The Gun Registry – Facts vs. Conservative Ideology

I have always believed that when it comes to setting government policy, we should be looking at the facts and the evidence before making a decision.

The Harper government tells us they want to be tough on crime. So why do they want to abolish the long-gun registry when police use it 11,000 times a day?

My Conservative opponent, Ed Holder, was quoted in the August 31, 2010 edition of the London Free Press as saying that he will vote to abolish the registry.

I find it very disappointing and disheartening that Mr. Holder will be voting based on Conservative ideology and not based on the facts and evidence.

What are the facts and the evidence? The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has come out in favour of keeping the long-gun registry. They have listed 10 myths being propagated by Conservative MPs and other anti-registry groups.

Myth 1: The firearms registry is a financial boondoggle and costs billions to run.
Fact: In 2009, it cost $4.1 million to operate the long gun registry.

Myth 2: There’s too much red tape in registering a long gun.
Fact: Registrations or transfers are done over the phone or on-line in a matter of minutes.

Myth 3: It’s expensive to register/transfer a long gun.
Fact: It’s free.

Myth 4: The gun registry targets the wrong people.
Fact: As of 2009, 111,533 firearms were in police custody for community safety reasons or after criminal use. Of these, 87,893 were long guns.

Myth 5: Criminals use handguns. Long guns are used by law-abiding hunters and farmers.
Fact: Not always. Of the 16 police officer shooting deaths since 1998, 14 used a long gun. In 2007, about 15% of known fire¬arm homicides in Canada were committed with a long gun.

Myth 6: Police don’t support the long-gun registry.
Fact: All of the major Canadian organizations representing police support the registration of all firearms in Canada.

Myth 7: Police don’t use the gun registry or the CFP’s other services.
Fact: Police across Canada access the firearms registry on-line on average 11,076 times a day, 2,842 of those queries for addresses involving community safety incidents

Myth 8: The firearms registry on-line has no impact on police officer safety.
Fact: It does impact officer safety as evidenced by the fact that police used it 4,042,859 times last year.

Myth 9: The long-gun registry does not save lives.
Fact: The registry does more than register guns. It’s another tool that assists police in making informed decisions that contribute to community safety.

Myth 10: The “gun registry” database has been breached over 300 times by hackers – our information isn’t safe.
Fact: Wrong. The registry’s national database has never been breached by hackers. Information is safe and secure.

I grew up on a farm in rural Lambton County, and I am aware that farmers sometimes need to use guns to deal with predators on their property. I understand the issue as it affects farmers and hunters.

Last April the Liberal Party took a principled stand in supporting the gun registry while proposing reforms that would address many of the concerns of rural citizens. Details can be found here:
http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/michael-ignatieff-addresses-police-and-rural-concerns-with-gun-registry-reforms/.

The Conservative position supported by Mr. Holder shows how they have allowed their ideology to trump the facts.

We register our cars. We register our dogs and cats in urban areas. Some purebred farm animals are registered. Based on the facts, I don’t think it’s too much to ask to register long guns.

We Cannot Prejudge

The media has been full of reports on two different but linked stories during the past couple of weeks.

The first story was the arrival of several hundred Tamils on a ship that arrived in BC after many months at sea. The second story was the arrest of four men, who happened to be Muslim, for planning a terrorist attack.

The stories are linked by one theme: patience and tolerance.

Sri Lanka has been through a horrific civil war that has lasted for over 25 years, prompted by efforts by the government there to promote the interests of the Sinhalese majority (who make up 70% of the population) and discriminate against the Tamil minority.

One law made Sinhala, the language of Sri Lanka’s majority Sinhalese community as the sole official language of Sri Lanka. It was the equivalent of Canada making English the only official language.

Because large numbers of Tamils who worked in the civil service could not speak Sinhalese, they were forced to resign. The government also attempted to make Buddhism the national religion, to the exclusion of Hindu and Islam. Finally, there was affirmative action in favour of Sinhalese majority. As a result of this deliberate discrimination many Tamils came to favour a separate Tamil nation.

The civil war was long and bloody, and ended only last year with a victory by the Sri Lankan government. Hundreds of thousands of Tamils were displaced in the final stages. Thousands of civilians were killed.

To the disappointment of the international community, the Sri Lankan government did not extend the hand of friendship to the Tamil minority. They continue to be marginalized. Archbishop Desmond Tutu recently denounced the government for the persecution, intimidation, assassination and disappearance of government critics, political opponents, journalists and human rights defenders.

So imagine yourself as a Tamil, defeated in civil war, and living in a society which deliberately discriminates against you, and you are in danger for your life. Would you stay?

