I'm the author of the essay that Mike Campbell based his Vancouver Sun column on. The essay was selected for the Letter of the Week awark [sic -- 'award'] at Mark Steyn's web site. . . .

My Fellow Canadian ~

I once read an excellent Isaac Asimov non-fiction essay on really big numbers. Humans are in general really bad at understanding big numbers. Because of my math / science / engineering background, I'm maybe a bit better than average, but I'm no Asimov. I have though learned a few ways to help me better understand big numbers, so that I can better deal with them when I need to. This essay shows how some of those methods work.

The initial Government of Canada estimate for the gun registry database system was $1 million. Technically, I think that's probably a bit low. Based on my on three decades of work in the field of distributed multi-user database transaction processing systems like the registry, and on some systems I'm currently working on which are of that type, I think $3 million would have been a better estimate.

If someone from the Government of Canada can provide me with a simple accounting showing some component of the system that I've missed, I'd be more than happy to adjust my analysis of the situation to take that data into account. My current analysis is based on the numbers I have collected from the public media over the last few years.

Given how important it is for state monopolies to serve citizens to the highest possible ethical standard, let's throw in a factor of three-ish over my base estimate and call it $10 million, to be as careful as possible.

Now, say you had such a $10 million contract with some customers. And then, say you spent three times that: $30 million. Does it occur to you that your customers (in this case, we citizens) might be, oh, shall we say, somewhat angry? Ok, let's say it's another factor of three: $90 million. How are your customers doing now? Fine. Let's throw in another factor of three, so we're now up to $270 million. How angry are your customers now? In more primitive times than we live in, would you still be alive? But wait, there's more. How much would we pay for another factor of three? Oh, about $810 million. Say, that's interesting, the gun registry database system has, according to the CBC, cost $750 million.

It didn't cost 3 times as much. Or 3 times 3 times as much. Or 3 times 3 times 3 times as much. It cost 3 times 3 times 3 times 3 times as much.

That's like planning to have two children, and ending up with 162 (two times three to the power of four). Now stop. Think about that number, 162 children. It's unimaginable that you could legitimately have 162 children, in any way whatsoever. Likewise, there is no way I can come up with to imagine how the registry database project could legitimately cost $750 million, whatsoever.

Never mind that it is to me unfathomable that it could take eight years to develop the registry database, and never mind that according to the CBC it doesn't actually work; $750 million divided by eight years is about $250,000 per day. That's right, they spent what should have been, at its most extreme, a $10 million budget for the entire project, they spent that much every 40 days, for eight years.

Here's another way to look at it. The database system has cost about 750 / 8 = $94 million per year, for eight years. Loaded full-time staff costs in this field are about $100,000 per year. That means the development of this system employed 940 full-time staff per year for eight years. How the hell can a database fundamentally designed
to store and retrieve 7 million gun records distributed across 3 million person records take 7,500 man-years to develop? What is this, the Pyramid of Cheops?

(Actually, the CBC's total cost figure of $2 billion for the entire gun registry "file" amounts to about $685,000 per day, which means they spent the entire initially estimated budget of $2 million, again according to the CBC, every three days, for eight years straight.That's 20,000 man-years, to register 7 million guns. But what do I know, I'm just a software guy, I'll stick to the database system.)

Corporations get sued for cost overruns on the order of tens of percent. Assuming my careful $10 million estimate is reasonable, the registry database is not 10 % over. It's not 100 % over. It's not 1,000 % over. It's 7,500 % over.

It's not 10 times less than the standard we citizens are held to, under threat of criminal prosecution. It's not 100 times less. The state's standard of performance for itself is 750 times less than the standard it holds us to.

Who the hell, exactly, do these people think they are, and why the hell shouldn't we smite them?

Ok, I'll tell you what. Section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada calls for jail for up to 10 years for fraud over $5,000. Applying the 750 factor apparently used by State Canada, let's just say that any politician or civil servant that is guilty of fraud over $5,000 should go to jail for 7,500 years.

That's starting to sound like a big enough number for me.

Yours,
Tony Olekshy,
The Sagacious Iconoclast

[. . . .] Miller's plans are preventative (he wants to provide jobs, recreational activities, social assistance), they cost money the city doesn't have, they give long-term payoffs as opposed to an immediate cessation of gunplay and they need to be buttressed by police enforcement measures that cost money and federal legislative actions that are outside his jurisdiction.

1. I do not want another study on why these people do this or why people are in gangs. I want something done about this now! I want my children to be able to grow up in an environment where they are not afraid to walk and play in the local park.

I want the guns taken away from these killers.

[. . . .] These killers, and others who possess guns for crime, must be put in jail for a long, long time. We must stop thinking of them as the victims of society. They must be held accountable for their own actions.

