Canada - Conservative majority government, Yahoo!!!

A58, I am not an expert but the way I see it you would be better off not bringing a handgun into Canada unless it is a sanctioned shoot. The authorities up here do not think that folks should carry handguns for protection. I am a handgun owner, they are considered restricted weapons and I need a speciall license plus an ATT (authority to transport) my ATT states that I can take my handgun to approved ranges within the provinces of BC and the Yukon and it is valid 24 hrs. a day. Some folks ATT only allow them to transport to a specific range and at certain hours. The handgun must be in a locked box and the ammo stored separately. Pretty much useless for protection. Better to carry a shotgun or other type of long gun, say a M1 for example. It doesn't need to be locked up, it could be on the seat beside and the ammo (enbloc) can be in your hand or pocket or sitting on the seat, but not in the gun.

Better to mail yourself the gun and pick it up in Alaska and do the same on the way home.

Here is a website that will tell you exactly what you can do. As long as you are a lawyer you should be able to understand it.

Firearm Users Visiting Canada


HTH,

KTK

 

Hmmm. Is it funny how Switzerland is the country where everyone must keep their assault rifles in their homes, with ammo, and has a relativly low gun crime rate?

I'm for some degree of gun control, but a lot of people have to realize that the criminals typically don't use a registered gun. Very few people know that I have a gun license, and I'd like to keep it that way - some people will just freak out over it and look at you like you're a criminal. A lot of the stuff up here is rather poorly thought-out. For instance, I have an M1 Carbine that is registered as a "restricted" firearm (anything under an 18" barrel falls under here, including all handguns). I need to have an permit to transport it, can only shot at approved ranges, etc. From what I can tell, the logic behind the "restricted" category is that they are easier to conceal, and thus use in criminal activity. Now, what possible criminal advantages would there be from using an M1 Carbine built in 1943 as opposed to something like a sawed-off rifle/shotgun or handgun? Pretty low.

In Canada, if there are more than 20 violent crimes per year committed by legally registered guns held by legally licensed residents, I would be very surprised.

 

Yes, dull as cold oatmeal, but apparently English Canada is more interested in jobs & reducing the defecit than the Liberal's Carbon Tax plan or redistribution of wealth ideas.

Doesn't seem much like it, the separatist "Parti Quebecois" crashed & burned this election, they went from 47 seats to 4.

Yes

Likely not.

Depends, often not, but if you are sent for secondary inspection they (or the dogs) might find it.

Not the kind of hassle (& $$$) that you want on vacation.
And leave the grenades at home too....

BBC NEWS | Americas | Grenade closes US-Canada border

 

What 3% is that and how would you keep guns out of their hands? How would you massage the suicide and accident rate?

 

What I worry about is if there are any complaints and someone should call the police over a stupid noise/dog/ revenge etc complaint, then that address is associated with a gun in the residence and next thing you know you have the SWAT team out there. No kidding. Government loves overtime.

 

Well, I'm not a fan of the far right policies of the current Conservatives and my local Conservative MP has proven himself in the past to not be particularly useful to his constituents. On the other hand, I agree that multiple elections due to non-confidence votes by opposition parties more interested in their own political manoeuvring than the welfare of Canadians they represent, have been a waste of money. Something most Canadians don't realize is that once an election is called financial decisions and allocations to departments to do their jobs are suspended when they occur in December and at the March fiscal year end - it makes doing the work Canadians expect more difficult.

The multiple party system is definitely my preference. I just wish that the quality of candidates and leaders was higher and more consistent.

I agree though, that the gun registry was rather a waste of time and money. At the same time, I appreciate living somewhere wherein theory gun ownership has controls; while it doesn't stop crime, statistics indicate that violent crime here still doesn't usually involve gun use - knives are usually the weapon of choice.

 

My 2 cents in blue. Happy Independence Day to all!

It is scary how correct George Orwell was.

I spoke with a cardiologist today and he brought up, with very little prompting, "that under the new health care policy he will soon be a relic of the past, a distant memory." I guess we had all better get in shape as we control our own destiny, more so now, than ever. I was surprised to hear this as today was our first conversation.

 

Happy Canada Day moose heads!

