Yukon North Of Ordinary

News archive for September 20, 2010

Bagnell’s, Stoffer’s positions to prove fatal to firearms bill

Larry Bagnell will vote Wednesday to end debate on a private member’s bill aimed at scrapping the long-gun registry, ending speculation on how the Lib-Yukon MP will vote.

By Jason Unrau on September 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm

photo

Photo by Whitehorse Star

Larry Bagnell

Larry Bagnell will vote Wednesday to end debate on a private member’s bill aimed at scrapping the long-gun registry, ending speculation on how the Lib-Yukon MP will vote.

Bagnell has twice voted to support Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner’s private member’s bill to kill the long-gun registry, but is now faced with a whipped vote on the issue from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

“I will be there on Wednesday for the vote ... I am still planning to vote to cease debate on the private member’s bill that would end the registry,” writes Bagnell in an e-mail that his Yukon constituency office provided the Star.

Hoeppner’s Bill C-391 was due for third and final reading in the House of Commons later this month, but it may not get that far if the majority of MPs support a Liberal procedural motion Wednesday to end debate on bill.

Bagnell is currently with family members in Calgary after his wife, Melissa Craig, suffered a miscarriage, and was not available for comment.

Two weeks ago, Hoeppner was in Whitehorse as part of her cross-Canada campaign to pressure rural MPs to support her bill.

The MP for Manitoba’s Portage-Lisgar riding said Bagnell’s vote could be crucial.

News today that NDP MP Peter Stoffer changed his mind – like Bagnell, Stoffer has twice supported C-391 – has put the pre-vote tally at 153 opposed and 151 in support.

At the end of August, Bagnell and Stoffer appeared together on the CBC radio program The Current, where Bagnell said he had not asked Ignatieff if he could skip the vote, adding he would “explore all options that are open to me.”

During that same radio interview, Stoffer said he would support Hoeppner’s bill, but this morning, made an about-face.

On two occasions following Bagnell’s radio appearance, the Yukon MP refused to answer a direct question from the Star – would he or would he not vote in favour of Hoeppner’s bill?

Instead, Bagnell offered the following on Sept. 8:

“I made it quite clear that I would be exploring options right up until the vote, but it doesn’t appear that I’ve been offered any leeway.”

CommentsAdd a comment

Thomas Brewer

Sep 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm

Thanks for ignoring your constituents’ wishes Larry.

I for one will remember this come the next federal election.

JC

Sep 20, 2010 at 4:26 pm

Dear Larry: I just hope your boss the Harvard Prof. and part time Canadian can guarantee your pension.

Heather Hudson

Sep 20, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Disgraceful of the reporter to include Melissa ‘s incredibly personal loss in the article. It is irrelevant.

Heartless and unnecessary, have shame.

Snow Canoe

Sep 20, 2010 at 4:52 pm

I blame the Conservatives and Liberals for engaging in wedge politics. Both are saying “You’re either with us or against us.” Come on .. join with the other parties and figure out a compromise that meets the needs of both rural and urban Canadians

yukonjj

Sep 20, 2010 at 5:00 pm

The only thing fatal is Bagnell’s future.
He has condemned himself in the next election

Marion L Wenting

Sep 20, 2010 at 5:56 pm

representing your constituents is why you are in Ottawa. Do it !

Nile

Sep 20, 2010 at 6:01 pm

No amount of burger flipping and baby kissing will save you from this one Larry.  You proved how little you care for the Yukon and its people.  I hope your new life in Toronto goes well.

Doug Rutherford

Sep 20, 2010 at 6:13 pm

It’s a whipped vote, meaning that the choice of your MP is a choice of party policy. The majority of people who voted for Larry in the last election probably knew he was a member of the Liberal party and were also probably aware of the party’s position on the gun registry. Why does there seem to be so much suprise here?

Keep in mind a point here. The majority of Canadians want the gun registry. There are approximately 100,000 of the 35 million Canadians living in the 3 territories, or 3 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons. We are a fringe group as far as the system is concerned, and anyone who thinks that the majority choice would be overthrown by the choice of the north is more than a little naive.

L.Szigety

Sep 20, 2010 at 6:45 pm

Bye bye Bagnell.

Nice knowing ya

paul wray

Sep 20, 2010 at 9:48 pm

Let’s hope that the voters remember this next election. Get rid of the Liberals.

