robert_viera

I reached in my mailbox today and pulled out what I assumed to be yet another ten-percenter from my local Conservative MP, Patrick Brown. When I looked at it I was surprised to see the headline "Democracy locked out", then I flipped it over and realized that it was sent by Michael Ignatieff. You can see it here: http://www.zooomr.com/photos/robertviera/8890034/ (Outside) http://www.zooomr.com/photos/robertviera/8890035/ (Inside)

I think we need a little historic perspective here. For six years, from 1998-2003, under the Harris/Eves Conservatives in Ontario, the legislative assembly did not sit for a single day in the months of January, February, or March. In 2002 the legislature did not resume sitting until the 9th of May. In 2003 the legislature did not resume sitting until the 30th of April. Many of the members of the Harris/Eves governments are now members of Stephen Harper's government.

In each of those instances the Ontario Legislative Assembly was prorogued while it was still sitting. Stephen Harper's latest prorogue occurred when the House of Commons was adjourned for the winter break.

Go back and read post #6 in this thread: You're confusing patronage with cronyism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

I guess you missed this part: Please show other posters the courtesy of reading their posts before replying.

I never said any of these people aren't qualified. An appointee doesn't have to be unqualified for an appointment to be patronage. That being said, should being 'qualified' be the government's standard, or should the government be seeking the best candidate?

First, this thread only includes appointees who have made contributions over $200. Second, these are supposed to be government appointments, not political appointments. I agree that contributing to a political party should not disqualify a person from receiving a government appointment, however, when the appointments go overwhelmingly to supporters of the ruling party, we have a problem. The only consideration should be finding the best person for the job, regardless of whether they are supporters of the ruling party. Patronage may be a traditional practice, but that doesn't make it right, and it's a practice that this government promised to put an end to.

Parliament may be suspended, but patronage appointments continue: Cheryl Barker gave $1,000 to the CPC in 2008, and another $1,000 to the CPC in 2009. I suspect she is the same Cheryl Barker who also gave $1,000/year to the CPC in 2004, 2006, and 2007. Joe Comuzzi is a former Ontario Liberal MP who crossed the floor to become a Conservative. Gary Polonsky gave $240 to Bev Oda's riding association in 2006 and $212.39 to Tony Clement's riding association in 2008. Lynn Faulder was a provincial Alberta PC candidate in 1993 and 1997. Doug Faulder gave $375 to Rona Ambrose's riding association in 2006. Christian Méthot gave $400 to the CPC riding association in Drummond in 2008 and $125 in 2006. Norman Betts gave $359 to the CPC riding association in Fredericton in 2006. Darlene Thibault gave $1,000 to the CPC riding association in Riviere-des-Mille-iles in 2008. Note: Name is spelled 'Darleen' on the riding association's financial return. Helene Lefebvre gave $1,100/year to the CPC in 2008 and 2009. She also gave $1,100 to Stephen Harper's riding association in 2007 and $500 in 2006. Roger Demers gave $350 to the CPC riding association in Portneuf--Jacques Cartier in 2008. Ghislain Harvey gave $826 to Jean-Pierre Blackburn's riding association in 2008 and $850 in 2007.

Baloney! If you're telling the truth you'll have no trouble posting a link to the source of your claim that import marking will cost "billions of dollars and the loss of thousands of jobs". My prediction: you won't post a link because you haven't got one.

Again, from the article: The police leaders told Day that import marking helps police trace guns involved in crime even if their serial numbers are obliterated. The system can shorten firearm tracing times to "hours versus months," the letter said. Nice try. This isn't about the long gun registry. I'll take the opinion of the people that actually have to deal with gun crime over some anonymous poster in an Internet forum making allegations about police corruption but offering no evidence whatsoever.

Owning a gun isn't a 'right' in Canada. People who live in rural areas and who use a rifle to hunt for food or to protect livestock from predators have legitimate reasons for owning a firearm that people who live in cities don't have.

Nice try. I never said I was in favour of banning guns. This thread isn't about the gun registry and it isn't about banning guns, so you needn't bother putting up those straw men.

Where's you're source for the claim that marking will cost "billions of dollars and the loss of thousands of jobs"? As for shooting being a sport, any activity that can be done competitively might be considered a sport. There are plenty of other choices out there that don't endanger society.

News flash: We're not in England. Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not a Bill of Rights, and yes, we do as a nation have the right to pass laws to deny people the privilege (it's not a right) of owning a gun and to regulate those that we do allow to own guns. That's right. I don't own a gun and I don't like them. I think most people who own guns without a very good reason are either anti-social or cowards who want to have a gun as a last resort for solving their problems. History is just that, history. Canada isn't the Wild West or a frontier anymore. Most Canadians live in cities.

If you had read the article linked to in my original post, you wouldn't need to ask. Here's an excerpt: It's not just the Chiefs. It's the front-line police (Police Association) and civilian oversight boards. You speak about the case against marking, but you post no links and make no points yourself.

I would be much more inclined to believe that the Conservative's position on gun-control is based on politics than the position taken by police organizations.

This thread and this regulation aren't about the long gun registry and it's not about weapons produced in Canada. Nice try.

All laws are framed with the assumption that people make break them. You've been watching too many American TV shows. Canada does not have felonies and misdimeanors. We have summary offences and indictable offences, indictable offences being the more serious class of offences. I read the Firearms Act and these are the offences that may be indictable offences: Maximum sentence of five years: - False statements to procure licences, etc. - False statements to procure customs confirmations - Tampering with licences, etc. - Unauthorized possession of ammunition (businesses) - Violations of regulations concerning: target practice/shooting competitions, guns clubs/shooting ranges, gun collections, gun shows, handling of prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, handling of firearms by police and federal employees, not keeping or destroying records, importing/exporting, removing or altering markings Maximum sentence of two years: - Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, contravenes a condition of a licence, registration certificate or authorization held by the person. - Refusing to assist a firearms inspector Note that in the case of all of the above offences, the offence can also be a summary offence. The following offences are summary offences: - Failure to register certain firearms - Non-compliance with demand to produce firearm - Failure to deliver up revoked licence, etc.

From the article linked to in my original post: The police leaders told Day that import marking helps police trace guns involved in crime even if their serial numbers are obliterated. The system can shorten firearm tracing times to "hours versus months," the letter said.

I can't see how marking would cost the government anything. It would certainly cost the gun importer, and ultimately their customer. If the customer doesn't want to pay for the cost of marking, they can buy Canadian. This is a regulation that is already on the books. It's implementation has been delayed 5 years already by successive governments who are coddling the gun importers. We've given the gun importers more than enough time to get their act together.

The anti-gun-control crowd in Canada needs to wake-up to one important fact. Canada is not the U.S.A. You do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. If you're not willing to put up with a bit of paperwork and some other minor regulations like this one, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun at all. Here's another important fact. Canadians in favour of gun control are the majority in this country. If you don't like it, tough.

You don't need a database. That's the point. Why not ask the police, who are in favour of this regulation.

If you mark guns that are legally imported, then you don't need to check a database to see if they were legally imported. Given the amount of hostility the anti-gun-control crowd has shown toward databases, I would think they'd be in favour of marking. It matters to the people who are trying to cut off the supply of illegally imported guns.

This proposed regulation would only apply to legally imported guns. The fact that a gun made in the U.S. has a serial number does not tell us whether it was legally imported. This regulation is not about marking where a gun originated. It's about marking guns that are legally imported so they can be distinguished from guns that are illegally smuggled into Canada.

Tory appointees 'unfit' for rights agency board, staff says http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/749953--tory-appointees-unfit-for-rights-agency-board-staff-says?bn=1