Jump to content
Jambands.ca

Fall Election


AD

Recommended Posts

?? First five words.

The Green Party of Canada is pointing to a new US study, Unlocking America, that suggests the measures proposed in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s omnibus crime bill are bound to be ineffective and wasteful of taxpayers’ money.

I didn't mention murder again, i mentioned 'shot'. Even if it was just an armed robbery, should it only be about the money? Have you ever been robbed?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have... The police told me it wasn't worth worrying about and that I shouldn't hold my breath hoping for my stuff back...

"It was probably just some kids goofing around"

Thank God we pay these guys... Of course it would be ridiculous to pay a nurse the same wage for saving your life.

Likewise, "the war on drugs approach isn't winning any favours in my books either, mostly in terms of marijuana users/growers. Going after these guys is a waste of time." The liberals were in the middle of decriminalizing the offence of marijuana and your vote ensured that we will continue to pay the price of small possession crime and the juridicial backup that it entails. Very prudent financial thinking there.

And the street racing law? A person waits on the side of the road with a weapon and surprises you demanding money... No, it's not a "Highway Robber" it's your friendly neighbourhood tax-payed policeman, looking out for your interests without spilling his coffee.

Edited by Guest
crackin'fuckin'skulls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The report from the JFA Institute says the total economic loss to victims of crime in 2002 was just over $15 billion

I'd guess that the total economic loss to victims likely includes such things as medical bills, income-loss replacement, and payments made for loss of quality of life, not just the value of goods stolen or damaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have... The police told me it wasn't worth worrying about and that I shouldn't hold my breath hoping for my stuff back...

Leads, yeah, sure. I'll just check with the boys down at the crime lab, they've got four more detectives working on the case. They got us working in shifts!

The Dude: Do you find them much, these, stolen cars?

Younger Cop: Sometimes. Wouldn't hold out much hope for the tape deck though.

Older Cop: Or the Creedence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likewise, "the war on drugs approach isn't winning any favours in my books either, mostly in terms of marijuana users/growers. Going after these guys is a waste of time." The liberals were in the middle of decriminalizing the offence of marijuana and your vote ensured that we will continue to pay the price of small possession crime and the juridicial backup that it entails. Very prudent financial thinking there.

I agree with you! If crime policy were at the top of my voting priorities, or at least near it, I would vote differently. But nothing is perfect in politics.

I'm really looking forward to this election though... seems like with week one done, things have been pretty interesting in a Canadian hoser-like way. I think it's a given Harper's in... but i look more forward to seeing what happens with the Greens and the NDPs and consequently with the Liberals-- they seem pretty vulnerable on all sides right now and could stand to lose a wholllllle lot. I hope all the lefties don't forget the last budget proposed by the Paul Martin liberals with $12.7 billion going to national defence and increased corporate tax cuts now that the ugliness of campaigning days have come upon us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope all the lefties don't forget the last budget proposed by the Paul Martin liberals with $12.7 billion going to national defence and increased corporate tax cuts now that the ugliness of campaigning days have come upon us.

I hope you don't forget how much more Harper has spent in the leadup to this election... we won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

admirable pt, but productive? i don't really find anything on here overly productive. i've never seen an open, honest talk comparing policies in my three year existence of running around the same circle. the general consensus in here is harper sucks, conservatives are evil and that's that. so please forgive me when i throw out the dig every once in a while. trust me, far, far, far more digs are thrown out in the other direction. yet, i get the 'oh birdys'.

truth be told, i don't mind the liberals and liked Paul Martin. there's just a few key policy moves the Cons make that i like, that the libs don't. Cutting diesel tax - Libs think it's a waste. Yet how many trucks are rolling down the 401 and the trans Canada everyday carrying billions of dollars of Canadian goods? A shit load. Manufacturing's on the brink of full out disaster and with rising fuel prices can barely even afford to move their goods. While I agree that cutting diesel tax does little to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, realistically these goods need to be moved as jobs and livelihood depend on it. What takes precedence? Jobs or the environment? For me (and i know my place here) it's jobs. That doesn't mean that I don't care about the environment, I just view the Cons environmental approach a little more realistic when you factor in what kind of negative impact it potentially will have on business (ie, Libs taxing pollutants, noble, yes, what will it do to places like chemical valley in Sarnia? shut down city). The Libs approach comes by way of rebates and incentives (where the Cons do the same for us regular gas users), but the problem for these trucks is now, the money is needed now, not at some point down the road when a rebate gets mailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Six months ago Steve didn't like the idea of bailing out auto industry giants... what up?

