HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10621  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 9:52 AM
WestCoastEcho WestCoastEcho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I'd laugh if five or more Liberals didn't show up and the Bloc and Conservatives voted together to defeat a confidence motion.
Then Justin Trudeau would have been Joe Clark'ed, which would be ironic since Justin's father used the exact same trick to bring down Joe Clark's minority government.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10622  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 1:17 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 8,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho View Post
Then Justin Trudeau would have been Joe Clark'ed, which would be ironic since Justin's father used the exact same trick to bring down Joe Clark's minority government.
Justin’s father had resigned as Liberal leader by then, had grown a beard, bought a flashy sports car, begun the process of leaving public life, and had to be dragged back into politics by his party on an emergency basis because of the unexpected sudden election.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10623  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 2:16 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 17,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho View Post
Considering that the NDP were already in debt before the election, I can't imagine the NDP being able to effectively fight another election if they tried to bring the Liberals down.

In fact, the only party that would have the fiscal room to actually fight another election would be the Conservatives...
And the Bloc, no? How much can it cost them to rent a bus?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10624  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 2:32 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I'd laugh if five or more Liberals didn't show up and the Bloc and Conservatives voted together to defeat a confidence motion.
I don't see the Bloc wanting another election either, they'd clearly prefer to work with the Liberals than the Conservatives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10625  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 2:38 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 17,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
I don't see the Bloc wanting another election either, they'd clearly prefer to work with the Liberals than the Conservatives.
Why would a new election mean working with the Conservatives ....

However, there will be no election for at least three years (word in town has it).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10626  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 1:27 AM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 2,311
https://thegunblog.ca/2019/10/24/tru...s-office-says/

Quote:
Trudeau to Update on Gun Bans After Nov. 20, Blair’s Office Says

Two-Year Deadline

Trudeau said during the election campaign he will give rifle owners two years to comply with his confiscation order, without giving a specific start or end date.

The only model he named for destruction was the AR-15 target rifle, while also mentioning attacks where assailants had or used a CZ 858 and Ruger Mini-14. He repeatedly used the made-up term of “military-style assault rifles.”

He also promised to work with municipalities to expel or further restrict handgun owners and stores.

Dec. 6 Announcement?

Dec. 6 marks the 30th anniversary of a shooting massacre at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, a favourite date for Liberals to announce new prohibitions and restrictions on millions of honest Canadians. Trudeau’s home riding is in Montreal.
I know many Liberal voters are gun owners who are upset at this as well. Most of Canada’s population is urbanized and they are using what they learn on American TV shows to form their policy for those outside the cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10627  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 4:12 AM
Northern Light Northern Light is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
https://thegunblog.ca/2019/10/24/tru...s-office-says/



I know many Liberal voters are gun owners who are upset at this as well. Most of Canada’s population is urbanized and they are using what they learn on American TV shows to form their policy for those outside the cities.
Why must you say such incendiary things that really have no basis in fact?

The idea that prohibiting private ownership of a weapon that is far beyond what is reasonable or necessary either for hunting or protection of livestock is somehow paranoid, stupid or over-reaching is just beyond belief.

Its an entirely reasonable idea.

No it will not have a material effect on shootings in urban areas of Canada which are largely associated with handguns; something also in need of addressing.

But that doesn't make the former idea any less reasonable. I do not respect your right, nor anyone else's to own a weapon of war for private amusement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10628  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 6:12 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is online now
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cold Garden
Posts: 20,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Why must you say such incendiary things that really have no basis in fact?

The idea that prohibiting private ownership of a weapon that is far beyond what is reasonable or necessary either for hunting or protection of livestock is somehow paranoid, stupid or over-reaching is just beyond belief.

Its an entirely reasonable idea.

No it will not have a material effect on shootings in urban areas of Canada which are largely associated with handguns; something also in need of addressing.

But that doesn't make the former idea any less reasonable. I do not respect your right, nor anyone else's to own a weapon of war for private amusement.
Fuckin cheers bud! Yes!!
__________________
Strong & free

'My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.' — Jack Layton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10629  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 6:15 AM
travis3000's Avatar
travis3000 travis3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,871
I personally don't understand why anyone in their right mind would ever want to own a gun for any purpose other than hunting. Hand guns should be banned outright, any machine gun/semi automatic gun should be banned. There is just simply no need for them other than for mass murder. Tougher sentences should be imposed for anyone found with one of these to deter people from even thinking about it.

Guns are only a part of the issue though, Im not one of these people who blames guns on every murder out there. A huge part of the gun violence issue is due to broken/dysfunctional families, a lack of community outreach programs, and a lack of understanding/funding for mental health. I will be the first to say that banning guns will not totally eliminate the problem, its much deeper than that. And this is from a guy who has never used a gun, and has no use for them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10630  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 6:44 AM
WestCoastEcho WestCoastEcho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis3000 View Post
I personally don't understand why anyone in their right mind would ever want to own a gun for any purpose other than hunting. Hand guns should be banned outright, any machine gun/semi automatic gun should be banned. There is just simply no need for them other than for mass murder. Tougher sentences should be imposed for anyone found with one of these to deter people from even thinking about it.