The people who were shot, and their families, are the victims - not those who pulled the trigger. CK

2. I think if our illustrious mayor took the time to speak with some of these delinquents, he would learn they all have a fundamental lack of regard for human life. It has absolutely nothing to do with not having a recreation centre in which to play basketball. MJ

One quote I found interesting, if not perplexing, is that of Sen. Jerry Grafstein whose recommendation was, "Change the subject. I don't think we should be talking about this any more." Wow, when confronted with the various options as to what to do about the ripoff of millions of dollars by a handful of people within our government, this senator's advice is to "Change the subject." [. . . . ] Since senators are appointed, he doesn't have to answer to his employers - the taxpayers of Canada. DB

Unfortunately, the practice of years of honourable men resigning went by the wayside with Pierre Trudeau and the federal cabinet blustering their way through scandals and has never regained currency. It is time our premier and finance minister reverted to an honourable practice which would gain them much political capital. DJM

[. . . . ] The fact is, it is ludicrously simple to reduce gun crimes -- without bringing in "new" laws.

Just enforce existing laws.

The problem, as it exists, is with the courts.

Under the Criminal Code, anyone carrying a gun while committing a crime risks five years in prison, plus whatever the sentence is for the crime.

Gun sentences should be mandatory.

As it stands now, using a gun in a crime carries a maximum 14 years.

Pointing a gun at someone entails five years.

If even these relatively modest penalties were imposed, it can be guaranteed that the use of guns would be cut down.

[. . . .] Gun crimes have nothing to do with firearms registration, which is the peculiar obsession of the federal Liberal government -- even to the point they fudge figures to make registration look successful, when it's a costly disaster.

Roughly half the guns used in crimes in Toronto (Canada?) are stolen, half come from the U.S.

[. . . .] "Root causes" of crime and social disorder need attention, but more important -- and easy to do -- is "curing" one of the symptoms, which is gun crimes.

Scare the bejeezus out of gun criminals.

Make them afraid to risk carrying guns because of the penalties.

[. . . .] As well, speed up the court process and get the low-lifes off the streets faster.

[. . . .] Miller's plans are preventative (he wants to provide jobs, recreational activities, social assistance), they cost money the city doesn't have, they give long-term payoffs as opposed to an immediate cessation of gunplay and they need to be buttressed by police enforcement measures that cost money and federal legislative actions that are outside his jurisdiction.

1. I do not want another study on why these people do this or why people are in gangs. I want something done about this now! I want my children to be able to grow up in an environment where they are not afraid to walk and play in the local park.

I want the guns taken away from these killers.

[. . . .] These killers, and others who possess guns for crime, must be put in jail for a long, long time. We must stop thinking of them as the victims of society. They must be held accountable for their own actions.

The people who were shot, and their families, are the victims - not those who pulled the trigger. CK

2. I think if our illustrious mayor took the time to speak with some of these delinquents, he would learn they all have a fundamental lack of regard for human life. It has absolutely nothing to do with not having a recreation centre in which to play basketball. MJ

My observation is that even the harshest critics of the gun registry don't get the real problem, and certainly those that support it don't want to.

[. . . .] But the point being missed is that the money blown in the gun registry goes beyond incompetence. You simply can't get from estimates of $2 million to expenditures of over $1 billion solely through mismanagement. This fact has barely rated a mention because I suspect that too many of us simply don't appreciate the significance of the numbers.

[. . . .] Originally, the database was projected to cost $1 million, but even allowing for an underestimation in the magnitude of 1,000 per cent (or $10 million), the results are unfathomable.

[. . . .] According to the CBC and other news organizations, the gun registry database cost $750 million. It cost 3-times-3-times-3-times-3-times the original estimate, which we allowed to be 1,000 per cent above the government's original forecast.

[. . . . The] gun registry database can't legitimately cost $750 million. I emphasize the word "legitimately."

Given the project has taken eight years, that works out to $250,000 per day, every day, of each of those eight years. I have found nobody familiar with that kind of project in the private sector who has the faintest idea as to how that can happen. It works out to $94 million per year for eight years, simply to run a database. In other words, every four days for eight years they spent the equivalent of the total original estimate of $1 million.

As Olekshy points out, it simply can't take the equivalent of 7,500-man years to build a gun-registry database for three million owners. The point is that bad management alone can't produce overruns like we've paid for.

1. One quote I found interesting, if not perplexing, is that of Sen. Jerry Grafstein whose recommendation was, "Change the subject. I don't think we should be talking about this any more." Wow, when confronted with the various options as to what to do about the ripoff of millions of dollars by a handful of people within our government, this senator's advice is to "Change the subject." [. . . . ] Since senators are appointed, he doesn't have to answer to his employers - the taxpayers of Canada. DB

2. Unfortunately, the practice of years of honourable men resigning went by the wayside with Pierre Trudeau and the federal cabinet blustering their way through scandals and has never regained currency. It is time our premier and finance minister reverted to an honourable practice which would gain them much political capital. DJM

Re: Klein Wonders How Mountie's Killer Got Gun, March 2.