The money is needed now?

They were already running a higher budget than any previous government, lib or con. Likewise I disagree with the social agenda of the often appeased far right within the party... they are not strictly economic conservatives. They would welcome a pulotician like Palin with open arms out in the West where this party is most at home. Remember that Oil guys all hang in the same circle, with George and the Saudis shootin'gophers and being cowboys... yeee fuckin'haw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the far right are on crack myself. And think that even if they'd welcome Sarah Palin with open arms out in Alberta, I don't think they would in Ottawa. The CPC (at least to me), isn't the Reform even though with Stephen Harper at the helm and campaign politics people are inclined to think so.

I also think over the last six months considerable pressure has been put on the cons and pretty much everyone to do something for manufacturing. The economy six months ago was instable, today it's looking more and more like a recession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many people see a minority government as something bad, but I believe that is incredibly important, as Parliament hasn't been able to approach minority with an air of 'coalition'

Years more of minority government might drive our current system to recognize a need for the parties to work together to find the underlying faults in plans - not to send a bill to its demise, but to make it infallible and powerful legislation that pushes our country forward..

There are a lot of problems that are not going to be tackled effectively with the approaches shown to us by the major parties

- emissions, economics, healthcare, law and justice, and immigration and economic development to name a few.

This country is rich and diverse and as it stands, the parties that are sure to get the most votes don't have the best answers to the questions or best solutions to our problems.

This isn't to say that they're all a waste of our time, but it is entirely crucial that we look at every party to get a good perspective on where the leaders and our local constituents stand.

I'm glad that Birdy is taking a really difficult role as right wing pusher on this board, as it's not appreciated for the most part

- but it's intensely important, as the divide between left and right really leads so many people to stay in the middle...

...which has left everyone unfulfilled for so long as an alternative to knee-jerk conservatism.

I am more and more impressed with the Green Party and hope that more people take a look, because the more people that vote with their needs and desires, the more voters will approach voting truly democratically instead of strategically - and will lead to more people feeling empowered and fulfilled with the democratic process.

One thing that is absolutely certain is that Canada has a great opportunity to make strong foundations on which to build a bright and prosperous future for ourselves and our children.

I hope for our sake and those around us, these foundations aren't built from fear and nearsighted positioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stated in another thread that you have to always vote your conscience... If Birdy feels that they deserve her vote than I agree that they should get it.

I have never stated that I would support the Liberal party or that my views are liberal in philosophy. I have intimated that I would go Green this election. Elizabeth May was a former member of the Conservative party. If we were talking about financial issues, and I believe that we were, than we might very much agree on the basics of our accounting philosophies but disagree about how that means we should proceed.

Support for the Cons. is support for status quo economic policies, we have seen them for almost three years or more now and this is no longer a liberal hangover economy. It is the responsiblilty of the current, and not New, government. Any shift away from the current standards would be bad business for the large oil sector who ultimately pays for the Conservative campaign.

We "licence" dogs, cats, fishing, hunting, driving, piloting of airborne vehicles but the conservative party feels it is a waste of money to keep track of firearms.

Canadians recognize on a vast scale the wastefulness of persecuting Marijuana offences, however the Conservate party has increased the vilification of the "pot user" as someone who supports criminal organizations and often terrorism itself through their unfortunate addictions. Connections between even large scale pot growers and major organized crime are very often media creation or pure imagination and hearsay. Large pot growers only remain large if they pay their hydro and water bills, I would guess that they would gladly pay taxes to avoid fear for their futures in the form of legal persecution. The statement that these people are under the sole (and not soul) control of the drug they choose is a power play to discredit the opinion and voice of any one who speaks up in favor of a differing opinion. This framing of debate silences dessent and creates a political climate whereby arguement against the law displays obvious criminality in the protester. We can therefore morally ignore the voice of protest as it is semantically linked to illegality. Not my Canada.