Guns are only a part of the issue though, Im not one of these people who blames guns on every murder out there. A huge part of the gun violence issue is due to broken/dysfunctional families, a lack of community outreach programs, and a lack of understanding/funding for mental health. I will be the first to say that banning guns will not totally eliminate the problem, its much deeper than that. And this is from a guy who has never used a gun, and has no use for them.
The big issue isn't legal guns. Majority of crimes involving firearms in Canada aren't done with registered, legally purchased guns.

It's illegal weapons that are being used to commit crimes. These guns are often either stolen or smuggled into Canada from the US.

The exact mix however, strangely enough, isn't being tracked; the Globe and Mail did a write up 2 months ago with information from various AIT requests to various police forces about if they were tracing where the guns were coming from:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ce-of-canadas/

It turns out many police forces aren't tracing guns to determine where they came from. If they were, they were kept as written reports attached to individual case files. So the Globe had exclude tracing information from their searches and focusing on seized and surrendered statistics, which would show us the number and kinds of firearms law enforcement were seizing, and even then, they were hitting brick walls in terms of the information they were getting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10631  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 4:16 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 10,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis3000 View Post
Guns are only a part of the issue though, Im not one of these people who blames guns on every murder out there. A huge part of the gun violence issue is due to broken/dysfunctional families, a lack of community outreach programs, and a lack of understanding/funding for mental health. I will be the first to say that banning guns will not totally eliminate the problem, its much deeper than that. And this is from a guy who has never used a gun, and has no use for them.
Ya I read a sad stat the other day. Over 50% of domestic homicides are done with legally purchased firearms.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10632  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 4:17 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 10,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho View Post
The big issue isn't legal guns. Majority of crimes involving firearms in Canada aren't done with registered, legally purchased guns.

It's illegal weapons that are being used to commit crimes. These guns are often either stolen or smuggled into Canada from the US.
Do you have stats for that? Those two assholes who went on a rampage and then died in the woods used legally purchased guns.

The more guns that get banned here, drives up the price (and lessens the supply) of ones available even on the black market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10633  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 5:49 PM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho View Post
The big issue isn't legal guns. Majority of crimes involving firearms in Canada aren't done with registered, legally purchased guns.

It's illegal weapons that are being used to commit crimes. These guns are often either stolen or smuggled into Canada from the US.

The exact mix however, strangely enough, isn't being tracked; the Globe and Mail did a write up 2 months ago with information from various AIT requests to various police forces about if they were tracing where the guns were coming from:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ce-of-canadas/

It turns out many police forces aren't tracing guns to determine where they came from. If they were, they were kept as written reports attached to individual case files. So the Globe had exclude tracing information from their searches and focusing on seized and surrendered statistics, which would show us the number and kinds of firearms law enforcement were seizing, and even then, they were hitting brick walls in terms of the information they were getting.
What that says is we need to make inroads in ensuring gun owners are trained in properly securing their weapons and ensuring they are properly stored when not in use. Perhaps restrict access to guns beyond what is needed.

We have individuals that has a legitimate need or desire to have hunting weapons or who have a work need for hand guns (e.g. armored car drivers etc.). That is fine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10634  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 9:17 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 10,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
What that says is we need to make inroads in ensuring gun owners are trained in properly securing their weapons and ensuring they are properly stored when not in use. Perhaps restrict access to guns beyond what is needed.

We have individuals that has a legitimate need or desire to have hunting weapons or who have a work need for hand guns (e.g. armored car drivers etc.). That is fine.
Laws around gun storage are pretty strict. But they aren't really enforced or verified. Can you imagine if the RCMP started knocking on doors of registered license holders to verify their firearm storage? Gun nuts would be lighting their hair on fire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10635  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 9:24 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 2,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Laws around gun storage are pretty strict. But they aren't really enforced or verified. Can you imagine if the RCMP started knocking on doors of registered license holders to verify their firearm storage? Gun nuts would be lighting their hair on fire.
Yes they are very strict but as has been pointed out criminals don’t follow laws. Just like the requirement that Trudeau wants, for people to get permits to transport registered weapons between the shooting range and home. In the end only legal owners will bother getting the license when they take them out anyway so this does nothing to stop criminals but does harass legal owners. More than 10% of our population has a gun license you and I may not understand the appeal but obviously it’s popular and we should respect the minority. Just like I don’t understand why certain asian ethnicities need a sword
or why certain Indian ones need to put candles everywhere once a year. Also as has been pointed out many many times Canada has bears and wolves and those who don’t live in a city need defence. Feel free to google man eaten by wolf or bear in Canada to see examples.

Also things like banning the ar-15. I can buy a .50 caliber anti material sniper rifle that can shoot down planes/helicopters but I can’t buy a popular semi automatic rifle because it looks scary in movies. The AR-15 is popular because it’s reliable and accurate pushing people to different guns is making gun use more dangerous not less. The problem is that our gun laws are decided by people who have never used a gun based on what they see in movies. It’s pretty obvious which gun is more dangerous from the below. Even the US restricts the .50 lol. The RCMP have given recommendations for our gun laws and the federal government has generally tossed them in the trash and instead brought in someone who has never used a gun to base laws on what sounds good to him.


