Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by jdobbin

  1. Any police officer who DOESN'T assume that isn't fit to be a police officer, regardless of what the registry tells him. The registry is highly innacurate, and of course, anyone with any illegal weapon isn't about to register it.

    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?

  2. So I'm going to take this is something you are simply lying about in order to try to scare people into voting for your no-good, corrupt party of self-serving leaches.

    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?

  3. I'd love to be able to pay for content that I want and only the content I want. If I can choose a package of 20 channels and pay a fee, then sweet. The technology is there to provide this service. And from the cable end, it is super easy to implement.

    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.

  4. You don't know Kamouraska.

    I do know that the registry is an issue in the riding and in Quebec. You think they don't support the registry there?

    It is sad that both the PQ and the BQ have become urban parties. In fact, Quebec solidaire is the Left equivalent of the ADQ - another urban leftist party.

    How many times can NDP, nationalist-leftists (fascists) divide?

    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.

  5. When he said this he stressed the long gun portion I could be wrong but I think in the 06 election campaign he said he would maintain the existing handgun registry and bans on all currently prohibited weapons.

    I have said that Harper has long indicated he believes the registries are ineffective.

    So, once again I ask why would the Government scrap the handgun part of the registry which has been in tact since the 30's. Conservatives have only had issues with the long gun portion of the registry.

    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?

  6. Sure be nice if you guys could get off your partisan pedestals and come up with something constructive. This whole issue has been a total f*** *p from the word go and I don't see it changing regardless of who is calling the shots.

    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.

  7. It might very well be brilliant, I don't know and I really don't have an opinion on it. That said, we're not talking about handguns right now...well...you are...but I'm really not sure why.

    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.

  8. Sorry your party signed the contract ailienated and drove a second vaccine producer out of the country, again you are wrong but unable to admit it just like what is happening in the Registry thread.

    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.

    But please continue on with this one tonight, again you are beat I am done for the night and with the topic.

    You are wrong and have been shown to be wrong.

  9. You're presenting your own opinion as if it is some kind of fact, as you often do. I don't agree with your opinion, because there's no evidence to support it. Despite that reality, you continue to insist that it's true.

    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.

  10. And you still have no proof of that. I'll go further than that - You're making it up and in fact what you are doing borders on lying.

    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.

  11. prove it.

    The CP story shows the contract was not for 100% of the supply.


    The 10-year contract, worth then $323,522,500, was awarded to Shire BioChem, a British company that had a flu vaccine manufacturing plant outside Quebec City. The contract went with the plant when it was sold in 2004 to ID Biomedical and in 2005 to GlaxoSmithKline.

    As part of the contract, Shire was guaranteed 75 per cent of Canada's seasonal flu vaccine purchase. The $323 million figure included the cost of the annual seasonal flu vaccine.

    And this:


    With one parliamentarian already believed to be suffering from H1N1, opposition Liberals yesterday pointed to the February 2004 Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan, which laid out a painstaking strategy in case an international health emergency closed borders and endangered vaccine supplies from abroad.

    "Canada has invested in a domestic supplier to offset this possibility," the plan says, adding, "however, it will not be known whether this supplier will be able to produce enough vaccine for the entire target population in a timely manner. The possibility of multiple suppliers should be considered in the planning process."


    In 2007, Conservative Health Minister Tony Clement revised the pandemic vaccine contract with GlaxoSmithKline and could have insisted upon multiple suppliers. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. David Butler-Jones confirmed yesterday that the government can order more vaccine from other suppliers. It failed to do so.
  12. You said that, but none of the cites you've provided support the claim. Indeed, they seem to indicate that the H1N1 vaccine was indeed part of GSK's exclusive 10-year contract.

    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.

  13. Tsk, tsk

    The Liberals built up Canada’s domestic capacity to make it possible to produce pandemic influenza vaccine domestically. The 2001 pandemic vaccine contract with Shire Biologics required the company to be constantly ready to make and sell pandemic flu vaccine to Canada, while still allowing vaccines to be ordered from other manufacturers in case of a tight supply. The 2004 Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan stated, “Multiple suppliers should be considered in the planning process.”

    In 2007, Conservative Health Minister Tony Clement revised the pandemic vaccine contract with GlaxoSmithKline and could have insisted upon multiple suppliers. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. David Butler-Jones confirmed yesterday that the government can order more vaccine from other suppliers. It failed to do so.

  14. your quote has nothing to do with vaccine supply contract.

    Afraid it does.

    In any event, the Tories renegotiated the contract in 2007.

    No "oops here. Indeed Dr. Carolyn Bennett does know better. She was asking about the contract re-negotiated by the Conservatives in 2007: The 2001 vaccine supply contract - signed by the Liberal government - ensured that there would be a domestic supply of vaccine in case of a pandemic. The contract was not exclusive and has been made public. The Canadian government was free to purchase from other suppliers. That was the point: capture a domestic supply, but give the government flexibility to act in a crisis. The Conservatives renegotiated the agreement in 2007, but details have not been released. The 2004 Liberal Pandemic Plan called for using multiple suppliers to ensure a reliable source. The Conservatives ignored this recommendation. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. David Butler-Jones confirmed Tuesday that the federal government could order more vaccine from other suppliers. The decision of the govt to instruct GSK to halt production on the adjuvanted vaccine in order to make some non-adjuvanted for pregnant women is what has caused the shortages this week
    • Downvote 1
  15. So do i beleive you who is direct contradiction to the Calgary Herald and has provided no proof, or the Calgary Herald...I go with the Herald

    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 accordance with the terms of the longstanding contract, the Government of Canada is in discussions with GSK about the development and production of the H1N1 vaccine. After the safety testing and preliminary development work is completed, the production process for the H1N1 vaccine will take about 12 weeks. In the meantime, GSK is working through potential production process issues by developing trial vaccines.

    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.

    • Downvote 1
  • Create New...