Philip Christensen

Sep 20, 2010 at 10:10 pm

Larry, thank you for being there for us all these years. We know where you have stood in the past and know where you would be if this was truly a free vote, but it is not. The party has asked that you vote with them on this and though some might feel this is wrong, many more understand that this is a requirement in a party system of government. To do otherwise would be to betray the people of the Yukon who voter for you, not only as a man we can trust but as a member of the party that you represent.

I am sure there are several members of the Conservatives who would dearly love to vote with you on this, but as they are all whipped on this issue the truth of it will never be known.

All the best

Rene

Sep 20, 2010 at 10:52 pm

Thank you Larry Bagnell for voting with the Liberal Party. Party line is important when a policy was developed by the grassroots and supported by the caucus.

Liberal Women’s Commissions throughtout Canada brought the gun registry to main policy. It has reduced the spousal deaths by ex’s hunting rifles.

I hope the Yukon will support a registry that is important to ALL Canadians.

Don McKenzie

Sep 21, 2010 at 12:56 am

I wish to offer my condolances to Larry and Melissa on the loss of their child.

I also think that the reporter should be taken to task for including that in the article.  It was NOT relevant to the article and crossed the lines of decency.

Larry will survive this firearms registry vote. Have you seen his numbers in the last few elections?  He will be re-elected next time.  But I wish he had taken his popularity, and told IGGY to stuff it.  He would be untouchable in the Liberal party.  They wouldn’t mess with one of their very few rural seats. 

Larry’s pension is already assured, so no sense harping on that.  But the opinion of Canada IS changing on the firearms registry.  Public opinion is shifting, but then again, what the public wants, rarely matters in Ottawa.  The majority of Canadians think pot should be legal.  That ain’t gonna happen either. 

No matter who we vote into office, a large amount of matters, that we each care about, will not be addressed, in the manner that we desire. 

That’s life.

Should we give up?  No!  Should we all become more involved in politics?  Yes!  Be you left, right, or somewhere else on the political rainbow, we should all become more involved. I will continue to push for the things that I believe in, and so should everyone else.  That is what will ultimatly make our political system better.  Hold the politicians to account.  Make your points.  Push for the society you wish to see. 

I AM willing to be declared a criminal on this issue of the firearms registry.  Heck.  According to the law, I’ve been a criminal for years.  I will continue to work towards the repeal of this law that has declared me a criminal.  I am sad that Larry wants to continue supporting a law, that makes me a criminal, but…

Ron Jones

Sep 21, 2010 at 9:21 am

Larry Bagnell should vote as his constituents wish him to do.  The gun registry isn’t effective in the war against crime and only serves to put ordinary folks in jeopardy of being a criminal when they don’t register their long guns or any other quirk in the complicated law as it is now.  This law does not make sense in the North. Perhaps Mr. Bagnell does not make any sense for the North either.

norm

Sep 21, 2010 at 11:07 am

a few comments here

1) when has education, epically at one of the worlds finest universities been a bad thing… it shows a good level of ignorance when one can use the term Harvard prof and try and make it derogatory

2) the way our system works demanded that Larry vote with his party, that we voted into office… so lets not be angry with the man for doing what his party… the one we elected… told him to do

3) Whitehorse Star you have indeed hit a new low, Why write about something as personal as a miscarriage, it is none of our business and brings your paper a new level of shame

norm

Joel

Sep 21, 2010 at 1:08 pm

My condolences to Larry and Melissa.  We went through the same thing a few years ago and it was a tough time for our whole family and friends.

john jack

Sep 21, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Let the people vote on this issue not the political parties.  They don’t care if they are right or not they just want to beat the other party.  The people of this country should decide. That is who matters.

Steve Noguns

Sep 21, 2010 at 2:05 pm

Why do the gun nuts think that everyone in the Yukon is against the registry?  I’m not so good for the Liberals/NDP and the Blockheads.

The real issue is Harper wasting time on a non-issue, an issue of such insignificance that only the shallow could obsess over it.  Get on with the real issues such as the economy, the manufacturing decline and our lack of investment in research.

Yukon people

Sep 21, 2010 at 2:42 pm

WOW, Whitehorse star. You did it again. You hit a new low. Why would you ever comment on someones personal loss. Regardless on what is happening with the gun registry Don’t comment on personal things happening with his wife. You are very inconsiderate and I will never buy your paper again.

