Derek 2.0

Fair enough, what would the Waldo assume the benefit of a "CA15" stamped on a firearm would provide? I did answer your question, cost/money, as in, who is going to pay for it? Will this be an expense born onto ~2 million+ voters?

I feel when Trudeau is done, the Forces will look back on Chretien/Martin/Harper with nostalgia.

"Leaner" combined with a review of current capabilities that would no longer be needed, equates to a smaller force.

Nothing, if the Liberals plan to focus the Canadian military onto UN Peacekeeping, disaster response and domestic defense/policing etc, a review will clearly find we can cut all sorts of capabilities within the current force structure that would no longer be needed for its new stated purpose.........Setting the road map to dismantle the Forces first is very prudent.

Waldo, I'm using the data cited by your article, if it poorly proves its intended point, that is not my fault.

You quoted a report that doesn't answer my very simple question........how will a firearm having stamped "CA15" help Canadian law enforcement?

No, I'm condemning a potential Liberal Government for its own promises, well contrasting it with a past Liberal Government that promised much the same.........And yes, review can mean a lot of things, but when combined with "leaner" and "cutting budgets", the intent should be quite clear.

Why? A Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau in 2015 is promising a review of the Canadian Forces, like was done, by a Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau in 1968-1970, absent their relationship, contrasting similar policies are very valid.

The links to the current Liberal platform are cited above.

You're not answering the question, how does "CA" (and the last two years of import) offer anything over what is already available to police through serial numbers and arsenal stamps, both of which, are hardly new technology? I suppose said info would be useful to determine the origin in a country without access to the internet or phones, but most gun makers have online sites were one simply needs to enter the guns serial number to gleam production history......

Interesting story, but looking at its cited Canadian data, it hardly supports the premise, though aggravated assaults have increased 16%, use of Firearms in the commission of a crime has dropped 15% over the same period.

I don't think it's "a little old" at all, when the son is promising to continue his Father's work........When PET came to power, he promised a review of the Canadian military, much like his son's promise of a "leaner" force today, reviewing capabilities and slashing procurement for the air force's (then) fighter replacement program.....the result? When PET came to power in '68, the Canadian Forces stood at just over ~100k members, by the mid 70s, the Forces were reduced to ~77-75k members. The review of capabilities saw our last aircraft carrier go, the then current destroyer escort force cut by a third (some vessels were then only 10-15 years old) and slashed the navies destroyers program down to four vessels (the 280s). Likewise, the army was was gutted (Gone were the Canadian Guards, and the reg-force Black Watch, Fort Garry Horse, and 4th regiment of Royal Canadian horse artillery) by ~25% of its combat formations, and the air force also saw a drastic downsizing. So no, when Justin promises to do what his Father did, I don't see a problem in comparing the two.

Good, you'll be paying for it far longer than I. You base that on what? -They have said they will keep the current funding increases (but don't account for it in their 4 year fiscal plan) -They will continue with the shipbuilding program as is.......but -They will reduce the Hornet replacement budget to fund the navy, even though long term budgeted items are already forecast into future funding -They will make the Canadian forces "leaner", i.e. smaller -And of course, they will "review" all existing capabilities of the armed forces......I would assume that means the size of the fighter force, subs, combat capability of the navy, tactical helicopter fleet, tanks and artillery.........The last time a Trudeau "reviewed" the military, we lost our last carrier, saw the surface fleet reduced by a 1/3rd, cut the air force in half and cut the army by ~25%. Another Trudeau would be great for the armed forces

I thought you decried the Tories spending plans? And how is it more money? You think instead of returning unused funds each year, pissing it away is better for taxpayers?

Yet not a single additional cent in the next four years.........also, from your link: Leaner, as in smaller............how do they plan to "reinvest" when they haven't added any new funding? Clearly that means either the Tories fund the Forces enough for future investment, or based on their fiscal plan, they don't actually plan to invest in anything........or, as stated above, a smaller Canadian Forces will require less investment....

Where does it state that in their spending outline?

Where did I assure you of that? I clearly stated, with $26 billion, we could fund nearly an equal number of flight III Burkes..........Lockheed Martin and Gibbs & Cox are both apart of the CSC process, likewise the RCN has stated a requirement for the CSC to be in the range of ~7000 tons, with a return to a 5" main gun, improved electrical generation, ABM capability etc............figure it out The Liberals said any savings from gutting the future of the RCAF would go to the RCN to: Yet, in their four year budget outlook, not a single cent of new money for the RCN.........They are promising to fund the current plan by gutting the future of the RCAF, of which, in their four year budget outlook, there is not a single cent of new money promised. The only Party with new money budgeted for the Forces to date are the CPC.......

Sure, your point? If Canada is able to obtain more capable vessels, all of modern modular designs, resulting in greater availability rates (The Danish and German designs have twice the availability rates as current vessels such as our 330 class) I fail to see the issue. With that said, the MND stated 11-15 vessels, even though a final design has yet to be selected. For example, 11-12 “Baby Burkes” (as offered to the RAN) with a 50% availability rate would be a far better option (see capable) than 14-15 improved F125s with a similar availability rate, likewise, either option would be an improvement over our current 13 ship surface fleet…….. I hope you noticed, despite your assuming otherwise, that neither the Liberals or NDP have included any new money for the Canadian Forces, including the Navy, in either of their spending updates.