Those who are looking for ways in which the useless firearms registry might have prevented the tragic events which lead to the death of RCMP Corporal James Galloway will be looking for a long, long time. The measure which might have helped, but didn't, was the screening procedure tied to the licensing of firearm owners.

When former solicitor-general Wayne Easter stood up in the House of Commons and admitted that the background checks tied to the licensing of firearms owners are done on a "discretionary basis," the writing was on the wall that the Firearms Act was not in any way shape or form about the public safety.

Inanimate objects have no will or volition of their own, and it is the human element which must be tracked. By maintaining a registry of persons who should not own firearms as determined by criminal tendencies or mental incapacity, we might have spared the life of Cpl. Galloway.

Ontario physicians, for example, have an obligation to inform the transport ministry of conditions which would impair drivers judgment.

[. . . .] While the Liberals are keeping thousands of functionaries busy registering firearms, they spend no resources on measures which might actually prevent exactly the type of tragedies that the registry can never prevent. . . . RS, Oshawa

A botched $1.4-billion heating fuel rebate program doled out cash to the wrong Canadians. Then-finance minister Paul Martin announced the gift just before the 2000 federal election, but the auditor general later discovered that as little as 18 per cent made its way to low-income Canadians. Some rebates went to dead people, prisoners and students who were living at home and didn't pay heating bills.

Re: Stopping Gun Crime, editorial, March 1.

[. . . . Incorporate] the following:

1. A prohibition on firearms ownership for persons who have been convicted of indictable offences involving violence. This should satisfy everyone who does not want the wrong people owning firearms.

2. Violating the above should itself be an indictable offence punishable by a minimum five-year prison term. [Suggestions vary on length. NJC]

3. The Crown's discretion to plea-bargain firearms offences should be removed.

4. The onus for making a criminal records check should be placed on the vendor of the firearm.

[. . . .] What the Liberals have been missing is the political will to actually punish criminals who use firearms to commit violent crimes. Instead they have saddled the taxpayer with an over-priced super-bureaucracy focussed on legitimate recreational shooters, all the while claiming that they are doing something about gun crime.

American law enforcement authorities appear capable of tracing many firearms used in crime due to the U.S. requirement of a criminal records check and retention of sales records by firearms dealers. Recall how the Washington, D.C., sniper's gun was traced back to the dealer who sold it. This was done in the absence of a national gun registry or a licencing scheme for gun owners. . . . NP, Edmonton

It's hardly surprising the current Liberal sponsorship scandal, or Adscam, occurred, given the procurement process for advertising services in Ottawa that's been in place for decades, and still is.

[. . . . ] The result has been shameless patronage over the years, both Conservative and Liberal, because it is based on a process that is unaccountable, irresponsible and corruptible. Every regime going back decades has been plagued with at least one juicy advertising controversy because contracts are awarded on the basis of cronyism and favouritism.

[. . . .] Here's how it works, [ -- from a retired ad man . . . ]

The government buys its media through an agency of record and outsources the advertising campaigns it needs [. . . .]

Public Works Canada procures these services and, based on input from the department involved and its needs, writes up a Request for Proposal (RFP), then posts it on its Web site for agencies. The problem with RFPs is that they can be written up in such a way as to exclude, or include, entities from the bidding process.

For instance, the Liberals could keep out small independents by stipulating that only an agency that can handle a $10-million account or one with a Quebec office or partner need apply.

"Then someone at Public Works, or at the department involved, could also stipulate which Quebec agency would be an ideal partner," said the source.

The Auditor General's report named several small Quebec-based entities, which were participants in the sponsorship campaign, that cost taxpayers $250-million, $100-million of which she estimated was misdirected, the result of overcharging or stolen because no work was done.

Gatekeeper to these untold millions in advertising business is the RFP process. There's an RFP industry of consultants and writers in Canada who specialize in helping agencies craft their RFP to get the contract.

Public Works chief of advertising procurement for years was Charles (Chuck) Guite. He retired when Alphonso Gagliano left as Minister of Public Works in 2002. A source has alleged some officials inside the department would suggest the names of acceptable Quebec partners to enhance the agency's chance of success.

[. . . .] Scheduling the pitches was Chuck Guite. He was not on the committee but was usually in attendance.

[. . . .] The problem is the enormous power enjoyed by the gatekeepers and the lack of any accountability or responsibility on the part of those who select the agencies for the work that's done.

[. . . . With] government business, federal or provincial or Crown corporation . . . bottom lines and accountability don't exist.