I’m 99% sure that O’Toole isn’t trying to remove Sloan because of the donation per se (although I’m also sure he doesn’t approve). Accepting the donation was simply a matter of volunteers not vetting it properly and not Sloan accepting the endorsement of Frumm, which you know these things happen. I think it is a convenient way to remove Sloan who is an embarrassment to the Conservative party. Sloan is definitely done. He can run as an independent, but the vote will split between him and whoever is the Conservative candidate, and they’ll both lose. I think Sloan might still run as an independent. He seems like the sort of loon who likes to hear himself talk.
While it’s theoretically possible Sloan knew about the donation, I’d agree it seems unlikely (it was a very small donation) and this is just a way to ditch him. He’s been an MP for less than a year and a half, and has already embarrassed the party several times and in no way helps them. There’s been calls to throw him out of the caucus for quite some time now.
Sloan is out.
The Conservative caucus voted to remove Derek Sloan not because of one specific event, but because of a pattern of destructive behaviour involving multiple incidents and disrespect towards the Conservative team for over a year," he said.
“These actions have been a consistent distraction from our efforts to grow the party and focus on the work we need to do. Events of the past week were simply the last straw and led to our caucus making the decision it did today.”
I appreciate O’Toole saying that it wasn’t just this incident, which we all knew was the case, but rather Sloan being a continuous thorn in the side of the party.
Thanks for the reference - I did take a moment to read it.
Key takeaway is Phase 1 has NO mention of prisoners, inmates, prisons, or correctional facilities
- Residents and staff of congregate living settings that provide care for seniors
- Adults 70 years of age and older, beginning with adults 80 years of age and older, then decreasing the age limit by 5-year increments to age 70 years as supply becomes available
- Health care workers (including all those who work in health care settings and personal support workers whose work involves direct contact with patients)
- Adults in Indigenous communities where infection can have disproportionate consequences
However, the recommendation for Phase 2 Vaccine administration, following the completion of phase 1 does explicitly include:
- Residents and staff of all other congregate settings (e.g., quarters for migrant workers, correctional facilities, homeless shelters)
And once again, to belabour my point, which none of you seem to understand is that this is not about whether people “merit” receiving a vaccine, it is about the priority in which the vaccines are given.
I will conclude my discussion by saying the best and brightest minds in the government have all agreed that correctional facilities get vaccinated in Phase 2.
The fact that the Federal government has decided to go against their own experts is embarrassing.
End of story.
Try reading it again more carefully. End of story.
Is there anything in the new gun control legislation that will make a real difference?
I would say unlikely. I think this was actually a fumble by Trudeau and Blair. By trying to make a compromise, he’s managed to make legislation that will make every side upset, and have limited effect. By making the buy back optional, all of the people we might want to not have the firearms won’t turn them in. The only people who will would be people who wanted to get rid of their firearms in the first place, or people concerned that the buy back will become mandatory in the future. This is probably going to be small numbers. So people who actually wanted these weapons banned will not be happy. Meanwhile, the firearms in question cannot be used in anyway. They’re wall hangers now. So the pro-ownership side won’t be happy. Of course, someone who owns such a weapon and decides to use it in a murder spree, will simply take it off the wall. So they didn’t solve that problem. The optional handgun ban punts the issues to the cities so that the Liberal gov’t can say “Hey, we didn’t ban them.” and again neither side of the issue will have any difficulty seeing through this. I’d have to give them an F.
From what I’ve read it’s going to kill Airsoft in Canada. “looks like spooky weapons”
This is just another bill to throw sand into the gears of legal gun owners and will actually do nothing to combat handgun deaths. But cities will have the option to ban them, so that should stop criminals from purchasing illegal handguns.
For myself, I find it hard to get upset over a voluntary buy back scheme for assault weapons. The fewer assault weapons out there, the better I feel.
