The Liberal Love-in

[caesar]

You have a short memory, obviously. The Liberals have been in power more the last 13 years and have done nothing but watch health care delivery collapse.

And so you would have us elect the Conservatives and make the end of public health care a done deal. Gee that is pretty confusing just what you are looking for????

Last time the Conservatives were in power; they gave us the GST and unfair "Free trade" ??????????????????????

[Redneck Yokel]

I believe the key word in that quote is "delivery". The conservatives are proposing to implement elements of private health care, which would effectively decrease waiting times and increase the overall "delivery" of health care to the public.

Also, if the GST is such a bad thing, why have the Liberals not eliminated it? Who is worse, the one who introduces it, or the one who maintains it for an extended period of time? Jean Chretien promised that he would rid the country of such things some... 10(?)... years ago, and yet it remains. There's a whole book of such blunders of that government.

As for the free trade, what is so completely unfair about it? I do understand some minor things which you may be hinting at, but could you please expand upon this?

[Slavik44]

If there had been no stiffening of gun laws over the past fifteen years and no gun registry there might still have been more than 1300 gun related killings instead of 800. That 500 less might have died each year.

If those restrictions on guns had not come into effect, there might not have been the decrease in violent crimes that we have been witnessing since guns became a little harder to find.

On Healthcare, how many times must the facts of federal/provincial responsibilities be gone over before it enters the skulls of the "Right."

For Harper's position on healthcare delivery, as I have suggested before, they should read the Reform Party's caucus statement of 1988 - drafted by Harper. The position would embarass all but the most myopic of the "Right."

There might, is very iffy, I mean there might be a nuclear war tomorrow, I didn't buy a lotto ticket but I might win the lottery, heck I might get bit by a black widow spider tomorrow, we just don't know. I think it would be tough to make a solid arguement for the success of the gun registry based on mights.

[Guest eureka]

Pocket, I am not oo sure what your points are. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with being a Conservative or a Liberal and I cannot think who would argue differently - except me as I hold to Aneurin Bevan's view that Conservatives are lower than vermin.

Seriously, I think you are missing the point. There IS something wrong with being either of those things if they have adopted deliberately destructive policies. This is the case with this "Conservative" party and the Liberals have been better only in degree.

The "argument" is disappointing as in the dismissive responses to the few pertinent figure I gave on the results of gun control. They are a clear indication that control is working. Not, perhaps, as well as we would like since our death by guns is still 5 times that of the UK which also has a gun registry.

However, our rate is now less than one 60th. that of the US. I wonder that those who say "peole kill, not guns", and quote similar cliches, are not embarrassed when they look at the actuality of the declining death toll and the reduction in violent crime that has accompanied gun control.

On the healthcare issue, I have referred to Harper's own policy document. That calls for "means tested" access to healthcare though the wording is less obvious" it calls for the removal of the Federal government from ealthcare and an end to national standards. It calls for increasing for prfit participation.

That is reason for partisan "bickering." I would take sides with the devil against this less than human approach to social needs.

[kimmy]

The "argument" is disappointing as in the dismissive responses to the few pertinent figure I gave on the results of gun control. They are a clear indication that control is working. Not, perhaps, as well as we would like since our death by guns is still 5 times that of the UK which also has a gun registry.

I think the response to the figures you gave on the results of the gun registry were dismissive because the "figures" you gave appear to have been pulled out of thin air. You gave no reason other than speculation to support your number of lives you believe have been saved. I think your figures got exactly as much attention as they deserved.

I, on the other hand, actually did some research on the subject, for a MapleSyrup-related thread that appeared on this forum late last year. You're free to look it up using this forum's search functions, if you wish. The figures show no appreciable difference between years prior to the gun registry coming into effect and years afterward. There's only slight annual variations (some up, some down) on a trend that was going downward for years prior to the gun registry.

I'm 100% in favor of gun control in Canada! I'm 100% glad that we have it! Let's not lose sight of the fact that we had gun control long before the gun registry. Let's not lose sight of the fact that it was working well, and would have continued to work well without the registry.

