Canadian firearms Program
PUBLIC SECTOR CASE STUDIES
Submitted on: 28/01/2014
Submitted by: Vignesh Kumar
Key Issues:
1) Complexity in management level.
This is the most important issue in the case because if there is a no strong leader working
full time for the program all the coalitions/partnerships will be not be aligned with the
goals of the programme.
2) No strong gun policy and withdrawal from several provinces.
This is the second most important issue in the case. Only when there is strong
rules/regulations, the Canadians can be asked to follow the rules/regulations and help the
citizens a safe and secure place to live in. The program should also convince and gain
support from all the provinces, which it is lacking presently. The feasibility of gun policy
must be effective from all the aspects, in order for the provinces to implement them.
3) System failures and longer wait times.
This is the third most important issue in the case. System failures, resulted in a longer wait
times for the Canadians to attain a firearm/gun license and thereby leading to resentment
for the Canadians on the programme.
Automatic registrations can be implemented to accelerate the pace of the program and thus
courts can quicken their investigation/prohibition orders.
Analysis:
Quantitative:
From the charts below it is seen that the net programme costs for the federal government
has decreased over the past years.
Federal government costs of CFP
(1995-1996,2003-2004) In millions
Federal government costs of CFP
(2004-2005) In millions
Analyzing based on the statistics given in the exhibit 3, it is evident that the government’s
revenue has decreased over the past years leading the government to a state of worry.
In the past the net revenue for the federal government has been $87.4 million and in the
year 2004-2005 it is only $11.3 million. This factor of returns, Net Revenue has to be
increased in order for the government to run the program successfully.
Transfer payments to provinces and territories where marginally different over the years as
we notice that, $167.2 million was paid to other states for implementing the program, but
in the year 2004-2005 a meager amount of $92.8 million was paid to the provinces. This is
also an issue, which was addressed earlier in the case for the provinces to withdraw from
the program. Therefore the Transfer payments must increase and thereby, it will lead to
increment in total direct costs.
Also it is noted that the total indirect costs may reduce over the years in order for the