 

And back at you!

KTK

 

You do realize that Stephen Harper's Conservative Government is the ONLY government in Canadian history, in fact in all of British Commonwealth Parliamentary History, to be both charged and convicted of being in contempt of parliament for refusing to disclose information re: proposed Tory military expenditures?

(There are much bigger issues to consider re: the Harper Tory majority than something like the long gun registry....The idea of respect for democracy -and the maintenance of a democratic system itself- comes to mind.)

And anyone with eyes and ears can see that, with his new majority, Harper will behave in an increasingly undemocratic fashion. (When the man had a minority government, he not only set a new standard for non-communication with Canadian citizens and with the other political parties, but ruled his own government with the sort of iron fist that many used to associate with right-wing Banana Republics in Central America....Every time I heard one of his own cabinet ministers reading from a pre-approved script, it made me think of The Manchurian Candidate.)

The Canadian managerial class and the wealthy elites must be rubbing their hands with glee....Just look at Harper's brazen union-busting tactics in dealing with the recent Canada Post strike. (I am very much afraid that this is only the beginning of a more or less open attack on the working and middle class.)

It's truly sad to see so many of my fellow Canadians turning their backs on anything other than the value of self-interest and a narrow agenda of fiscal conservatism.

Then again, to be fair to the people of Canada, in our antiquated first-past-the-post system, Der Fuhrer Harper did only receive about 40% of the popular vote.

As the old saying goes, "you shall know the tree by the fruit it bears." Let's see where Canada is in the next four years....As you can see by the tone of my post, with Harper at the helm of the ship of state, I'm not exactly optimistic.

 

Well I don't really want to get into a political argument, but for the benefit of the non-Canucks here I thought I'd point a few things out.

It was a partisan parliamentary motion to bring down the government, and the stack of documents apparently wasn't to the liking of the Liberals & Separatists on the committee.

All of the opposition was itching for an election, this was just a way to kick sand in the face of the government as a kickoff to the campaign season.

The voters then had a choice to decide, and the Liberals who put forward the motion in the first place lost 56% of their seats in Parliament.

How about providing good stewardship for the people's money in bad economic times?

So my choices other than the Conservatives are what?

1. The Liberals - whom the Auditor General found were embezzling 100's of millions of public money?
2. The NDP (socialists) - a good chunk of whom were lefty college students with no experience?
3. The Separatists - who want to break up Canada?

Well I guess I must be one of the "managerial class and the wealthy elites" because I have my own business, but it doesn't seem too elite I have to bust my @$$ every day to keep it running in the crappy economy lately.

An attack on the working class?
How about this, I had the government holding onto some $5k of MY OWN MONEY waiting to get it back.
(I won't bore the non-Canadians with the details of the GST tax refund mechanism)

Apparently I can't my money back except through the post, but while the Liberals pontificate about strike-busting they are still getting paid strike or no strike.

Let private companies deliver the mail, then Canada Post employees can do what they want.

First past the post, so the exact same system used in the US & the UK?
Well I guess since Zimbabwe, North Korea & Libya have scrapped that system then they are more enlightened than we are.

40%, so about the same percentage as Tony Blair got in his last election?
Was he illegitimate too?
Germany's President got what - 33% of the vote?

And fair enough, if they do a crappy job the voters will boot them out too.
I'm not a big fan of Harper either, but he's been elected as Prime Minister three times in a row, so obviously the voters don't have confidence in any of the other parties.

 

Like freebird, I don't want to get into a political argument, but I felt like I had to post this since your post oversimplifies the situation.

