Tracey Wilson is the VP of Public Relations for the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, a registered lobbyist. She’s an avid hunter and sport shooter. She resides in Ottawa and enjoys spending time with her children and grandson at the range and hunting camp.
Canadian gun owners find themselves in turmoil, once again being threatened with forced confiscation of their legally acquired property. Why? Because we have a Liberal government, again, who will do anything they think pleases their voters and possibly gains them a wedge issue to add more voters onto their team, by any means necessary.
The 30th anniversary of Canada’s worst multiple victim mass shooting has come and gone. The memorials to the 14 women who lost their lives on December 6, 1989 were packed with people, standing in solidarity, honouring these victims. This is as it should be.
So why bans now? One answer–the outrage mob, and the Liberals are happy to bend a knee to it. Anti-gun lobby groups have been applying tremendous pressure on the government to ban semi-auto firearms for months leading up to the anniversary; it’s paid off. They have a promise from the Liberal elite that they will finally punish gun owners for that decades-old-crime by banning the type of gun used in the shooting, and others like it. The “list” of guns on the government’s radar has not been published as of yet, but gun owners wait with bated breath to see if theirs are on the list.
The idea of picking and choosing guns from a list due to their notoriety shows Canadians this isn’t about public safety; it’s about pacifying the rage mob. The infamous Ruger Mini 14 that was used that fateful day was never again used in a mass shooting, in fact mass shootings are rare in Canada and hunters and ranchers have used the Mini 14 for decades since then without issue. It’s a semi auto, magazine-fed hunting style rifle that is affordable, easy to clean and reliable. It functions the same as any other semi auto rifle, and in Canada they are all pinned to a maximum of five rounds of ammunition.
So, the Liberal plan is to skim through the FRT (Firearms Reference Table), a list of guns in Canada, consult with the outrage mob, and pluck this gun or that one and put them on “the list” according to their notoriety alone. Imagine crafting policy about anything else in this manner.
What of drunk driving? Ban the Toyota Corolla or the Honda Civic because they are involved in the most fatal accidents? Or maybe ban Vodka and Whiskey because they are the vector most often used? This kind of policy development almost seems infantile to those who understand what they are actually doing.
The outlier here is the AR-15, likely the most misunderstood rifle of all time, a gun that has never been used for a mass shooting in this country. We found one case of it being used in a crime. Louise Russo was shot during a botched mob hit at a North York sandwich shop in 2004. The mob hitman used a stolen AR-15. No licensed gun owner has ever committed a crime with one, ever, and no mass shootings were ever committed with one in Canada. But rest assured it’s on “the list”. 80,000 AR-15’s are owned across Canada by licensed, RCMP-vetted gun owners, every one of them registered, pinned to a maximum of five rounds and are confined to be used solely at RCMP approved ranges. Their downfall is their notoriety, nothing more.
The biggest tragedy of this entire mess is the resources and focus wasted on buying legal guns out of the safes of gun owners rather than investing that $600 million-plus in a credible way to combat crime.
None of that matters to a government who is content to trade it’s integrity, and your safety, for political cheap points. We are witnessing political theatre replacing evidence-based policy decisions.
The outrage mob celebrates, and Trudeau’s administration panders to them despite knowing better.
Thunder Bay’s MP, Marcus Powlowski, recently wrote a letter to Public Safety Minister, Bill Blair, regarding the government’s plan to ban military style rifles. The letter received a lot of attention from those opposing the ban and was circulated around the internet.
The letter was dated January 16 and included objections and concerns regarding the plan. Powlowski said that he wrote the letter to pass on views of his constituents. One supporter wrote that Powlowski is “standing up to his own party.”
“Over the course of the past three months, I have heard a wide variety of views on this proposed ban,” wrote Powlowski. “I believe it is my role to ensure that these views are brought to your attention for consideration.”
iPolitics reported that Powlowski has worked as a doctor with First Nation communities in northern Ontario for around two years. He has also acquired two degrees in law from Harvard University.
“Given that there is currently no legal definition for a ‘military assault rifle’ in Canada, some community members I have spoken with are skeptical that a ban based on this term would make sense as a coherent firearm policy,” the letter said.
“Such a term, as they see it, is more political than policy oriented, and seeks to target certain firearms without a rational basis.”
“For some hunters in my riding, a ban on ‘military style’ firearms would seem to arbitrarily target one forearm over another based on their appearance.”
