The gun registry has been a flashpoint in rural Canada where many own rifles and shotguns for hunting and other purposes. In the early 90s after the Montréal massacre at l`École Polytechnique, that killed 14 women using a long gun on Dec. 6, 1989, there was a recognition that gun control would be one essential tool in tracking guns. The Liberal government at the time passed a law that would require all guns to be registered by owners when purchased. The purpose of this registry is not to treat lawful gun owners as criminals, just like car owners are not assumed to be criminals when asked to register their cars. It is about traceability and responsibility.

Like anytime new methods are introduced, there is some resistance and skepticism. That skepticism was exploited from day one by some the Reform/Conservatives who kept encouraging Canadians to reject the requirement to register their weapons.

By constantly amplifying that skepticism and repeating that citizens are being treated like criminals if they are asked to register their weapons, we failed to have an honest discussion about the value of registering one’s guns.

Every Canadian is required to register their car. They are expected to acquire a fishing or hunting license. They must register their pet. Why are the Conservative perpetuating the idea that registering one’s rifle is invasive?

What’s next? If registering a shotgun is too much, then would requiring gun owners to obtain a license to operate a weapon is too much?

As a society, we believe in gun control. Maintaining a traceable registry of weapons is in a way parallel to maintaining a registry of our vehicles. The registry would actually protect gun owners and society.

Just because the initial set-up costs went out of control, it doesn’t mean the system is not functioning properly now. Eliminating the long gun registry will have negligible cost savings but will deprive law enforcement agencies access to knowing where the weapons are.

The gun registry was never promised to be the only method to fight gun crime. We still have to deal with smuggled weapons and illegal guns. But if this new law passes, access to shotguns or rifles will become easier. Rather than tightening controls, this proposed law will loosen it.

If the current process of registering guns is too complicated, we should find a way to simplify it, but no one should be made to believe that registering their weapon is equal to criminal treatment.

It is not too late. Canadians can speak up and tell their MPs that they support the idea of maintaining a gun registry.

The issue of promoting and maintaining safer communities is of paramount importance to all Canadians and deserves the attention of us all. While statistically, crime is coming down, one crime is one crime too many and collectively we all must work together to reduce it even further. Combating crime deserves to be a top issue in the minds of all political leaders and citizens. It is unfortunate though that a debate about policies and ideas can become hijacked by partisan rhetoric.

It is healthy to disagree passionately, but regrettably, sometimes rather than engaging in a substantive dialogue about crime prevention policies, some politicians resort to simplistic labels that would exploit the angst Canadians already have about combating crime to undermine the opponent’s point of view. “Tough on Crime” is a commonly used slogan by politicians trying to claim a higher ground on this debate and by accusing their opponent to be “soft on crime”. Who really believes that any politician wants to be “soft on crime”? Who believes that there are politicians who don’t really want to have safer communities? Perhaps some people believe that but most Canadians will agree that that is just partisan posturing. This type of posturing does very little to advance the debate on how we as a society need to confront crime and its causes.

It is easier to harness the legitimate frustration that Canadians have with our legal system than to propose serious and forward-looking ideas on how to tackle these difficult matters.

Combating crime will undoubtedly require a constant review of our laws, but we would be naive if we ignored the other needs of Canadians. It is indisputable that our legal system is overburdened and needs strengthening. If we really want to see results, we need to examine how we deploy our resources, from judges to crown attorneys to police officers and we need to work on addressing the root causes of crime, from youth alienation to unemployment and education.

Punitive measures are necessary not just to make sure that criminals are held accountable, but also to work as a deterrent. However, we must also recognize that preventative measures are as important, if not more important, in playing a role in reducing crime. Doctors always tell us that preventing diseases is much more effective than having to treat them.

As a society we must be tough on crime, but tough on crime means that we have effective policies that produce results, not just slogans that promote a false sense of comfort without really producing the desired outcome.

The city of Mississauga has been designated the safest city in Canada for four years in a row. Thanks to the incredible work of our law enforcement agencies and the cooperation given to them by the city and its citizens. We all should be very proud of our record, but we can not afford to be complacent or simplistic in our attitudes.

In addition to the City of Mississauga, this Saturday’s event is co-organized with the Mississauga Chinese Business Council, Rogers Television, Peel Regional Police and the Mississauga Crime Prevention Association. The ribbon cutting ceremony will be held at noon at City Hall. Bring your family.