In the reporter's defence ...

Sep 21, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Melissa and Larry took out an ad to announce the fact they had a miscarriage. They would rather people know about what happened than have them approach the couple asking about when the baby will be born etc.
Mention of why Larry was not available for comment was not an act of insensitivity, but a reflection of Larry’s and Melissa’s wishes.

Fo real

Sep 21, 2010 at 4:06 pm

The registry is fatally flawed (not to mention a $2 billion boondoggle)

The thing is criminals don’t register their guns…..that’s why their called CRIMINALS.

The registry targets only law abiding citizens.  Whats next a knife registry?  A rock registry?

Larry, you should be ashamed of yourself for rolling over on this.  Whipped vote or not, you should do what we sent you to do, represent us.  I can tell you that the Yukon spirit is more about standing up for your beliefs than doing what ‘the man’ tells you to do.  I can guarantee you’d have a bucket load of respect from Yukoners. 

Keep in mind, Iggy won’t be around after the next election and you might not be either.

BTW, I don’t own any guns.

Nancy Tanner

Sep 22, 2010 at 7:01 pm

Can someone please explain to me how in a democratic country it is Ok for someone to tell another person how to vote?

Storm

Sep 22, 2010 at 7:55 pm

Thank you Larry for voting OUR way for a change. I support the registry and many, many other Yukonners do too. I, and I’m sure they, have been feeling side-lined and ignored by the very vocal pro-gun, anti-registry crowd and by Larry’s previous votes.

Now, I hope that we can move on to important issues such as the economy, health care, the increasing senior population that will need pensions, places to live, support in all areas, our melting permafrost and what it’s doing to the infrastructures…. enough time, energy, capital and effort has been spent on this relatively unimportant issue.

jerry grauserd

Sep 23, 2010 at 1:21 am

Larry was “faced with a “whipped” vote on the issue from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.” (Whitehorse star, sept 20th, 2010)
Come on Larry, stand up and be a man, do not let Michael whip you anymore!

Larry is thinking about Larry first! He could and should have voted against Mr. Ignatieff’s wishes, and vote with and for the people instead.

Larry appears to have lost the respect of many people by this one dumb vote, and it may well spell the end of his political career.

No wonder we are fed up with all those politicians and their Pathological quests for power, because once they get voted in, they do not seem to care one little bit about the people who voted them in the first place!

Randall Zahn

Sep 23, 2010 at 8:15 am

Im emailing from Paris, Im pissed! Send Larry back to toronto where he belongs.

Anthony

Sep 23, 2010 at 11:56 am

You don’t whip a private members bill.

Whipped votes (while I strongly disagree with them as they fly in the face of democracy) are for confidence votes.

Bagnell is obviously more concerned with getting a front row seat at the pork trough than what Yukoners want.

Good riddence Baggs, buy some new suits and get a hair cut, you’ll be out of work soon enough.

francias pillman

Sep 24, 2010 at 12:20 am

Thank You storm for supporting criminalizing regular Canadians. Thank You for supporting something that does absolutely nothing to keep me or you safer. Please show me hard facts on how exactly the high cost of this registry is justifiable and how it keeps everyone safe.

“Now, I hope that we can move on to important issues such as the economy, health care, “

Do you understand what you are saying? If this registry did not exist, those dollars would go to those things you listed. Meanwhile, you celebrate our Government taking our rights away with this registry. NO ONE IS SAFER WITH THIS REGISTRY. How much more simple can people get?

“enough time, energy, capital and effort has been spent on this relatively unimportant issue. “

Unimportant issue? Enough capital? So you have a problem with tax payers paying to kill this law, but fully support the wasted millions it eats up every year which the facts prove doesn’t accomplish a thing. Sorry to inform you, but it is an important issue. Millions of wasted dollars that could be better spend on crime fighting, rather than criminalizing law abiding Canadians. So if I am totally wrong on this issue, I wait for your reply to set the record straight and defend this useless registry with FACTS, not your opinion.

A.Fillmore

Sep 25, 2010 at 7:07 am

Lets deal with the costs of the gun control program! The last audit done was in March of 2005 and the total cost of the gun control program up until then was 946 million. That was a ten year period. So lets do some math SHALL WE? 946 million divided by ten divided by 15 million working Canadians divided by 365 days in a year works out to less than one cent a day for every ““working”” Canadian. LESS THAN ONE CENT A DAY for each working Canadian (NOT ALL CANADIANS JUST THE WORKING CANADIANS) for the whole gun control program.