Your article states, from 1999-2008 (During the LGR), there were 32 homicides related to domestic violence in NB, of them 37.5% were with firearms....so that is ~12 deaths over 9 years, at a rate of ~1.4 deaths a year from firearms in domestic disputes.......Do you have any data with National numbers? On average, there are ~150 firearm homicides a year in Canada, a number that has been declining for decades, as have homicides in general, of which, firearms account for ~25%. With that said, as asked by smallc, I fail to see what Women's groups would bring to the table........clearly, those with violent pasts, shouldn't be able to obtain firearms, I think most would agree......as such, Bill C-42 included lifetime firearms bans for those with violent criminal records. Justin Trudeau's Liberals have stated they will repeal C-42 (notice the NDP and Greens do not propose repealing said legislation), so I would assume said Women's groups would oppose such a move?

I already linked to the Harper Governments addition of police officers to CFAC. Again dated sources, as such "ways and means" have already been made law through changes to the Firearms Act, absent CFAC recommendations on current firearms classifications. I already provided you with an answer. So marking a "CA" on firearms will do all that? Again, how does "CA" stamped on newly imported firearms: What you’re failing to mention is the actual intent of the end user specific country markings, which is to help identify the source countries of firearms that are later found in conflict zones, in a bid to determine to whom is providing arms to who. Perhaps a lofty goal for small arms source countries (USA, China, Russia, Israel, Germany etc.) to have their wares identified, for many of the World’s ongoing and future conflicts are fought with arms produced in these nations. Likewise, in the past, many of said nations have manufactured “ghost guns” (guns without State arsenal marks) and provided said arms to varying combatants through convoluted, cloak & dagger schemes to avoid National embarrassment, well still attempting to accomplish one’s own political goals and interests. Inversely, Canada has but one relatively small domestic firearms manufacturer (Colt Canada) that supplies the Canadian Forces, RCMP and other policing agencies in Canada, and as of late, small numbers of (extremely expensive) firearms for the domestic civilian market. Absent several small orders of Canadian produced firearms for several NATO allies special forces services (several decades ago), no Canadian manufacturer has mass produced firearms for export since the Second World War. Likewise, since the 1970s, the Government of Canada doesn’t release Government surplus arms for sale, instead said firearms go to the smelter……..As such, Canada isn’t providing small arms (or even ammo) to the World’s conflict zones. This returns us to the useless (and costly) requirement to stamp firearms imported into Canada. Since said firearms are either earmarked for the GoC (and it doesn’t pass along said firearms when they become surplus) or the civilian market, the UN’s intent isn’t applicable. Hence, unless someone is to suggest retailers like Canadian Tire or Wholesale Sports are playing third party to Third World Dictators or Terrorists groups by importing arms from around the World, and then, passing them along at wholesale prices, it is a solution looking for a problem for Canada. As stated “CA” stamped on a new imported firearm to Canada won’t help law enforcement any more than already existing serial numbers/manufacturer details/calibers etc that are already stamped during production, followed by said firearm being treated for corrosion. As such, the requirement is a useless burden, that won’t address crime or overseas conflicts, and only cost Canadian retailers, and in turn, gun owners, money.

Waldo, integrity is not an issue, you’re speaking to a dated document putting forth recommendations that are already law, absent it recommendations entailing reclassifications of firearms……….If you feel said group is looking at other proposals, absent its intended reclassifications, by all means, put them forward (I’d be very interested). Absent your forth coming declarations of CFAC’s hidden agenda, what would Women’s groups and mental health organizations have to offer on its remaining (as you cited) agenda on firearms classifications? Likewise, I still await your explanation as to how new firearms entering Canada being required to have “CA” stamped on their receiver, to comply with the UN small arms treaty, will benefit Canadian law enforcement investigations? What do the initials “CA” offer to law enforcement over and above already engraved serial numbers, make, model, country of origin (and in most cases, State/City/Factory of manufacture) and calibre of the firearm?

He can't, the only policy (that wasn't mentioned) is the proposed increase in funds to guns and gangs police task forces across the country aimed at reducing gang violence and the current black market for guns.......of that, I'm not opposed and feel is common sense.

Not dishonest at all. Your linked to document included several recommendations put forth that have since been either adopted (Changes to the former POL license class, inclusion of the ATT into the RPAL, gun show regulations, easing penalties on lapsed licenses and to strengthen the list of those persons with lifetime firearms bans etc.) with legislation already adopted (namely C-42). Thusly only leaving CFAC’s several recommendations on firearms classifications on the proverbial table as its intended purpose. Furthermore, to its recommendation of a technical advisory committee (the would classify new and existing firearms based on technical information, obtained from industry and confirmed or denied by the RCMP firearms lab), I offered my own opinion, in that the entire process should now be handled by Industry Canada and the RCMP. So, since the demise of the LGR and the recommendations implemented (in your link) by legislation, only firearms classifications remains as to the purview of CFAC………unless you can put forward what other subject it might be currently advising the Government on?????

I clearly stated the purpose of CFAC, and your own cite confirmed it........in your link, what CFAC proposal did the Harper Government reject and stated as not being "Government policy"?

We've already discussed this, and I won't restart this conversation, fore I don't have my tin-foil hat handy