That was a total disaster, and was entirely CP's fault. This wasn't a "strike", it was bickering back and forth between the CP administration and the CP employees. Employees started rotating strikes to try to make a point, then CP locked them out of all post offices. They had a chance to sort it out, and do so in a mature fashion. Instead they bickered back and forth while no one in Canada received any mail whatsoever. Most of the businesses around me shut down (no payment coming in, no payment going out, no orders for parts going out = no production of goods = economic stagnation). It would have been a total joke to let CP bicker while the country shut down. My post office (on of the few that isn't unionized, so it was still open during the strike, if that has any relevance to the conversation) still hasn't sorted out the backlog that this event created. As for Harper's actions on this issue: he told CP he would pass back-to-work legislation if they didn't reach and agreement, and they, frankly, didn't care. Then when he did it (and got a central national service moving again), they treated him like a dictator. Dare I say that without government intervention we would still be watching CP fight it out and still not have this issue resolved? If its a group of striking GM or Ford employees, that's a different story -- if they stop working, it doesn't impact a large percentage of our national economy, or cut off a large percentage of the population from an important service. On the other hand, if Canada Post, responsible for all the mail in Canada (with the exception of that carried by FedEx, Purolator, etc), stops, so does the economy. It is impossible to do business without a postal service. That is the situation we were in. For the first time in quite a while, I can say that I am actually pleased that our PM has acted decisively in such a quick fashion to end this.

Regards,

 

Well, gentlemen, I thank you for taking the time and making the effort to state your opinions here. (I will agree with both of you when you make comments about "not wanting to start an argument here.")

Having said that, I feel compelled to respond to several of the statements that were made by freebird in response to my earlier post:

1. First of all, Harper's Tory government was convicted on a charge of contempt of Parliament. That is an unprecedented occurance in Canadian History and in British Commonwealth History, and should not be dismissed in such a cavalier fashion. To say that it was a "partisan parliamentary motion" is a largely empty phrase. (Would you honestly expect Conservatives -especially the heel-clicking flunkies of the Harper government- to vote against their own party in an ethics subcommittee on this issue?) The bigger question is, of course, why would the Harper government refuse to disclose the cost of its crime policy and the cost of F-35 fighter jets? -The root of the word parliament is the French verb "parle" meaning to discuss....and Harper's government has a troubling record when it comes to ignoring questions from his political opposition, not to mention from the national press.
2. Secondly, I am proud of Canada's socialist political heritage -like the majority of Canadians who voted CCF leader Tommy Douglas the "Greatest Canadian" in the CBC poll of the same name a decade ago. I am not afraid of the word "socialist" -and I wear it as a badge of honour, rather than as a badge of shame. I do not immediately dismiss the NDP as being comprised mainly of "lefty college students with no experience." What is it exactly that you object to here? The fact that their politics are left of centre? (Should they be automatically dismissed for that reason?) Or do you somehow object to the fact that they are college educated? As far as being inexperienced goes, what better way would you propose that they become experienced, than by having an opportunity to form a government and make policy decisions? Wouldn't it be in keeping with the idea of building a government that more honestly represents Canadian society to make room for groups of people in parliament who are not white males with law degrees and backgrounds in business?
3. Thirdly, despite what you might conclude, I am not unsympathetic to small business owners, nor do I dismiss their importance to the economic and social health of Canadan society. (My own wife runs a small business, and I'm sure we could swap stories about government regulation and "red tape," punitive taxation, etc.) Having said that, I want to state that small business people, while they form an important part of our economy and our society, are not the ONLY significant constituency that must be considered in an egalitarian society. (I find it highly disingenuous when business people refer to public servants and unionized workers as "special interests" -while behaving as if their stature as small business people gives them some sort of sancrosanct, privileged position.)
4. Fourthly, your statement about nations with proportional representation is deliberately circumspect. On this issue you wrote: "Well I guess since Zimbabwe, North Korea & Libya have scrapped that system then they are more enlightened than we are." -What you of course fail to mention is that societies including Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, -all countries with vibrant social democracies that are rated by the United Nations as amongst the best countries in the world in which to live- also have proportional representation in their government systems. (In fact, in Western Europe, 21 of 28 countries use proportional representation as part of their goverment systems.) -It's not just third world dictators, antiquated communists, and tribal warlords who have moved beyond the first-past-the-post electoral system!

I'm glad to hear, freebird, that you are -as you put it yourself- "not a big fan of Stephen Harper." (I think you can surmise how I feel about the man and his government.)

Best of luck with your small business venture....I know it can be an uphill struggle.

And by the way, in response to the single issue that dominated this thread, I'm not in favour of the long gun registry myself.