Saying the gun registry has cost a billion dollars is not the truth either. The gun registry is just one part of the whole program so it is just a fraction of the whole cost.

I’ve been following this debate for years and the lying coming from the anti-gun control types is ludicrous to say the very least. Go to this web site http://WWW.LUFA. and check out what these people did to drive up the costs of the gun control program. Read about their operation overload. These very same people will rant about the costs of the gun control program. Total hypocrites!

L.Szigety

Sep 26, 2010 at 10:02 pm

The lying from the antigun control types?

Surely you jest

Perhaps if you spent some serious time actually researching the very topic at hand you could have come up with more than just one link to a lesser known anti-registry group.

As for the costs, the issue at hand wasn’t just the amounts of money that Sheila Fraser had reported upon, but also the amount of stonewalling she faced from the Liberals and bureaucrats responsible for this fiasco, while trying to get more information in relation to other expenditures, to which those numbers have still yet to be revealed.

Perhaps the constant lie about the compliance rate of the registry and licensing might also raise some eyebrows, such as the fact that according to import export records, there are approximately 24 million firearms in this country and only 7 million are actually registered to licensed gun owners. The Liberals kept telling us that they had 90% compliance, yet that percentile was based upon the known numbers of registered firearms compared to the results of a telephone survey done back in 1993 whereby they asked complete strangers over the phone as to if they owned a gun or not.

Perhaps you could also look into the fact that the majority of gun confiscations happening right now in Toronto are being aimed at licensed gun owners who after passing RCMP background checks, and performing all of the requirements in the firearms safety courses, they then buy guns, and at some point in time their license lapses due to lack of renewal. This then gets the Police to do a SWAT raid on their home 15 minutes after informing them of the need for renewal over the phone.

Breaking down the doors of people in their 60’s and up through targeted profiling of the elderly who have also had their licenses lapse due to lack of renewal. How are these people in any way responsible for the illicit drug and gun trade through the street gangs shooting up Toronto neighbourhoods?

Perhaps looking into the arbitrary reclassifications of firearms by the RCMP and then the subsequent confiscation without compensation of these guns from people who pose no threat to anyone…perhaps an eyebrow might be raised there…no?

Perhaps the fact that according to the Firearms Act you have the right to refuse consent to a search of your home if you have guns…but that refusal is actually considered reasonable ground under the Act for a warrant to be issued…no eyebrows raised yet?

Or maybe the simple fact that the gun control lobby in Canada through Liberal party organizer Kim Doran received $370,000 to lobby the Liberal government for more gun control…eyebrows lifted yet?

Or the fact that this very same gun control lobby group Head routinely speaks on behalf of the International Action Network on Small Arms to the United Nations…and whose Chair has been quoted as stating that they want to see any and all guns that can shoot over 100 meters to be banned from private possession…which is every single firearm out there, including some pellet guns too.

Or perhaps the United Nations firearms laser etching identification number program, designed to stem the flow of arms to the warzones in Africa…the very same laser etching program that is directed towards private civilian gun owners in Europe Canada and the US; despite the fact that the guns that these warlords and governments get are coming from the governments of Canada, USA, China, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Czech Republic, India, etc

Or how about the hundreds of thousands of funds delivered to Project Ploughshares through the auspices of the Canadian International Development Agency, specifically targeted to remove privately owns guns from civilian hands abroad. Yet despite such foreign antigun influence, the news media instead decided to target the NRA who happened to show an advert in the US that was picked up by a satellite provider and thus broadcast on a couple of channels in Canada, and then claimed that this was sponsored and engineered by the Canadian Conservatives.

If you put any research into the subject instead of spouting only what you read on antigun websites then perhaps you would have a leg to stand on.

L.Szigety
Whitehorse

Al

Sep 30, 2010 at 7:51 am

L.Szigety you like most cannot handle the facts.

The auditor general DOES NOT REPORT RUMORS SHE REPORTS THE FIGURES SHE HAS!!!

Note not one web site to back up any of your off the wall claims another very typical ploy by the anti-gun control types!!

LIKE I SAID GO READ LUFA and pay very close attention to their operation overload and exactly what they did to drive up the costs of gun control.