As Bob Rae has pointed out, in 1939 Canada refused to allow a ship of Jewish refugees to land in our country. They ended up back in Europe, and many did not survive the Holocaust. That is to our shame as a nation.

In the 1970s Canada took in 50,000 so-called boat people from Vietnam. They have become exemplary citizens; one of them, Vu Pham, became an OPP police officer and was killed this year in the line of duty.
The Tamils are no different from the Jewish and Vietnamese refugees.

The recent arrests of four persons on suspected terrorism charges surprised many people in London, as one of them was a medical doctor living in Byron.

Let us not forget that under our constitution they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion. If they are found guilty, then they will be sentenced according to Canadian law.

These four of the hundreds of thousands of person of the Muslim faith living in Canada, are a miniscule minority. We must take care not to stereotype others of the Muslim faith. Our Muslim friends and neighbours here in London have added much to the rich culture we enjoy. Many are community leaders. No one should be judged for the actions of others.

We do not know if all the Tamils on that ship qualify as refugees. We do not know if they four persons arrested on terrorism charges are guilty or not.

What we do know is that we must be patient and allow the law to take its course. Whether they be refugees or persons accused of crimes, we cannot prejudge. All are entitled to their day in court. I say let the law take its course.

That is the democratic way. That is the fair way. That is the Canadian way.

Staying Until He Shook Every Hand

The expectations were high.

Michael Ignatieff was coming to London for a BBQ on the public square at Covent Garden Market.

London Liberals had been getting the word out on Facebook, by e-mail, and with hundreds of phone calls.

By Friday night, almost 500 Londoners told us they were coming. They were bringing friends and family with them.

And came they did. The public square was full with both Liberals and curious voters.

Michael Ignatieff was on fire. Everyone felt his passion. Many came up to me afterwards to tell me how impressed they were.

The Leader stayed until he had shaken hands with every last person who wanted to meet him.

That says a lot about Michael, his work ethic, and his character.

I’ve knocked on thousands of doors so far in my campaign. Voters are telling me they don’t like Stephen Harper. They are prepared to turn to Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals, but they want to know – are the Liberals ready?

Those who were at Covent Garden Market will tell you that the answer is an emphatic yes.

The Conservative Party and Canadian Democracy

I believe that one of the key issues in the next election will be the state of Canadian democracy.

The Harper government is obsessed with two things: control of information and messages, and attacking the opposition parties. I believe that by doing so, they weaken our democracy and our political system.

Let’s review how they have been trying to carry out those two objectives.

1. Gagging of MPs and civil servants. Mr. Harper has been trying to keep all communications subject to his control. Civil servants cannot speak to the media without a political staffer listening in. Conservative MPs need permission to speak to the media, or they risk being punished by the Prime Minister’s Office.
2. Prorogation. By sending Parliament home when his government is in trouble, Mr. Harper is able to govern for extended periods without facing the accountability demanded by the opposition in the House of Commons.
3. Funding cuts based on ideology. The Harper government has cancelled funding for many women’s groups, the church-run charity KAIROS, and other non-profits where they take positions contrary to Conservative ideology.
4. House of Commons committees. Conservative MPs will filibuster or walk out of committee meetings when a controversial topic is raised. They try to block the testimony of witnesses who disagree with their position (including police associations who supported the gun registry). It renders committees ineffective.
5. Question period. Conservative ministers attack the questioner, or provide non-answers. Giving straight answers is rare.
6. The civil service. Many senior civil servants are being forced out of their jobs because they take positions consistent with the law or with the facts, but are not to the liking of Mr. Harper. The latest victim is Munir Sheikh, the former Head Statistician at Statistics Canada. Past victims include Peter Tinsley of the Military Police Complaints Commission, Linda Keen of the Nuclear Safety Commission, Paul Kennedy of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, Adrian Measner of the Wheat Board, and John Reid and Robert Marleau of the Information Commissioner’s Office.
7. Funding of political parties. In November 2008, Mr. Harper attempted to cut off public funding for all political parties. This would have cut the legs out from all four opposition parties, leaving the Conservatives free to do as they wished. I think Canadians feel that no matter what party is in power, a strong opposition ensures accountability.
8. A cult of secrecy. Stephen Harper was elected in 2006 on a promise of more accountability. Instead, this has become the most secrecy-obsessed government in Canadian history. Requests under the Freedom of Information Act are denied, delayed, or blacked out more than ever.

All of these points weaken democracy in Canada. They are intended to centralize control in the person of the Prime Minister. This is what worries me the most about the Harper government, and it is one of the reasons I’m running for Parliament.

Government must be accountable. Government must be transparent. Government means allowing free and fair debate. It means allowing for contrary views to be expressed without fear of punishment. The Harper government is none of these.

It’s time for change.