 

In response to George Patton's comments on my take on Stephen Harper's labour policy and his handling of the Canada Post strike, here's an article titled "Velvet Glove Comes Off Harper Government's Labour Relations Agenda" written by economist Jim Stafford at rabble.ca - that pretty much summarizes my position. You may choose not to agree with the sentiments expressed in this article. But it provides evidence that my original statement, although it may be a left-of-centre opinion, is not necessarily an over-simplification:
"Even though labour relations is largely a provincial responsibility in Canada, we were worried about what would happen in this field under a Harper majority. And it didn't take long to find out.
In the disputes at both Air Canada and Canada Post, the government waded into the fray in a pre-emptive and utterly one-sided manner. With both the timing of its intervention, and the details of its proposed legislation, the government in both cases was clearly acting to assist the respective employers to take away long-standing features of the existing contracts, and facilitate the downward ratcheting of compensation.
At Air Canada, the CAW (which represents 3800 customer service and reservations agents) and the company had been bargaining toward a new contract for several months. But by the time the two parties reached the deadline of midnight June 13, they were at loggerheads. The main sticking point was the company's demand for dramatic changes in pensions, including major cuts in pension benefits for existing workers, and the complete abolition of the defined benefit pension system for future hires.
Just a few hours after the strike began, the Harper majority government indicated that it would intervene to end the strike and arbitrate an outcome. This was an unprecedented intrusion into free collective bargaining.
Air Canada, of course, is a private corporation. These were free, legal negotiations between two private parties, and the work stoppage was fully legal.
The government's claim that the work stoppage at Air Canada would jeopardize Canada's economic recovery was laughable. I doubt you could find two economists in the whole country who believe that this strike was truly threatening the recovery (such as it is!).
For a government that supposedly believes in the virtues of private business and the free market, this intrusion was surprising. Worse yet, the government's intervention clearly supported the company's position, by setting in motion a loaded arbitration process that would clearly have assisted the company in reducing pension benefits.
The two sides continued bargaining, despite the complication posed by the government's intrusion. By June 21 a tentative agreement had been reached that largely preserved pension benefits for the existing workforce. The matter of pensions for future hires will be sent to a mediation and arbitration process that will be more neutral than the one contemplated by the government legislation.
Harper government officials claim that their actions led to a quick settlement of the strike. In reality, the government's intervention made this bargaining more difficult, and probably contributed to the strike. And the intervention will likely contribute to work stoppages at other bargaining tables in the future, because of its impact on the normal processes of collective bargaining.
Even before the CAW reached the June 13 strike deadline, it was clear the company was backing away from trying to reach a deal. Now we know why. The company was in contact with government officials, and had a strong indication of what the government had in store.
They knew that the government's intervention would tip the bargaining field in their favour. In this way, the government actually contributed to the strike, by hardening the company's position. Now that companies know the government will take their side in this way, the dynamics of future collective bargaining will be altered, and the risk of future conflicts exacerbated.
In essence, the government was willing to do Air Canada's dirty work for them. It has taken an even more Machiavellian approach to the dispute at Canada Post, where the union was careful to avoid a full work stoppage. But when management locked out the workers, then the government jumped in again -- proposing wage increases that were even lower than the company was already offering!
Every single worker in Canada, whatever sector they work in, is threatened by the government's unprecedented actions. Public sector or private sector. Essential service or not.
The government has thrown away any guise of neutrality. It has abandoned the principle of leaving free collective bargaining up to the private parties. It invokes phony arguments about the economic recovery, to justify virtually anything it wants to do.
We must also remember that the government could play a more constructive role in resolving the underlying problems that have contributed to the conflicts at Air Canada, Canada Post, and many other bargaining tables.
We need to expand the Canada Pension Plan, which is the most universal, portable, efficient, and secure pension system in the land. We need stable, long-run funding rules for defined-benefit pensions, and an insurance system to backstop pension plans when companies get into trouble.
These are things that government could do to strengthen workers' pensions, and improve the chances that hard-working Canadians can retire with dignity and security. Instead, this government just jumped right into the middle of collective bargaining, clearly on the side of corporations, to help take pensions away from workers.
I was under no illusions about how this majority government would wield its power. But even I am shocked."

Cheers, gentlemen.