YOU MAKE ME LAUGH!!! FACT:: THE GUN CONTROL PROGRAM HAS COST EACH WORKING CANADIAN LESS THAN ONE RED CENT! TRY DEALING WITH THAT GD FACT!!!!

Al

Sep 30, 2010 at 7:56 am

RE::The lying from the antigun control types?

Surely you jest


No I do not jest!! Number one calling the gun control program the gun registry implying it has cost over a billion just to register guns!!!!

LIKE BS!!!  It has not cost a billion just to register guns get real and stop the lying now!!! The ““whole gun control program”” over over a ten year period cost 946 million.

But hey don’t let the factys get in your way!!!

Al

Sep 30, 2010 at 8:01 am

Fact:: gun owners in Canada are in the minority subtract the gun owners who have no problems with the long gun registry part of the gun control program and that minority becomes even smaller!

Not everyone in Canada has the long gun registry as their number one priority ya know!!!

Al

Sep 30, 2010 at 12:39 pm

RE::according to import export records, there are approximately 24 million firearms in this country and only 7 million are actually registered to licensed gun owners.

Yes like every time an American brings his rifle into Canasda to hunt for a week this rifle becomes data for the import records RIGHT? Then when he leaves of course you think he leaves his rifle behind??? But these rifles aren’t removed from the import records when he takes his rifle with him back to the U.S.A.

HEY PAL BEEN THERE DEBATED THIS ISSUE BEFORE!!!

24 MILLION FIREARMS IN CANADA? GIVE YOUR HEAD A SHAKE!!!

re::If you put any research into the subject instead of spouting only what you read on antigun websites then perhaps you would have a leg to stand on

I’ve done plenty of research and it looks like you’ve heard plenty of rumors to base your opinions on!!!

Al

Sep 30, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Here are the facts:::

If you do away with the long gun registry you open up a whole new gun market for criminals BECAUSE rifles can then be sold to just anybody no questions asked BECAUSE then these long guns will no longer be ABLE TO BE traced back to any former owner!

If you don’t register the legal guns how do you tell a legal gun from an illegal gun? You stop a guy and there in his trunk is a couple of rifles so you ask who they belong to (he could have just stolen them from a house) he says they are mine!!! With the gun registry you can check right away if these guns are in fact legal and registered to this guy! WITHOUT the gun registry you have to take his word for it and believe him when he says they are his.

Why are guns being smuggled into Canada from the U.S.A.? My guess is because the criminals here cannot get guns because of our gun control laws so they have to revert to smuggling them in from the U.S.A.! If they are taking the chance at smuggling guns you can just bet these guns and ammo are a lot more expensive because if the risk of smuggling! Are you against the criminals out there having to pay high prices for their guns or would you rather they have access to cheaper guns and ammo?

I don’t think you have really looked into the gun control program and how it actually works.

Lets deal with the costs of the gun control program! The last audit done was in March of 2005 and the total cost of the gun control program up until then was 946 million. That was a ten year period. So lets do some math SHALL WE? 946 million divided by ten divided by 15 million working Canadians divided by 365 days in a year works out to less than one cent a day for every ““working”” Canadian. LESS THAN ONE CENT A DAY for each working Canadian (NOT ALL CANADIANS JUST THE WORKING CANADIANS) for the whole gun control program.

Saying the gun registry has cost a billion dollars is not the truth either. The gun registry is just one part of the whole program so it is just a fraction of the whole cost.

I’ve been following this debate for years and the lying coming from the anti-gun control types is ludicrous to say the very least. Go to this web site http://WWW.LUFA. and check out what these people did to drive up the costs of the gun control program. Read about their operation overload. These very same people will rant about the costs of the gun control program. Total hypocrites!

As for the 4 mounties shot in Alberta!! If the gun control laws had of been fully enforced in this case James Roscoe would have been doing 5 years in prison for number one having a criminal record and being in possession of firearms. Everybody in town including the police knew he had a criminal record and that he ““had”” guns.

Guess what? The province of Alberta opted out of enforcing the gun control laws ““BEFORE”” this shooting happened. A law isn’t worth the paper it’s written on if it isn’t being enforced.

Also you need to look into the Laval Quebec policewoman who was shot with a hunting rifle. The guy who shot her did have his guns taken away from him before it happened. Some judge decided he should get his guns back for hunting season. Trouble is he decided to hunt cops. There is no doubt the long gun registry was used to discover this guy had guns when they were taken away the first time.