My conscience is not eased by these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say I agree this is no longer a hangover economy. This isn't meant as a finger point, but all economies of today exist because of the economies of yesterday. But you're right, it is our responsibility now.

I have a few problems with the gun registry. First, what was expected to cost around $100 million ended up costing a billion dollars and now is estimated around 2 billion dollars. A pretty expensive little program. A program that promotes a black market like gun industry in which guns are swapped on the streets instead of sold legally. I get that tracking and knowing whose got guns out there looks good on paper, but what self-respecting criminal is going to fess up and tell the authorities what he's packing? I wouldn't. Then you get all the old boy club types with a collection of 75 rifles kept in their smoking rooms in their fancy mansions. They, for the sake of being all Charleton Heston like aren't going to register their guns either... and really don't have to worry about it. They're not going to be in a position any time soon where they'll get ratted out. So then here we have this two billion dollar government funded program that's kinda only tracking the middle ground of responsible gun owners out there. The criminals are selling the shit on the street and the rich are hiding it in their dens.

I personally think that 2 billion dollars could be much better spent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing like taking over on someone else's idea and then running it into the ground to prove how wrong it was in the first place. Those old dudes with the gun collections didn't vote Green.

The point is that an unregistered gun can be legislated to be as bad as wilfull negligence or even malignant opposition to the rule of law if we choose to prosecute it as such. We let this shit happen by focusing on young black kids in Toronto who are trying to kill our poor old grandmothers and pretty young white daughters while they do their civic duty of buying overpriced goods from pirate merchants who rob and kill in the third world for profit. Profits which pay for advertising and programming on television and radio and who also incidentaly pay for the campaigns of the major political parties.

Look at the past two murders in Toronto... white guys. But we've placed extra police presence in "black and minority" neighbourhoods. Neo-lib/Neo-con... same facking difference.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is the intended use of the gun registry as a method to control crime by making guns traceable is not working. Guns remain untraceable, yet two billion dollars are forked into the program, for what? To prosecute those who don't register their guns? I just don't think that's worthy of two billion dollars.

I understand the argument against increased police force; however, stats can claims 2007 saw Canada's national crime rate drop for the third straight year in a row, mostly due to decreased vehicle thefts, house break-ins and armed robberies, all which I think an increased police force contribute to. I also think it's not the federal government's mandate as to where Toronto police force extend their presence to. That's a municipal and/or provincial affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the fixed-date election law, the Prime Minister is not permitted to approach the governor general to request the dissolution of parliament. If he were to do so, he would be breaking a law passed by the very government he leads. Doing so also puts the governor general in an untenable position. Were she to grant the PM's request, she effectively negates the law and acknowledges the Prime Minister is exempt from the laws of Parliament. If she refuses, he can force a constitutional crisis by claiming she has refused his right to exercise his prerogative. This issue urgently needs to be referred to the Supreme Court.

Parliament is paramount and even prime ministers are subject to its laws. If Stephen Harper wants an election, he should submit a non-confidence motion and have his own party vote in favour. His backbench, good lap dogs that they are, will comply without question.

John Purvis, Toronto

Intended use or not...

PM can override fixed-date vote: expert

Juliet O'Neill, The Ottawa Citizen

Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be perfectly within his rights to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, triggering a general election, on grounds some Commons committees are not functioning, says Ned Franks, one of Canada's parliamentary experts.

In a separate interview yesterday, Conservative government whip Jay Hill said if and when Mr. Harper considered an election call on the grounds that committee difficulties had made Parliament dysfunctional, the prime minister would give politicians and the public "ample notice."

While opposition MPs accuse the government of obstructing legitimate opposition demands at committees, Mr. Hill accused the Liberals of using committees to wage "partisan witch-hunts." He rejected a peace offering in which the Liberals agreed to temporarily postpone a committee study of Conservative party election financing violations.

Mr. Hill said the committee will not resume business until the opposition restores Gary Goodyear, the MP they ousted as chairman of the procedures and affairs committee for rejecting the study.

