jdobbin

And this is why I believe Tories have gone at the angle of the effectiveness of the registration. If you yourself believe it is useless, why is the handgun registration any different? And why would the Tories keep it?

Please. Harper has been talking about the ineffectiveness of the registries for a long time. I have seen over a number of years (even before the long gun registries) Tory riding meetings where they complained about the restrictions on legal gun owners and how the book should be thrown at people who commit crimes. Even in 2006, Harper offered up his alternatives to registration. Their first target was long guns but the non-progressive side of the Conservatives have long argued about the effectiveness of registration and pushed harder for sentencing on gun use rather than gun ownership. I don't know where Harper stands personally on the issue of registration. He once spoke in support of registration as being the wishes of his constituents but he has also argued about how effective it is. It doesn't take a leap to say that if long gun registration is useless to police because they have to suspect a gun in any case, why is the handgun registration anymore effective? This is what the Tories are arguing. They say registration is useless and have been dismissive of police use of it. So am I lying in assuming that if the Tories get their majority to think that the handgun registry is next based on the arguments I have heard over many years now about its effectiveness?

It is possible to do that. However, the cable companies say that without packaging, they would be compelled to sell the channels at anywhere from $10 to $20 per channel as they have mentioned in CRTC hearings. Want only 20 channels and pay maybe $100 to $200. At least that is what they have threatened when called to explain their packaging.

I do know that the registry is an issue in the riding and in Quebec. You think they don't support the registry there? How many times can Harper be out of tune with Quebec? I think it is not a winning issue in Quebec to to scrap the registry.

I have said that Harper has long indicated he believes the registries are ineffective. Not exactly true. There have been many in the Conservative party who have lobbied against controls on legal ownership including handguns. If Harper believes registries are ineffective, why bother keeping them?

Harper might have had a chance. I think it was lost on the gun registry for both ridings.

Think I already said the issue should have been reviewed to see exactly how useful and effective it was. The fact that the Tories sat on a report about the registry and then dismissed it out of hand shows they were not interested. The partisan pedestal you take is that they are all bad in Ottawa. Fine. Then you should run if you are the last honest man in Canada.

So enlighten us. You don't think the BQ will win both? My view is that the gun registry issue might play to their strengths.

I only saw afterward. It is a tragic event. Still confusing about what transpired.

Think I said that with a majority, the Tories would get rid of that registry as well. My view on that is based on Harper's view on the effectiveness of the registry in general. You seemed to think my opinion on something is a lie. I have already shown a few times in these forums what Harper believes should be the alternative to a registry. Or perhaps you think that the idea of Harper wining a majority is a lie. We have often heard Tories say they can't be Tories with a minority.

This buck passing by the Tories to assign blame completely on the Liberals, a party that has not been in power for 4 years is completely laughable. One again you are wrong as you are always wrong as you will continue to be wrong and will forever more be wrong. The Tories had an option of additional suppliers. I have shown you that in the CP story. I have shown you how any delay in H1N1 was due to negotiation and development done by this government. I have shown you how the production line was stopped and restarted with a change in the vaccine. And yet you think the Liberals who not in power are to blame for this entire thing and that the Tories were helpless in all this. You are wrong and have been shown to be wrong.

I insist my opinion is true. Somehow you think that is lying. It is time to get a grip. I went through this with people in 2006 on Harper calling an election. I was told it was a lie, impossible, not going to happen. Well, look how that turned out. I suspect that if Harper did end the handgun registry, you would find some reason to think it was brilliant.

Thank you Tory party for being in power for 4 years and believing single source was the way to go on this when the contract specifically allowed for more suppliers. So take that in your consideration when tossing out blame.

Why do I need prove for my own opinion on what he will do based on what Harper has said in the past? You probably would have called me a liar back in 2006 when I said Harper was going to call an election rather than be bound by his own legislation if he saw his chance. Ans you would have been wrong then too.

I didn't leave anything out since I was the one who posted the link. The contract is not exclusive despite how much you argue it is. Or even after this, are you arguing the Liberals negotiated a single source contract that had no room for other suppliers?

The CP story shows the contract was not for 100% of the supply. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gTezh8LC_Mbo1Apdfkf6ITZkJRVQ And this: http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2161517 And...

Which allows for multi company orders as Dr. Butler Jones said yesterday. Tony Clement renegotiated this in 2007. Yeesh. There was no reason for a single source this time except for the fact that the Tory government made it so.

Tsk, tsk

You are contradicted by the government website and by the fact that the Tories renegotiated the contract in 2007.

Afraid it does. In any event, the Tories renegotiated the contract in 2007. .

Think I already said that H1N1 negotiations are separate.

Afraid it does.

To whit I said that when Harper gets a majority, he will end the registry in favour of something else.

It is on the government's website: The regular flu virus vaccine proceeded as usual. The H1N1 had to go through additional negotiations that the regular flu vaccine didn't. While the contract was for one company, the negotiations for this part of the contract were new. In other words, when Carolyn Bennett asked about the terms of this contract, it was a legitimate question in regards the development of this vaccine.

Why do I need proof for my opinion on what he meant by calling the gun registry ineffective?