-kimmy

[Slavik44]

The "argument" is disappointing as in the dismissive responses to the few pertinent figure I gave on the results of gun control. They are a clear indication that control is working. Not, perhaps, as well as we would like since our death by guns is still 5 times that of the UK which also has a gun registry.

http://web.mala.ca/andresenm/publications/..._CJCCJ_2003.pdf

You should read that, while I don't agree with everything they say, the evidence does suggest that homicides, tend to occur in a certain demographic of people. As the baby boomers grow older and this demographic, of young males, gets smaller, less homocides are likely to occur. For whatever reason it seems that certain people commit homocide and as there are less of these certain people there will be less homocides.

[Argus]

If there had been no stiffening of gun laws over the past fifteen years and no gun registry there might still have been more than 1300 gun related killings instead of 800. That 500 less might have died each year.

You don't defend a billion dollar program by suggesting that it "might" have saved lives - perhaps. Due to demographics crime has dropped both here and in the United States. That has nothing to do with the long gun registry.

If those restrictions on guns had not come into effect, there might not have been the decrease in violent crimes that we have been witnessing since guns became a little harder to find.

Once again, you are confusing gun control with the gun registry. The gun registry comes into play only AFTER someone has applied for and been granted permission to buy a firearm and has legally obtained a firearm.

[Guest eureka]

You appear to have not noticed that I said "gun control." Homicides have gone down steadily since then. Those figures I think you will find even at the Fraser Institute where the resident gunman tries to defend against them.

It is hardly possible to discern a difference since the Registry: it has not been in force long enough yet. However, other countries that have gun registries have experienced declines.

You can dismiss what you wish, Kimmy. I am far more concerned with saving lives than trying to impress with linkages. You can, however, be quite assured that the figures are accurate. I have heard that "Professor" admit to them. I even heard him try to pass off the difference in Canada/Us deaths as being an expected tenfold difference when the figure is about seventy fold.

There were over ten thousand in the US as opposed to 150 in Canada. For a somewhat earlier year, after Gun Registry, in Britain, here were about 30 gun realted deaths.

Perhaps that would be enough to cause a second thought about the Gun Registry.

[Argus]

You have a short memory, obviously. The Liberals have been in power more the last 13 years and have done nothing but watch health care delivery collapse.

And so you would have us elect the Conservatives and make the end of public health care a done deal. Gee that is pretty confusing just what you are looking for????

Something that works.

Most of us, after trying something year after year which fails will try something different. You appear determined to keep on with the same old failing system, no matter what.

You can get an appointment with a dentist pretty easily in this country, and get oral surgery with no waiting time. For those who are too poor, social services usually covers them. It isn't a perfect system. There could be more public support for the poor. But it works far, far better than the general health care system. Introducing private health care costs does not neccesarily mean that the system will be reserved for the wealthy elites.

[kimmy]

You appear to have not noticed that I said "gun control." Homicides have gone down steadily since then. Those figures I think you will find even at the Fraser Institute where the resident gunman tries to defend against them.

Who in this thread is attacking gun control? I have read no complaints about gun control, but numerous complaints about the ridiculous cost of the gun registry.

You recognize that gun control and the gun registry are separate concepts, but respond to attacks on the gun registry as if they were attacks on gun control. Why is that?

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

Because they are not separate concepts, Kimmy. The one is an extension of the other. It has worked in other countries; why not here?

[kimmy]

Because they are not separate concepts, Kimmy. The one is an extension of the other. It has worked in other countries; why not here?

Because the toughened gun control (as you yourself point out) has been working well on its own? Because the additional benefit provided by the registry seems dubious and completely out of proportion to the astronomical costs it has accrued? Because the money it has taken could have saved more lives had it been better spent? (imagine they had instead directed that sum of money to programs for the urban poor and homeless, for instance.)

I don't mind the concept of gun registration, and I'd be defending the registry if it had cost what it was originally intended to cost. But given the dilemna of finite government funds available, I believe that it's been (and remains) a sink-hole for money that could have been used to help far more people and save far more lives.

-kimmy

[Shakeyhands]

I'd like to know why the cost over runs... Is it simply because of non compliance?

[I Miss Trudeau]

You don't defend a billion dollar program by suggesting that it "might" have saved lives - perhaps. Due to demographics crime has dropped both here and in the United States. That has nothing to do with the long gun registry.

The criticism that the registry has not saved lives is based on a similar presupposition, if you care to think about it.

[ticker]

But given the dilemna of finite government funds available

-kimmy

don't you mean infinite government funds available kimmy

[kimmy]

I'd like to know why the cost over runs... Is it simply because of non compliance?