Mr. Franks predicted Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean would have no hesitation, "none whatsoever," in acceding to an election request because the prime minister has the right to seek dissolution of Parliament despite fixed-date election legislation. Committee dysfunction could be a "plausible" justification, he said.

While Liberals say Mr. Harper would be violating the spirit of the fixed-date election law, which sets the next election in October 2009, Mr. Hill said the prime minister's justification would obviously have to be "defensible in the court of public opinion." If Parliament was not functioning well, that would show a lack of confidence in the government, he said. "It's a no-brainer that we'd have to go to the people to try and settle it."

Mr. Hill echoed what New Democratic Party MPs reported him saying at a private meeting with opposition whips last week: that, if committee paralysis continues to spread, "Parliament will become dysfunctional to the point where the prime minister would have to seek to dissolve Parliament."

The issue has gained prominence since Commons Speaker Peter Milliken issued a ruling urging MPs to quell "anarchy" in some committees and warned of the "tyranny of the majority" in a minority Parliament.

Two other committees are at issue: justice, where Conservative chairman Art Hanger refuses to allow a study of the Chuck Cadman affair that would require Mr. Harper's testimony on what financial offers were made to the late MP; and environment, where the government is filibustering NDP legislation on greenhouse gas emissions.

Opposition whips offered yesterday to temporarily postpone the study of election financing violations and move onto consideration of legislation easing identification requirements for voters in a federal election. However, Mr. Hill said the committee won't get rolling again until Mr. Goodyear is restored as chairman.

Mr. Franks said Mr. Harper did not even need the justification of committee anarchy or dysfunction to go the Governor General. The fixed-date law was an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act, which says Parliament may be dissolved any time, he said. "Every province in Canada that has fixed election dates also has that exception."

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope that the left doesn't make marijuana decrim a serious issue this time through.

That's something best saved for a mid-term referrendum.

Do you think that Canadians vote with the thought that their votes en masse could realign the attitudes of our country? If they do, how do you think the outcomes of this election might change the ideals and attitudes of our country?

Do you think about the essence of democracy and the power of the vote?

Could another Harper Government be just the thing to prove to the right clinging voters that their fear and insecurities do nobody any good?

Could our fear and insecurity lead us to more dysfunction and polarization of the issue?

Maybe it's just 4 more years. Maybe we could use the next 4 years to actually rally our communities and make a big difference in the world we choose to be a part of.

Maybe we don't want to be a part of it and just like to natter about how we're right and they're wrong...

Maybe there's just mildly wrong.

Maybe we're just mildly right...or correct depending on your perspective.

I'm curious - how do I make sure I'm registered?

Anybody know about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have voted in a past federal election and haven't moved, you should get your registered voter card in the mail. If you've moved and/or haven't voted, you can either pre-register as a voter in your riding, or you can do it on election day by bringing in official government issued ID and a piece of mail from a utility company with your current address on it. If you want to pre-register, go here:

http://canadaonline.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=canadaonline&cdn=newsissues&tm=21&gps=453_513_1396_897&f=10&su=p649.3.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.elections.ca/scripts/pss/FindED.aspx%3FL%3De

and look up your returning officer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few problems with the gun registry. First, what was expected to cost around $100 million ended up costing a billion dollars and now is estimated around 2 billion dollars. A pretty expensive little program. A program that promotes a black market like gun industry in which guns are swapped on the streets instead of sold legally. I get that tracking and knowing whose got guns out there looks good on paper, but what self-respecting criminal is going to fess up and tell the authorities what he's packing? I wouldn't. Then you get all the old boy club types with a collection of 75 rifles kept in their smoking rooms in their fancy mansions. They, for the sake of being all Charleton Heston like aren't going to register their guns either... and really don't have to worry about it. They're not going to be in a position any time soon where they'll get ratted out. So then here we have this two billion dollar government funded program that's kinda only tracking the middle ground of responsible gun owners out there. The criminals are selling the shit on the street and the rich are hiding it in their dens.

I personally think that 2 billion dollars could be much better spent.

But that's not 2 billion dollars per year; that's 2 billion dollars that have already been spent. Axing the program afterwards guarantees that the 2 billion dollars is a waste of money.