Last edited by misher; Nov 17, 2019 at 9:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10636  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 9:40 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,275
You need the .50 calibre to kill deer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10637  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 10:38 PM
Northern Light Northern Light is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
Yes they are very strict but as has been pointed out criminals don’t follow laws. Just like the requirement that Trudeau wants, for people to get permits to transport registered weapons between the shooting range and home. In the end only legal owners will bother getting the license when they take them out anyway so this does nothing to stop criminals but does harass legal owners. More than 10% of our population has a gun license you and I may not understand the appeal but obviously it’s popular and we should respect the minority. Just like I don’t understand why certain asian ethnicities need a sword
or why certain Indian ones need to put candles everywhere once a year. Also as has been pointed out many many times Canada has bears and wolves and those who don’t live in a city need defence. Feel free to google man eaten by wolf or bear in Canada to see examples.

Also things like banning the ar-15. I can buy a .50 caliber anti material sniper rifle that can shoot down planes/helicopters but I can’t buy a popular semi automatic rifle because it looks scary in movies. The AR-15 is popular because it’s reliable and accurate pushing people to different guns is making gun use more dangerous not less. The problem is that our gun laws are decided by people who have never used a gun based on what they see in movies. It’s pretty obvious which gun is more dangerous from the below. Even the US restricts the .50 lol. The RCMP have given recommendations for our gun laws and the federal government has generally tossed them in the trash and instead brought in someone who has never used a gun to base laws on what sounds good to him.

Based on your posted views here, you personally should not be allowed near a firearm of any kind.

No swords either!

As to your various points, lets be clear, no one has a right to personal amusement, and you need neither are AR-15, nor a handgun to protect yourself from a bear or a wolf.

Gun laws here are not strict when compared with those in Australia, the UK, Japan or a host of other countries.

The suggestion they are comes from ignorance and a comparison made solely with the United States which shouldn't ever be a comparison in this space given its absurd levels of gun violence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10638  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 10:41 PM
Northern Light Northern Light is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Laws around gun storage are pretty strict. But they aren't really enforced or verified. Can you imagine if the RCMP started knocking on doors of registered license holders to verify their firearm storage? Gun nuts would be lighting their hair on fire.
Amongst the many rules in Japan, you have to prove you have a gun safe, and the police will come to your home or other legal place of storage to inspect it before any permit is issued.

I think its a perfectly reasonable rule.

Another would be that police have the absolute right to demand to see the safe without a warrant and to require a permit holder to produce the weapon on demand (to prove it hasn't been stolen, sold, or improperly stored); no warrant required.

(to be clear, I'm not suggesting the police randomly stop by at 2am, but that they can have an appointment w/the owner present on short notice on demand)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10639  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 10:56 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,539
The Liberal Senator Group has been disbanded as many need to retire this year. What are the implications?

Also I thought someone told me that the Senate's supposed to be non-partisan???
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10640  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 11:02 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
The Liberal Senator Group has been disbanded as many need to retire this year. What are the implications?

Also I thought someone told me that the Senate's supposed to be non-partisan???
Senators get appointed by the Governor General based on the direction of the PM and can keep their position until they are 75. My understanding is that they've historically been considered inherently partisan because they're chosen by the PM. Once they're appointed they can align themselves as they please, but theoretically the PM should be able to predict their future alignment somewhat. Justin Trudeau could pick somebody who's been a Liberal party hack for 30 years for example.

Stephen Harper left a bunch of senate seats open and Justin Trudeau claimed that he filled those positions using an open merit-based process. I am not sure if it really was open and meritocratic. I've heard some people praise the move and others claim that they were all de facto Liberal appointments.

We could have elected senate seats and the PM could then respect the result of the elections and appoint the winners. But I don't think this would really fix anything since we still have the feudalism-inspired quasi appointee for life system. I think there might be something to the idea that it's good to have a senate to provide "sober second thought" with members who serve on a longer timescale but there needs to be accountability.

The kind of behaviour you get when you appoint somebody to a cushy job for 12 years:

Quote:
Nancy Ruth said she’s “not particularly” worried about her expenses, but doesn’t think the auditor general’s office understands the nature of her work.

“I think Senate business is very broad. I’m a feminist activist so my angle on Canadian life is to look at gender-based analysis on policy and things like that. I don’t think the auditor general particularly considers that Senate business.”

She said most of the auditors’ follow-up questions were about meals on planes.

“Most of the questions are not very sophisticated, nor do they really have anything to do with Senate business. If I eat cold camembert and a soda cracker is that Senate business? Don’t ask,” she said.
Source

I'd guess her annual compensation including pension and research/office fund was around $4-5M for her 12 years of service. Roughly $300,000 a year in salary and expenses plus pension. She was present in the senate for a total of 72 days in 2016.
__________________
flickr

Last edited by someone123; Nov 17, 2019 at 11:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:11 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.