to prevent a madman from committing a similar crime to that at Ecole Polytechnique.
      The tragedies at Dawson College and Mayerthorpe and gang shootings have shown that whatever the motives of the gov`t with that original law, the sweeping powers in that law are useless in stopping single-minded crazies or unscrupulous criminals from continuing with gun violence.

      • Well most gun crimes, whether in domestic violence or against the police, or even in suicide are committed with long guns.

        A registry, registers….whether it's guns or cars or dogs….it does not prevent shootings, or car accidents or dog attacks.

        It makes things traceable. And it imposes seriousness on the matter.

      • Let's see. 14 out of 16 police officers killed in Canada since 1998 have been killed by long guns, including the four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe and the OPP officer killed last year. Most firearms related deaths in Canada are caused by long guns (this includes suicides) but the rates have been declining at far greater rates than other firearms related deaths have since the registry was put in place.

        But making long gun owners more responsible for the lethal weapons they own is a bad idea?

  20. "I'm not convinced by police claims that it's necessary for them to do their job. "

    Because you obviously know MUCH more, and have MUCH more practical experience, about this topic that the cheifs of police of this country. You would make a great addition to the Harper cabinet. They too prefer to follow their gut feelings than to listen to the people who actually spend their professional lives in the field.

    • So liberals are now deferring to the police for their advice on criminal policy? that's awesome. Then you should know that the police is 100% behind Harper's tough on crime agenda, so if you're opposed to Harper's tough on crime agenda, is it because you obviously know MUCH more and have MUCH more practical experience then the police?

    • No, because the Chiefs are politicians and not police officers anymore. They are all appointed and in Canada's cities, leftist anti-gun attitudes are the fashion. Front line officers are taught to NOT rely on any database, especially when it says there are no firearms at the residence they are visiting. It's the ones that you don't know about that are most dangerous, ie Jane/Finch area of Toronto.

    • The Chiefs spend their professional lives behind a desk or like Brown Shirt Blair in front of a camera, they aren't real cops they are politicians.

  21. What a refreshing article! NRA giving moral support to another like minded organization…….WOW….what news……CBC sure went for the throat there!

  22. The Police Chiefs are politicians that why they are there and not walking a beat. I doubt any of them ever directly used the registry in their careers, in fact many likely did patrols in cars only equipped with radios. The registry came into being in 2003 and barely functioning by 2005. This same group takes donations from Taser makers, the builder of the registry, had it's ethics advisor quit in disgust and was against the creation of the Charter of Rights. Funny how selective the memory of the left is. Both the serious gun control and anti-registry people know what the battle is about. If the registry goes, then so does the hope of banning all guns in Canada and will set back the gun control groups by about 15 years. Also since the sky won't fall when the registry goes away, people will have hard questions about why they spent so much for so little.

  23. It would be nice for the CBC to provide some balance just once. Instead they toil night and day using my taxes to attempt to get and keep the Liberals in power. One need look no further than the Paul Martin cuts to most government departments, CBC was spared. Gee I wonder why

    • The CBC piece last night was sophomoric, alarmist, one-sided drivel. Full of breathless innuendo, and all based on the basic CBC view that anything and everything American is evil and insidious.

  24. A little history about the 2,000 and now 14,000 hits a day is in order. Back in the early days of the registry real police on the street thought (still do) it was useless and didn't use it. The AG blew the whistle on it to huge public backlash. Supporters had to find a way to justify the waste.

    Enter Ottawa Chief Vince Bevan. Vince dreamed up the scheme of linking the registry to CPIC so every time the cops run a plate or address a hit is made on the registry, nice touch. Just got a parking ticket you made the top 14,000 list.

    • Brian get the facts instead of repeating this whopper that police don't really use the registry – that the registry only gets accessed over 10,000 times a day because everytime the police run a licence plate through CPIC it pings the registry? In 2007 CPIC was accessed over 390,000 times a day by police, the gun registry only 6,900 times a day at the time. Just a bit of a difference..

      My source – both an investigative article by the Toronto Star on the history of CPIC and the RCMP registry statistics for 2007.

  25. "But the whole tone of the CBC's report — based on publicly available information that nobody had tried to hide — implied they had discovered some sort of sinister plot."