Furthermore, police chiefs all over the country have said that the registry was useful; they would consult it every time they had to respond to a call at a residence, especially for domestic violence. They wanted to know if there was a firearm on the premises. I totally agree with you that a person who purchases a gun in order to use it illegally won't register it, but that doesn't mean that a person who buys a gun for protection and registers it won't someday use that gun in some violent way. While I'm not generally a proponent of government tracking the citizenry's posessions, I can easily make an exception for lethal weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gun registry is still costing tax payers in upwards of $100 million dollars per year.

INDEPTH: GUN CONTROL

Implementing the Firearms Act - the rising cost

When Canada's auditor general tabled her December 2002 report, she set her sights on Ottawa's controversial gun-registry program. Sheila Fraser blasted the federal government for exceeding its estimated budget, saying that, by the time the smoke cleared and all gun owners and their guns were registered, the program would have cost taxpayers more than $1 billion. Opposition critics were quick to point out that figure is 500 times more than the original $2-million estimate. A look at internal audits conducted by the Canadian Firearms Program suggests the cost of the program has been an issue from the beginning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cost over time

1995

Bill C-68, the strictest gun control legislation in Canadian history, receives Senate approval. It calls for harsher penalties for crimes involving the use of guns, creates the Firearms Act and also requires gun owners to be licensed and registered. At the time, the government says the registry would cost about $119 million, but the revenue generated by registration fees would mean taxpayers would only be on the hook for $2 million.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2000

In a report released early in 2000, the Canadian Firearms Program notes that implementation costs are rising, and cites the following as contributing factors:

Major backlogs in registration, largely as a result of firearm owners waiting until the last minute to apply.

General increase of costs.

Fee waivers for early applications.

High error rates in applications submitted by firearm owners.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 2001

The cost had risen to an estimated $527 million. The CFP says a major factor behind the ballooning costs was the difficulty it had keeping track of licence fees collected. This was blamed, in part, on the computer system used to process applications. And, according to the audit, that problem could not be resolved without "massive change," including "significant investment" in the computer system.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 2002

FUNDING

"Program funding has been an ongoing management concern since the outset. By the end of Fiscal Year 2000/2001, the project will have cost $527 million, representing six years' expenditures."

- Canadian Firearms Program internal audit, December 2001.

The tab for implementing the registry rises to $629 million. Here is a breakdown of the costs:

$2 million to help police enforce legislation.

At least $60 million for public-relations programs, including television commercials ($18 million of which went to ad agency GroupAction, which received millions in sponsorship scandal contracts).

$227 million in computer costs. Complicated application forms are slowing processing times and driving costs higher than anticipated.

$332 million for other programming costs, including money to pay staff to process the forms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 2002

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., a group overseeing the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, files a lawsuit against the federal government. The group argues the gun registry goes against an understanding that Inuit would be able to hunt, trap and fish without licensing or fees.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 2002

Auditor General Sheila Fraser reveals that the gun-registry program is far more over budget than previously thought and that Parliament was ignorant of some of those escalating costs. Fraser reports that the bill for gun registration would reach $1 billion by 2005, with registration fees offsetting that by only about $140 million.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 2003

Jan. 1, 2003, was the deadline for gun owners to register their non-restricted firearms. According to the federal government, 75 per cent of all gun owners met the deadline, registering 5.8 million of the estimated eight million unrestricted firearms in Canada. But that didn't stop gun owners and politicians from expressing opposition.

Days after the deadline passed, Ontario's then-public safety and security minister called on Ottawa to put the program on hold. Bob Runciman criticized the program as an "unconscionable waste of taxpayers' money," and called on the government to cease further spending until an audit could be conducted. His demands were later echoed by provincial justice ministers in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Others who doubted the efficiency of the gun registry include then-Toronto police chief Julian Fantino, who said the program would neither prevent crimes nor help solve them.

But Ottawa's chief, Vince Bevan, countered this in a speech on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

"It is very difficult, of course, to prove that, as of this point, the new law has saved lives. But certainly we have seen ample evidence of the gaps in the old law that this legislation has addressed," he said. "If this legislation saves even one life, it will have proven its worth."