The Conservative press is scraping the barrel bottom for things to be miffed by, at this point, in my opinion. Much like the indefensible vaccinating of the clearly unworthy at risk prisoners.
One teeny tiny step on assault weapon control, and compassion for the wrong people!
The horror, the horror!
You mean semi-automatic weapons, only the military/police has fully automatic weapons. Semi-autos are useful hunting weapons. It’s hand guns that’s doing most of the killing.
I agree, but it feels like a limping half-of-a-baby step instead of anything meaningful. I would predict that almost nobody will take advantage of the government’s offer. It is a shame because I would like to see these weapons banned entirely.
And that was the point of my post above. People who wanted some serious additional measure won’t be very happy with the legislation as it is toothless. And people who think that people should be allowed to have them won’t be happy because while they can be owned, they cannot be used.
It really feels like the worst of both worlds. I suspect that the reason for the changes are:
1- Cost. The government just spent a LOT of money, and continuing to spend a LOT of money during the pandemic. A mandatory buy back would have been expensive.
2- The Highly Probable Election Later This Year. While any hope of getting votes in AB or SK is futile for the Liberals, not all gun owners are in AB and SK. This watered down legislation lets them have some hope of retaining some gun owner votes in ONT and PQ (and elsewhere of course).
I’m very disappointed by the outcome. Not as disappointed as I was with the failure to introduce election reform, but disappointed none-the-less.
If you think taking guns makes people safer, you could do what New Zealand did and make it mandatory to hand back models perceived as dangerous; not just optional. Guns are in circulation or they are not. Don’t say it couldn’t be done.
If you think guns in cities are the problem, giving power to municipalities does not solve anything. Municipalities are also subject to provincial rule - and Alberta and Sask. have given blanket no’s. The above thread has made a strong case responsible gun owners are not the biggest problem. They did it. In six months.
The laws in place are probably strong enough, but do not and will not prevent misuse. These new laws will annoy many on both sides while allowing the government to claim others had the power to act. These laws seem worse than nothing, since they prevent better or more impactful legislation.
Unsure what effect this would have on city dwellers voting Liberal vs. Conservative in the future after things happen. Possibly annoy both?
Nothing was posted here. I don’t know what you’re talking about? 
[whistles innocently]
Sorry just a general reply. Perhaps I hit the wrong reply button.
No worries. It was after my response and seemed to be addressing what I had posted. 
I think that’s exactly what will happen. A bill with limited effect that will annoy everybody. I think he just shot himself in the foot, and he should have stuck to his guns.
(Look at that two guns puns in one sentence! Go me!)
Maybe he didn’t want to deal with the problem of millions of gun owners refusing to turn in their guns. Look st the compliance rate for the federal gun registry. Millions of guns went unregistered. Since those guns are not registered, they probably won’t be turned in either. This will make criminals out of many otherwise law abiding Canadians and help weaken the rule of law.
This was always feel-good legislation that would do zero to stop crimes, just like the gun registry. The more watered down it is, the better. Even better would have been to set a match to it.
This is also a big deflection from the real problem, which is that we are developing the kinds of inner city gang problems Americans have been failing to deal with for decades. Murder rates are always tied to violence in big cities. But that’s a wicked hard problem to solve, so let’s just take rifles away from farmers instead and pat ourselves on the back for ‘doing something’.
Also, getting people talking about this helps to stop them talking about how Canada is something like 50th in the world now for COVID vccinations, almost completely due to the failures of the Federal Government.
That’s really all it is though. A feeling. It will likely have no effect at all on your safety or anyone else’s.
Canada’s problem with gun violence, such as it is, is with handguns being smuggled in. That problem is much harder to solve, though, so they’re trying to make you feel better with silly theatrics.
Agreed. I believe a big part of the problem is single parent homes, where kids drop out of school and fall into the wrong crowds. Keeping families intact, ensure kids finish school and don’t start families when they aren’t financially and emotionally ready for it will solve a lot handgun violence.