While defenders of the registry have often blamed the spiraling costs on opposition to the program, they've never articulated how that actually happened.

There was an interesting development during investigation into the sponsorship scam, in which fraud charges were laid in relation to the gun registry:

Guité and Brault were also charged in relation to "irregularities" involving the gun registry.

Chuck Guité waits to testify in Ottawa in this April 23, 2004

(CP PHOTO - file)

The RCMP allege that Guité and Brault conspired to defraud the government through "a bogus contract" worth $330,000 in connection with a communications strategy for the gun registry.

The RCMP also allege the two defrauded the government of $150,000 in relation to a gun registry contract dealing with "surveillance and documentation of sites and interest groups."

Source: CBC article

Another forum member posted something which was either fascinating, intriguing, or disturbing, depending how you look at such things:

Mapleleafweb: Gun registration thread

maplesyrup,

MOST of the money spent on the Gun Registry has to do with salaries of thousands of bureaucrats and the computer hardware to run the system.

The database that the registry is running on was built FROM SCRATCH by bureaucrats. They didn't even go buy the underlying software from Oracle or IBM. They started from a textbook on database technology.

Further, they trained bureaucrats with NO previous programming experience to be the programmers.

I have questioned a number of software company developers and they say that had the government gone out to the private sector to develop the gun registry database they could have had it done for a few millions dollars (including the hardware), not billions.

I haven't seen anything to back that up, but it's certainly worth considering, isn't it?

Whether you're opposed or in favor of the registry, don't you think there should be some kind of audit to show what exactly happened, and where these costs were *really* incurred? I think the management of the program has done a disservice to all of the country.

-kimmy

[bbacon]

The actual cost of c-68 is rapidly appraoching 2B tax dollars and there is not one documented case of it saving any lives whatsoever. More people die canoeing in Canada than are murdered by guns each year another Liberal Feel good idea that will not and has not worked. 2B taxdollars to harrass duck hunters and farmers is not money well spent.

[Argus]

You don't defend a billion dollar program by suggesting that it "might" have saved lives - perhaps. Due to demographics crime has dropped both here and in the United States. That has nothing to do with the long gun registry.

The criticism that the registry has not saved lives is based on a similar presupposition, if you care to think about it.

The criticisms of the registry are many and varied. They begin with its obvious ineffectiveness, yes. But you don't need a statistical study to demonstrate that registering the shotguns of farmers in Saskatchewan is going to do nothing to deter drive-bys with Uzis in Toronto and Vancouver.

Then there is the vast incompetence and enormous error rate of the registration system itself, which was deeply flawed at the onset and only became worse. It is entirely unreliable due to inconsistencies in the collection of information, a huge error rate in the inputting of that information, and a badly designed information request form which apparently was put together by people who knew nothing about guns.

In any event, the onus is clearly on someone who supports a program to demonstrate value for money and effectiveness, and no one has been able to do either with the gun registry.

[Argus]

Because  they are not separate concepts, Kimmy. The one is an extension of the other. It has worked in other countries; why not here?

Because the toughened gun control (as you yourself point out) has been working well on its own?

I disagree. The gun control system itself is not particularly affective. This can be easily demonstrated in the wide availability of even restricted weapons to anyone who cares to purchase one. The deepest flaw in gun control is in the law which punishes illegal posession and sale, and in the judges who hand out slap-on-the-wrist sentences for its violation. It is absurdly easy to get an illegal weapon in this country. As long as that is the case the gun control system itself is a waste of time and money.

If you really want to deter gun crime and the acquisition of weapons you need to accompany your registration process with harsh penalties for the sale, importation and purchase/posession of illegal weapons. And the federal government has never made any efforts in those directions.

[Guest eureka]

How much of the cost of the Gun Registry is attributable to those who are most vociferous in criticism?

How much cost was incurred in dealing with the near civil disobedience of hundreds of thousands of "refuseniks?"

How many lives might have been saved had there not been years of delay caused by those who argue against the Registry?

[kimmy]

How much of the cost of the Gun Registry is attributable to those who are most vociferous in criticism?

How did the critics cause hundreds of millions of dollars of extra costs? Liberal MPs have offered this excuse repeatedly, with no plausible suggestion as to how any expense was caused by the critics, let alone hundreds of millions of dollars of extra expense.