Meanwhile, workers at an Edmonton postal outlet are quarantined for anthrax testing after receiving a letter destined for the Canadian Firearms Centre. The letter contained a white, powdery substance. It would be the third anthrax scare related to the gun registry. In each case, tests showed there was no anthrax.

Soon after the registration deadline passed, several gun owners challenge law enforcement authorities to arrest them for possessing unregistered firearms. Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association leader Jim Turnbull and another man are arrested for having firearms at a rally in Ottawa. Anti-registry protesters note the fact that Turnbull isn't charged under the Firearms Act for his unregistered gun is both a moral victory and proof the new law is ineffective.

Regardless, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon reiterates that Ottawa has no plans to stop the registry and urged the thousands who are still unregistered to comply with the law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 2003

Despite widespread condemnation of the rising costs, the Liberals vote to bolster the gun registry with an additional $59 million in funding.

On March 24, the bill is approved on two separate votes – 173-75 and 173-76.

Some Liberal backbenchers threaten to vote with the opposition against the funding, but sit out the vote after then prime minister Jean Chrétien threatened to expel them from caucus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 9, 2003

Judge Robert Kilpatrick grants a temporary injunction protecting Inuit from the federal firearms registry until a lawsuit filed by NTI, Nunavut's Land Claims organization, goes to court the following year. The judge says that requiring Inuit to register their guns could interfere with their traditional way of life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan. 7, 2004

Prime Minister Paul Martin says the gun registry is under review. "We are committed to gun control and we are committed to the registration of weapons, but at the same time, common sense dictates that there have been a number of problems," says Martin. "They will be looked at and dealt with."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb. 13, 2004

Documents obtained by Zone Libre of CBC's French news service suggest that the gun registry has cost $2 billion so far.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 20, 2004

The Liberal government, just days before an expected election call, eliminates fees for registering and transferring firearms. Ottawa will also limit its spending on the gun registry to $25 million a year, spending which has averaged $33 million a year and reached as high as $48 million. Licensing of gun owners and firearms will continue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 2005

In the 2004 Report of the Commissioner of Firearms on the administration of the Firearms Act, the Canada Firearms Centre estimates that the cost of running the registry for the year ending Dec. 31, 2004 was less than $100 million. The report says costs are continuing their downward trend and should fall to approximately $85 million beginning in fiscal 2005-2006.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 16, 2006

Auditor General Sheila Fraser reports that the former Liberal government twice misinformed Parliament about tens of millions of dollars of overspending at the Canada Firearms Centre. Fraser finds that the planned computerized gun registry system is three years overdue and so far has cost $90 million, three times more than expected.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 17, 2006

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day says the government will introduce legislation to eliminate the long-gun registry. Day announces a number of measures that would effectively gut the registry while it is still in effect:

A one-year amnesty for those who have not yet registered their non-restricted firearms.

Long-gun owners will no longer have to pay to register their weapons and the government will provide refunds to those who have already registered their long guns.

Responsibility for the registry will be transferred from the Canada Firearms Centre to the RCMP.

The annual operating budget for the program will be cut by $10 million.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 19, 2006

Stephen Harper's Conservative government introduces legislation to abolish the long-gun registry. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code and Firearms Act so that owners of non-restricted rifles and shotguns will not have to register their weapons. But the handgun registry will remain in place, as will bans on automatic and assault weapons. MPs are expected to vote on the bill when they return from their summer break in the fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTTAWA - The country's political names lend themselves to some anagram fun.

Feed the name Stephen Harper into an Internet anagram generator and get: "shear, then prep," "panther sphere" and "sharpen the rep."

Stephane Dion produces "done thespian," "pained ethnos" and "honed sapient."

Jack Layton turned into "jackal tony" or "can talk joy."

Gilles Duceppe becomes "spiced eel gulp" and "clips elude peg."

Elizabeth May morphs into "maybe hit zeal" and "able, hazy mite."

Some past leaders also produce interesting anagrams. Jean Chretien, for instance, can be jumbled into "can jet in here."

Paul Martin? "Natural imp."

Link to comment
Share on other sites




×
×
  • Create New...