Powlowski brought up the fact that “military style assault rifles” are frequently used for legal hunting reasons.
Many people have also brought up the fact that the ban will be directed at gun owners who obey the law and legally own their weapons as opposed to the criminals who obtain and use firearms illegally.
Glen Motz, the Alberta Conservative MP, has demanded in a House of Commons petition that the issue be debated in court. Part of the reasoning includes Bill Blair’s estimation that the ban will cost over $250 million.
Powlowski wanted to make it clear that he supports the platform but thought that the concerns should be passed on and considered.
He told iPolitics, “I’m completely behind the Liberal party’s policy,” he added, “I’m not a gun enthusiast, I’m just passing on the views of my constituents, it’s part of my job as a Member of Parliament on behalf of my constituents.”
The House of Commons petition against the Liberal gun ban has accumulated 93,683 signatures and counting. The petition has been open since Dec. 17, 2019 and closes on Feb. 15, 2020.
Trudeau cabinet’s Bill Blair has revealed that their gun control plan will be rolled out in a “multi-step process” which will include the prohibition of the sale of assault weapons.
While the Trudeau government aims to prohibit assault weapons quickly, other measures, they say, will take more time, including the partial handgun ban that will require talks between the federal and provincial governments, according to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair.
Trudeau had specifically called for the banning of “military-style assault weapons” during his 2019 campaign, with a primary focus on weapons that farmers “did not” need that were designed to kill “the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.”
Blair went on to tell reporters Tuesday that his government will implement their agenda on firearms as the steps become ready to implement by the federal government or by the country’s minority parliament.
“Our work is to reduce the supply of guns getting into the hands of criminals, but you also have to interdict the demand for those guns,” he said. “We have just gone through, for many communities across Canada, a very difficult summer last year. And so we want to make sure we are there for those communities and work in those communities to make substantive changes and investments that will help to keep them safe,” Blair told The Globe and Mail in Winnipeg.
Blair said that new rules being put in place “could be accomplished in the near term,” going on to say that programs like an assault weapon buyback “will take a little bit more time.”
When Prime Minister Trudeau was asked in September about those who would not want to participate in a gun buy-back and “making law-abiding citizens into criminals,” Trudeau did not give a direct answer.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been criticized for splashing out on gourmet doughnuts this week in Winnipeg, Manitoba, according to Global News.
The doughnuts in question were purchased at Oh Doughnuts, which, as discovered by True North Centre, cost an eye-watering $47 per dozen.
The owners of the restaurant, however, said that the $47 doughnuts were their “most elaborate, fancy doughnuts… which they didn’t get. They just got regular variety doughnuts.”
As well as this, the doughnut shop stated that Trudeau ordered the product online, resulting in a ten percent price decrease.
This, compared, to Canada’s favourite doughnut shop Tim Hortons, who sells doughnuts for less than ten dollars per dozen, will lead to questions about Trudeau’s inclination to fork out taxpayer money on unnecessary expenses for himself and his Liberal team, all while his government fights veterans and Indigenous people in court over money.
Justin Trudeau is in Winnipeg for a cabinet retreat where he re-groups with his executive in preparation for the upcoming parliament. Trudeau’s retreats have often been stamped as needlessly expensive. Take, for instance, the Liberal cabinet’s trip to St. John’s Newfoundland, where Trudeau visited the theatre, leaving Canadians to foot the tab.
As well as this, in 2018 Trudeau splurged on a cabinet retreat to Vancouver Island amid the on-going wild fire crisis in the province at the time.
Malaysia is intending to ship 150 containers of illegal waste back to the countries of origin. These countries include Australia, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada.
Malaysia’s Environment Minister Yeo Be Yin, told reporters that “it is not about money, it’s about dignity. When people dump garbage into your country, you are not supposed to pay them to send it back, you expect them to send it back by themselves.”
Yin further added that Malaysia will “stick to this line, we are going to send it back, and we are going to make people who export here and the shipping liners pay for it.”
Yin ended her speech by saying that this new policy “was unprecedented … we will hold the people to be responsible for their actions. They should be paying for the logistics.”
Yin’s comments may be seen as a provocation in what has been described as a “garbage war” by those in the media. Previously, tension rose as Canada sent non-recyclable trash to the Philippines that had been labelled as recyclable. Now, Malaysia is upset for similar reasons.
The garbage dispute between Canada and the Philippines got so bad that the leader of the country threatened to declare war if Canada did not allow the return of the garbage.