    It was the same with the CBC's recent piece on Marci MacDonald's ridiculous, alarmist book. The tone of the piece implied that we're being insidioulsly invaded and infected by Christian evangelicals (and of course Harper and the CPC are to blame). And of course the piece was utterly one-sided. Like, has anyone at the CBC gone to journalism school? Or were they all sleeping during the class where things like "equal time", "balance", "fairness" and "objectivity" were being discussed?

    • The hilarious thing was that experts on the bogeyman of McDonald's book — Evangelical Christians — largely came out and pointed out that McDonald's book is crap.

      Which didn't deter the far left one little bit from using it as if it were conclusive material.

  26. IANSA–behind Wendy Cukier's Coalition for Gun Control, and much of the pro-Registry propaganda here–is funded by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, and is a foreign/U.S. group. Cukier also ILLEGALLY received nearly $400,000 from the Liberal government, to act as a government lobbyist.

    Cukier is also the owner of Telecon Consulting, a firm which has made a great deal of money on RCMP and provincial Registry-related IT contracts. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is sponsored by Gun Registry contractor CGI–making them paid lobbyists. And CGI donated heavilly to Jean Chretien's campaign.

    The Liberals never cared about public safety: they planned to close two RCMP crime labs, refused to arm border guards and disbanded the Ports Police–for cost reasons. The Liberals never cared about women's health: they cut funding for breast cancer research–for cost reasons. Yet they blew $2B on the Firearms Centre. And don't believe the RCMP report, which claims that the long-gun registry only costs $4M per year to operate. Just the staffing costs for the long-gun registry (excluding the restricted/prohibited firearms registry, licensing bureaucracy, or IT and other costs) of the 200 workers on that file runs into the tens of millions. The Auditor General needs to have a look at the RCMP's fuzzy math.

    Here we have the spectacle of the Liberal Party claiming foreign interference…when their leader is a U.S. expat, and they've hosted Howard Dean and others as campaign advisers. This is a party which also ran a visa and passport racket with Chinese business interests (see the 'Sidewinder Report'). And IANSA–the voice of gun control in Canada–is a foreign organisation funded by U.S. billionaires. The hypocrisy of the Liberal Party and the Cukierites is simply astounding.

  27. You know, if Avaaz were to open their membership lists to public scrutiny, they'd be able to defend those arguments.

    To date, the majority of the money funding Avaaz — and, through it, the anti-Sun TV petition — comes from the Soros Foundation, in the United States.

    (Oh, those inconvenient details!)

  28. So when people use non American weapons on our streets that's the Americans fault?

    2% of the weapons used to commit crimes are registered. The only reason for the registry is to take peoples guns away.

    Murders with firearms since the registry came into effect are up over 20%!!!!!

  29. And to think my father and grandfather fought in world wars to allow chicken-sh*t liberals to infringe on honest peoples rights. Neither would have gone had they known what a cowardly country we were to become. The RCMP and the CBC should be disbanded. Good article.

    • Mauser has done a number of reports for the Fraser Institute.

  30. "To be fair, there is a registry for vehicles. Its called a vehicle registry. "

    No comparison – think about it: You don't need a background check and get three references to get your drivers license…you don't have to show this license every time you buy gas…you don't have to keep your vehicle locked in its own personal space separate from the gas…you and you don't have a SWAT team descending on your garage and end up going to jail for five years if you fail to update your license when it expires

  31. Tony Bernardo is not NRA. although he is an expert in firearms and regulations in this, and other countries around the world. Visit and click on the right interviews tab to see Tony Bernardo interview taped last week on long gun registry.

  32. Just wondering if there's any evidence of Ms. Cukier receiving such government grants .

  33. What's your source that Wendy Cukier got $500,000 and the Chiefs $115,000 from CGI?

    Are opponents of the registry above lying?
    What about the whopper they keep repeating that police really don't use the registry – that the registry only gets accessed over 10,000 times a day because everytime the police run a licence plate through CPIC it pings the registry? In 2007 CPIC was accessed over 390,000 times a day by police, the gun registry only 6,900 times a day at the time. Just a bit of a difference..

    My source – both an investigative article by the Toronto Star on the history of CPIC and the RCMP registry statistics for 2007.