I do recall some TV advertisements designed to point out some features of the program and remind Canadians of relevant deadlines. But using TV advertising to inform people about some new government initiative or regulation is commonplace, and I can't imagine how a few TV promos could have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, unless they were handled by Quebec ad firms...

How much cost was incurred in dealing with the near civil disobedience of hundreds of thousands of "refuseniks?"

Same question... What costly measures have been taken against the "refuseniks"?

Let's be honest, you're grasping at straws here, right? I mean, you have no rational reason to believe that the "refuseniks" caused hundreds of millions of dollars of cost over-runs, but you're desperately looking for some kind of rationalization because it's inconceivable to think that the money just vanished into thin air, and you're unwilling to accept that either gross incompetence or corruption occured during the administration of a program you believe in. That's what's really going on here, right?

There should be a credible investigation into how the program went so completely out of control. If the expenses were legit and reasonable, let's see them. If not, let's find out what happened so that the people responsible can be turfed and prevented from wasting further money and/or further discrediting the program.

-kimmy

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

If you really want to deter gun crime and the acquisition of weapons you need to accompany your registration process with harsh penalties for the sale, importation and purchase/posession of illegal weapons. And the federal government has never made any efforts in those directions.

Well said. Deterring crime is a multi-faceted enterprise, with no one magic solution.

Dear kimmy,

There should be a credible investigation into how the program went so completely out of control. If the expenses were legit and reasonable, let's see them. If not, let's find out what happened

When I first heard that the registry had balloned from an estimated 2 million to over one billion, I thought "Someone should be dancing on the end of a rope for this one..."

I spoke with the former owner of the company I worked for, who had previously worked for Revenue Canada for over 19 years. She said that the gov't had taken the cheapest proven way to operate the registry, that being a mail-in system. She told me that the 2 million would probably be over-run, as most gov't projects are wont to do, but the result has been more than ridiculous.

The only way to explain such a gigantic cost over-run is graft and largesse, and as with the sponsorship scandal, there should be a criminal investigation. I would start with our PM, PM, who was directly involved in, and ultimately responsible for, both programs.

[Guest eureka]

I agree that there should be a criminal investigation. It should look into the activities of those who misused provincial government resources to weigh against the implentation of the program, amongst others.

It is quite rational, Kimmy, to ask how much of the cost overrun was caused by those who would not obey the law in a timely manner. The completion of the registration was delayed by a couple of years and I don't think even the most rabid of critics (those really grasping at straws) would try to earn political points by pretending that a major government activity cost nothing while large staffs waited for compliance.

The most telling part of this argument and how it is used for only political purposes, is that even government critics accept the two million figure as reasonable in establishing where to begin their assaults. It plainly was not; and not so from the beginning.

Of course, you modern kids would not know about the cost of anything that does not have a computer tag.

[waynej625]

QUOTE (Argus @ Mar 6 2005, 02:15 PM)

The Military? Rusting out with no plans for improvements and no additional funding on the horizon.

!! Missed the budget speech did you?

Argus, I agree that many of your criticisms are valid, but that one undermined your credibility fairly badly.

The amount included in the budget for military spending is insignificant considering it it spread of multi-years, and is not enough to make much of a difference. When inflation is taken into consideration we will still probably have some of our military families having to rely on welfare and food banks to feed theri families.

Nothing this Liberal government has done so far is enough to remove the stink of corruption and mismanagement, starting right at the top and working downward. The culture of corruption is so prevelent that even senior civil servants feel as if stealing and defrauding the Canadian taxpayer is okay to do. Why not the Prime Minister does it along with most of his Ministers. Why should regular Canadian's be held to a higher standard, other than the fact that ordinary Canadian's have some scruples.

[waynej625]

Caesar:

Last time the Conservatives were in power; they gave us the GST and unfair "Free trade" ??????????????????????

You seem to have conveniently forgotten to add that Jean Cretin ran on a promise to do away with the GST. So tell us again why all of Canada is still paying it! In fact the Liberals have sucked Liberal Provincial government's in NB, NS, NF, into harmonizing their taxes with the GST. Admittedly the PC Government's who have since replaced those Liberal government's have not deharmonized either. Since it has become a cash cow with the rising prices of gas, heating oil, and electric bills, why would they deharmonize it. They get to balme it on the Federal Liberal's for applying it to those things, and many don't know the difference.