Derek 2.0

And now you're on the watch list, if you weren't already For shits and giggles, apply for a NEXUS pass.........then you'll know

No, quite the opposite, and is why more information was reported today in the MSM (His being an employee of TransCanada, well working for the Liberals, the Liberals knowing his relationships with "Big Oil" prior, and that other companies are likely in contact with the LPC)

I was the first to bring it up in this thread, last night, before the MSM connected the dots today.

What dirty trick? A week from an election, the Liberal party co-chair, also an employee of TransCanada, discussed with other officials how best to lobby a Liberal Government.......that's quite a Black-Op At one point, Mr Gagnier was also a senior official with Rio Tinto ALCAN (No Joke) I'm all for "transparency and accountability", as such, would love nothing more than to know the full extent of the conversations between the Liberal Party of Canada and TransCanada. Is he, I thought he was playing Price is Right with the Ford brothers? I know Mulcair was today, likewise, an NDP MP has called for an official investigation with the ethics watchdog .........None the less, I fully expect all parties to "play it for all its worth"........that is politics.......

So you're stating the Tories would benefit, but they can't.......brilliant. What's next, did the Tories trick the Liberals into hiring an employee of TransCanada in 2014 as their campaign co-chair/adviser, then have him communicate a week from the election, with other TransCanada officials as to how best lobby a Trudeau Government?

What does that mater? Are you opposed to whistle blowing? "Leaking emails" between two parties in not illegal. Luck for one party? Who do you think stands to gain from this? The Tories that already have a friendly relationship with "Big Oil" and support pipelines, or the NDP, a party that needs to plug the leaks in its Quebec base that opposes Energy East? I don't see how this would directly benefit the Tories, but I can count numerous ways it would benefit the NDP in anti-pipeline Quebec and British Columbia, both regions with numerous tight Liberal/NDP races.

No, Bruce Carson was accused of breaking the law after leaving the PMO.......Mr Gagnier's actions occurred well employed by both the Liberal Party of Canada and TransCanada.

That's just it, an investigation should be conducted.......just as there was an investigation conducted of the alleged affairs of Bruce Carson.......Sauce for the Goose and all.

You're very right, as per the Act (as you quoted): Mr Trudeau is a Member of the House of Commons, Mr Gagnier was the President of the oil lobby, and well employed by the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr Gagnier has also been employed by TransCanada. During his capacity as a Liberal adviser, Mr Gagnier was contacted by his coworkers at TransCanada, asking how best to lobby a Liberal Government over energy policy/pipelines. Bruce Carson, one of PM Harper's former aides, was investigated and charged for influence peddling, accused of using contacts inside of the mandated 5 year separation period for lobbying after leaving Government service. Mr Carson and Mr Gagnier both worked for the same oil lobby......... The email(s?) should be released.....to the RCMP .

No slumber, a brief family Thanksgiving vacation........ Another interesting tidbit on Mr Gagnier TransCanada of course being the company behind Energy East and Keystone XL........."Working" (unpaid of course) for Trudeau (a Member of Parliament), well employed by TransCanada Corp......me thinks this link on the Lobbying Act is getting a few hits.... Of course, Mr Gagnier has confirmed that he has disclosed said employment for TransCanada to the Trudeau Liberals, furthermore, TransCanada suggests many other companies are doing the like.......

Mr Gagnier is the President of the Energy Policy Institute of Canada, the lobby group for Big Oil...........one of its former "star lobbyists" was Bruce Carson There, now Talk amongst yourselves.......

No, I'm countering your assertion that the RCN (and the Forces as a whole) would "benefit" from a Liberal Government.

Yes, as I've already said, I don't see any "upside" for such a notion for legally imported firearms into Canada. For the simple fact of cost alone, when one can purchase throughout the third world a Russian/East Bloc/Chinese produced AK-47 for the same cost as you or I would pay for a meal out. Furthermore, of the several, very rare, cases I can think of guns being smuggled into Canada from the United States, and then onto a conflict zone (Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s), said guns were brought into Canada illegally, hence wouldn't have been subjected to said importing stamps. So no, I don't feel Canada is a small arms source country for the world's hot spots. I have called into question that very point.........for domestic law enforcement, I fail to see what said stamps would provide, over already required markings for lawfully imported firearms (serial numbers/manufacturer/arsenal stamps/cartridge size etc), firearms on import to Canadian wholesalers, are inspected prior by the CBSA. Canadian law enforcement already knows what legally imported guns are brought into the country, versus smuggled firearms, that wouldn't be subjected to said stamps (as no American Congress will ever implement the UN Treaty). Inversely, I'd have no real inversion to said stamps on new firearms, if the costs don't result in a major increase in price, but more importantly, don't result in a loss of both warranty and the corrosion protection of said firearm(s)......and these are the major concerns left unanswered by Canadian industry/retailers, and in turn, the Harper Government. Furthermore, if you read the actual treaty, it calls for national firearms registries in combination with said importing requirements, but, said calls would be mooted since the CPC/LPC/NDP do not call for a new LGR in this country...... So we are left with firearms with "CA" stamped onto them, and questions as to who is going to pay for it.......and what actual benefit this will provide to Canadian policing.

No, the link (to the CBC) I provided, in said post, spoke very clearly to gun homicides...........And why would I need to provide data on gun violence as a whole? You did that above, and it supports my claim that not only gun murders are down, but overall gun violence and the use of firearms in crimes..... I thank you for proving my point Waldo

Not at all, as (AFAIK), Canada has never been shown to be a major player (Post Second World War) in the small arms industry, likewise, a "filter" for which guns from major gun producing countries use to export their firearms to conflict zones........ I could be wrong, but I would assume third world dictators and terrorist groups purchase their arms from the country of origin, not from Canadian Tire.

Sure, based on its stated intent.......you presume the Liberal's platform is not truthful?

You offered data, I offered data........good! From reviewing said data, gun violence, and even the use of guns in the commission of crimes, has been declining, despite the lack of "CA" stamped on new firearms. Is this not a good thing for Canadians?

That's what I said above: Since you won't speak to it, we're left assume that "CA" stamped on newly imported firearms will reduce gun violence in Canada.....somehow.

What is being made up? I'm repeating (the cited) Liberal platform.

Is this your third or fourth time being done? I'm glad we were both able to demonstrate, together, that not only gun homicides have declined in Canada, but also the use of firearms in the commission of crimes.........excellent. So, since you won't speak for police, we're left wondering how stamping "CA" on legally imported firearms into Canada will reduce said (declining) gun violence further.

Alright, then we can assume having "CA" and the date of import will reduce gun crime in Canada somehow........how does that address guns smuggled into the country from the United States, or the millions of guns already in Canada?

I spoke to gun homicide in said post very clearly, inversely, with the data you provided, the use of firearms in crime has also been reduced in the period of 2002-2012...........the problem is what?

I fully agree, as I said above, if a Liberal Government determines no need for a modern combat capability for the Canadian Forces, gutting said current and future force structure is very prudent.......no quibble there.

There is no need for a crystal ball, when they are saying clearly their desire for a "leaner force", focused on Peacekeeping/disaster response/domestic aide to power etc. Since we're getting personal, what do you feel a "leaner force" equates to? Increased fitness standards perhaps?

No you/the article suggested gun violence hasn't been reduced, just gun deaths in part to medical advancements.......the cited data from 2002-2012 doesn't support that theory.