It absolutely is, because when G-4 and Bill C-21will be implemented, that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's what the cost is going to be to Canadians. I'm going to get not just to the cost, because I think people would say they're willing to pay a price as long as it makes them safe, but what I'm arguing is that this isn't making them more safe.
The range estimate rises between $2.6 billion and $6.7 billion after you include compensation costs to owners. Then this same author has said that the addition of this potential new amendment adds another billion dollars, so it's between—and Ms. Dancho knows this too well—$5 billion and $10 billion, pretty easily, by the time it's all said and done.
For those moms of kids in our inner cities.... I'm a father of four and I want to see our streets more safe. We know that violent crime has increased by 33% under this Prime Minister and government. We know that gang crime has increased by 92% since this government took office. What they're doing isn't working. This is another bill put forward that has the image or certainly the facade that it will do something when it really won't.
We know that the cost is going to be between $5 billion and $10 billion. What could $5 billion to $10 billion do in a positive way, instead of going after law-abiding firearms owners and hunters in Canada?
It's simple math. Let's pick the lower amount, $5 billion, as the amount that we're going to calculate this on. Based on an average salary and training for the average police officer or CBSA agent of $150,000, we could put 10,000 officers on the streets for about four years. Imagine those containers. We hear that one in every 100 actually gets inspected at the border, where we know the problem is. Imagine putting another 5,000 CBSA agents at the borders to capture these guns before they get across to gang members in our inner cities. Just imagine that—or, as my colleague Mr. Calkins has informed me, with the equipment we could give those border agents to completely scan every container, we could easily pay for the manpower and this equipment to up our game at the borders dramatically to reduce the number of guns coming across. Why aren't we doing that? It's something that will have a real impact, and I guess in a positive way too.
Ultimately this ends up on the streets, and we see crime and firearms that are hurting our kids. We see the crime rates spiking and getting worse. The list that I read out earlier today is not comprehensive. As Mr. Smith acknowledged, proposed paragraph 84(1.2)(g) really opens it up to a whole bunch of other hunting firearms, potentially, and it's all for an almost zero effect, when we know that 86% of those firearms that are killing our kids are coming across the border. They're not coming from law-abiding hunters in my community. That's for sure.
My final point is we know that hunters are not the problem. We know what the problem is. Knowing what the problem is, how about our putting that huge amount of money in a place where it will actually work and keep our communities safe?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.