This “no-fly” list, and the way it is being implemented, is extremely problematic and should be a cause for concern for all Canadians. Denying someone the right to fly is a very serious decision and it is a judgment call that deserves at least due process. It is not only an inconvenience but it could terminate someone’s career or cost them thousands of dollars. Such decisions should not be made behind closed doors where the Minister becomes the judge and jury.

Canada has just apologized to Maher Arar and paid millions of dollars in acknowledging the errors made by labeling him an extremist with little evidence and sharing that info with the US. Yet it appears that some haven’t learned from that tragic lesson. There has been many other incidents and anecdotes where innocent individuals have been caught in a wide net because of the absence of much needed checks and balances.

Canadians support all initiatives that would increase the protection and safety of air travelers but many are wary that this new program would actually accomplish the opposite. The lack of an open and accountable process when placing people on such a list could, and will, cause many errors where innocent people will not only be barred from air travel but will have their reputation tarnished and will have their names shared with other countries that no Canadian official could control. Federal and provincial privacy commissioners have already spoken out in protest against this list.

It appears that the Conservatives are succumbing to a demand from the Bush administration to implement this list, even though it has been proven that the American no-fly list has been a failure. Some argue that this list will offer nothing but a false sense of security and will victimize many Canadians along the way.

Many Canadians don’t even know that this list will ‘not’ contain the names of the most dangerous potential terrorists. Why? Because the authorities don’t want these most dangerous individuals to know they are being surveilled. So, whose names do they have on the list then?

The previous Liberal government considered implementing a similar program but never went ahead with it because it recognized the many failures and problems it could cause. We have already learnt of a Canadian family that wasn’t able to travel on vacation because their son’s name was on this new list. I am unfortunately expecting to hear more such stories.

If we are to implement such a list, we need to create a process that is fair. Authorities need to notify the individual privately that their name is being considered to be placed on such a list and grant them the opportunity to test the “evidence” they have prior to finalizing the decision. Such a list needs to be as reliable as possible in order for it to be credible. Lack of credibility will not only negatively affect innocent Canadians but it could also let real and dangerous individuals escape scrutiny.

I have heard from dozens of Canadians about the “no- fly” list and it is clear that many are very uncomfortable with how the Conservatives are proceeding with it. I was a guest panelist on “Talk Local”, a live TV show on the local Rogers cable channel discussing this matter. About a dozen callers called to express their concerns – not a single caller was supportive of it.

I, along with my Liberal colleagues, have and will continue to challenge how the Conservatives are allowing failed ideology to trump logic and fairness. In the meantime, I hope that all of you have safe and enjoyable summer travels.

p.s. I would like to remind you of our Annual Summer BBQ co-hosted with Minister Harinder Takhar, MPP for Mississauga-Centre.

Our Special Guest this year will be the Honourable Ken Dryden.

Please join us for a afternoon of fun, food and mingling with your neighbours. The BBQ is on July 28th, from 1 – 3:30 pm at Huron Park – 830 Paisley Blvd. West.

Mississauga has been the safest city in Canada for years. We have an exceptional community, outstanding local police force and a very supportive municipal government who work together to address potential problems, arrest alleged criminals and invest in the vulnerable members of society.

Mr. Dion introduced a comprehensive plan that offers tougher punitive measures and innovative preventative measures. He emphasized that while statistics tell us that the crime rate has been declining for years, we must not become complacent. Statistics mean little to victims of crime and society expects their government to confront all threats on the safety and security of its citizens.

To be effective in combating crime, we must learn from history and base our action on logic and evidence, not ideology and fear-mongering. We must examine domestic trends and learn from other countries. Our laws cannot be based on knee-jerk reactions that inflame emotions and may possibly exacerbate potential causes of crime. Our approach must use deterrence but also must emphasize prevention. In this newsletter, I have included Mr. Dion’s speech which outlines the specifics of his proposals. The speech was well-received by the audience and experts.

Someone should alert the Conservatives to how silly they sound when they keep accusing the Liberals of being “soft on crime”. It is so ridiculous that I am sure it will backfire. It is reasonable to disagree on strategies. After all, Liberals and Conservatives have different philosophies. But to keep saying that Liberals are ‘a comfort to criminals’ is akin to me saying that the Conservatives want to put everyone in jail. Believe me, while I may be tempted to make such an exaggeration, they do not make for effective arguments or criticisms.

Canadians are intelligent and they can see through the political posturing. Once again, Stéphane Dion is acting more like a Prime Minister by focusing on policies and ideas while Stephen Harper is acting more like an Opposition Leader by throwing mud. Perhaps he wants to go back to that role.