The registry forces people to be responsibile for their guns in the way I just described to you.It works and the police say they need it.

L.Szigety

Oct 7, 2010 at 6:20 pm

In reply to Al’s posts

RE: “As for the 4 mounties shot in Alberta!! If the gun control laws had of been fully enforced in this case James Roscoe would have been doing 5 years in prison for number one having a criminal record and being in possession of firearms. Everybody in town including the police knew he had a criminal record and that he ““had”” guns.

Guess what? The province of Alberta opted out of enforcing the gun control laws ““BEFORE”” this shooting happened.”

The only portion that the Alberta legislature has opted out of provincial enforcement, is the registration requirements of the law; they have not opted out of enforcing the licensing aspect. The RCMP in Alberta are in charge of all licensing and registration requirements in those provinces that have chosen such “opting out”. Anyone without a license who is

James Rozcko was under a court issued gun prohibition, along with numerous restraining orders, an extensive violent criminal history, as well as drug offenses, to wit, the RCMP themselves had every authority under Federal Law(which the gun laws happen to be) to arrest him and bring him before the Courts. The gun registry and licensing provisions fell under the purview of the RCMP during that period.

Also, the rifle James Rozcko used was a prohibited HK91 semiauto 308 caliber rifle, and his pistol was a restricted Beretta 92FS…both of which he had no license to possess.

And let’s not forget the marijuana grow op he had going on in his barn.

RE: “Also you need to look into the Laval Quebec policewoman who was shot with a hunting rifle. The guy who shot her did have his guns taken away from him before it happened. Some judge decided he should get his guns back for hunting season. Trouble is he decided to hunt cops. There is no doubt the long gun registry was used to discover this guy had guns when they were taken away the first time.”

François Pépin was a paroled convict under strict conditions, whose ban on gun possession originated in 1999. The guns they took from him were those they found in his apartment at the time. The long gun registry was not in existence at the time before 1999, thusly they would not have been able to use the long gun registry to “discover this guy had guns when they were taken away the first time”, as you posited.

Also, the only guns he was allowed to use was that of another licensed gun owner, of which he was not, due to his gun prohibition. He was under court allowance to borrow and use that licensed gun owners rifle but only under direct supervision by the owner. He was not permitted to have any sole possession of guns.

L.Szigety

Oct 7, 2010 at 7:50 pm

RE: “Lets deal with the costs of the gun control program!”

Let’s do that, shall we?

In the Auditor General’s report she stated that Parliament was being deliberately “misinformed” about total costs of the registry. Of the computer startup costs, $60.8 million $39 million in 2002-03 and $21.8 million in 2003-04 was not brought to Parliament for proper approval in contravention of the government’s own accounting policies.

It was also revealed that her office is still investigating the handling of a number of the 3,642 contracts awarded for work done on the registry. Many contracts whose worth was less than $25,000 which would have exempted them from competitive bidding; contracts that saw 0 expenditure increases and “fixed-price” contracts awarded in 2001 and 2002 that had no measurable goal and no record of a product being delivered.

From the report: “The initial value of each contract was below the $25,000 limit, but the final values were much higher: $50,000, $107,000 and $319,431…We will be reviewing these contracts in greater detail.”

Speaking to the media Sheila Fraser said in 2006, “Had these costs been properly recorded, the Canadian Firearms Centre would have had to seek additional funds (from Parliament) or would have overspent the authorized cap on its spending…We consider this a serious matter for Parliament’s attention, because the ability of the House of Commons to approve government spending is fundamental to Parliament’s control of the public purse.”

Also in the report is the following: “The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms,”

As to your claim that the “LESS THAN ONE CENT A DAY for each working Canadian (NOT ALL CANADIANS JUST THE WORKING CANADIANS) for the whole gun control program.”...if the government introduced legislation that violated rights in the Charter at a cost of less than one cent per working Canadian…would you be for it?

The issue of the costs isn’t as important as the issue with the violations of essential rights and liberties. Jonathan Logan was stripped of his clothes and cavity searched on his front lawn in full view of his neighbours and onlookers. All over a gun call, despite him having a license and registered firearms. But hey…it only cost us working Canadians less than a penny a day…right?

Add a comment

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your full name and email address are required before your comment will be posted.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

Comment preview