Gun buyback program will not make us safer

Portage – Lisgar

Far too often in politics, promises are made during campaigns and quietly forgotten after election day. I have always believed that when you give your word to the people you represent, you keep it. That is why I remain firmly opposed to the Liberal firearm confiscation program, officially known as the assault-style rifles compensation program.

This program will not make our communities safer. It carries a significant cost to taxpayers while focusing on individuals who are already licensed, trained, and thoroughly vetted. At a time when violent crime and gang activity remain real concerns, public policy should be driven by evidence and measurable results, not symbolism.

Before spending hundreds of millions, we should ask one basic question: Will this program reduce gun crime?

Many front-line police officers have expressed serious doubts. Clayton Campbell,president of the Toronto Police Association, has questioned the wisdom of diverting substantial resources toward confiscating legally owned firearms while illegal guns continue to drive violent crime in major cities. That concern should not be dismissed.

Illegal firearms are smuggled across our borders by organized criminal networks. They are not registered. They are not owned by licensed firearms holders. They are trafficked by people who have no intention of respecting Canadian law. Any effective public safety strategy must focus squarely on stopping that flow.

There are also legitimate concerns about cost and implementation. Even senior officials have acknowledged the risk of ballooning expenses and enforcement challenges. Canadians should expect that large programs are practical, fiscally responsible, and properly prioritized before hundreds of millions of dollars are committed.

Consider what those resources could accomplish if directed toward initiatives with proven impact. Hiring more police officers. Strengthening border security. Targeting organized crime networks. Ensuring that repeat violent offenders face meaningful consequences. Those are measures that address the root of the problem.

We must also be honest about who is most directly affected. Farmers who protect their livestock. Hunters who rely on wild game to help feed their families. Competitive sport shooters who train responsibly and follow every regulation. These individuals comply with strict licensing rules, complete safety training, store their equipment securely, and submit to background checks. They are not at the root of gang-related violence.

Public safety policy should bring Canadians together around practical solutions. It should concentrate on criminals who threaten our communities, disrupt trafficking networks, and support law enforcement on the front lines. It should not divert attention or resources away from those priorities.

This issue is not about ideology. It is about outcomes. Canadians want safer streets and responsible stewardship of their tax dollars. Those objectives go hand in hand when government focuses on what actually works.

If we are serious about reducing violent crime, our efforts must be targeted, evidence based, and fiscally responsible. That is how we strengthen public safety while respecting the many responsible firearms owners across our region.