Monday, January 02, 2006

Hidden Agenda

Last election, the CPC platform was rolled out on a Saturday and kept out of sight. This time around, Harper is shouting it from the hilltops.

Here are the Top 5 CPC priorities:

1. Ban gay marriage
2. Bring in abortion legislation
3. Send our troops to...

Sorry, my bad...that was the e-mail from the Liberal war room. Here's what Harper announced today:

1. Cleaning up government by passing the Federal Accountability Act
2. Cutting the GST
3. Cracking down on crime
4. Increasing financial assistance for parents
5. Working with the provinces to establish a wait-times guarantee for patients

For what it's worth, I really like the Federal Accountability Act. I'm not big on the GST cut or the childcare cheques. As for numbers three and five, I guess Harper is just trying to "out Martin" Martin when it comes to vague pie in the sky promises with no real substance.

But it's really irrelevant as to whether or not people like these policies (although people liking them would obviously help). The important thing is that Harper is laying his cards on the table and it's going to be almost impossible to launch the "hidden agenda" attack this time around. By picking priorities he looks decisive next to Dithers, and it tells people that this is what he'll be focusing on if elected, rather than the scary so-con agenda people are afraid of.


  • Two latent effects of the Libs saying for the last year that the CPC has a hidden agenda:

    1) It creates a build up in demand for the agenda and a lot of attention when its released, and

    2)They lowered the expectations for the CPC so much that anything they released will be better than what the public has been anticipating.

    Yet another example of the Libs short-term focus to staying in power.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:37 p.m.  

  • There's video of Harper's address this morning on CTV's Election website, 20 minutes of it. Worth watching.

    These guys know EXACTLY what they are doing, and why.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:10 p.m.  

  • There isn't a Liberal I know anywhere in Canada who doesn't feel the Liberals will be better off in the wilderness for a few years while the rot and dead wood that set into the Party is cleared out. I predict a Conservative majority with the NDP or Bloc forming the Opposition.

    By Blogger except for one thing..., at 2:22 p.m.  

  • Who is "Joe Green" Mr. Calgary Grit?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:32 p.m.  

  • CG, good show... you're a Liberal, but balanced, fair, and you actually look at the issues, instead of just spouting talking points. You're the kind of Liberal I like. :-) That's why you're on my "I read twice or more times a day" list.

    Keep up the good work. And stay involved, no matter who wins. If the Tories win, make sure you keep blogging... if we all start working together, maybe we really can make this country better.

    A card carrying Conservative,

    By Blogger Christian Conservative, at 2:39 p.m.  

  • Joe Green, I suspect to much of the green stuff is effecting your judgment. What kind if idiotic babble post is that . You need to take it easy and get more sleep.......

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:41 p.m.  

  • It appears that Mr. Green is just another troll, sniper of\r drive-by shooter. He has chosen to hide his Blogger profile, so we can't even see what blog he operates (if any)and what he proposes ... as opposed to what he tears down.

    Mr. Green, the CPC Policy Declaration was published in May of 2005. It's quite comprehensive, clear and, very important to you, doesn't contain any big words that could be construed as supporting "a hidden agenda".

    It's here for download, if you want a copy:

    If you choose to discuss the published CPC platform, then let's do it. Otherwise, your efforts to invent CPC positions, hidden agendas and whatnot are merely figments of your imagination.

    In the meantime, if you have any convictions, let us know your blog so that we can see the depth (if any) of your thinking and writing. And see what other fairy tales are out there in the blogsphere.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:01 p.m.  

  • Good speech.

    Also effective in summing up the Conservative platform for those voters who, unlike us, are just tuning into the campaign and haven't been paying attention to the policy-a-thon before the holidays.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:04 p.m.  

  • I have to agree with Christian Conservative. You're always fair, balanced and for the most part non-partisan. You are truly progressive (= ability to keep an open mind about new and different ideas), unlike the majority of bloggers of "progressive" persuasion.

    But you know why this is? Because you are an Alberta-flavoured Liberal, as I call it. Most Liberal candidates I know in Calgary don't like the federal party much either (i.e., the eastern and central Canadian component), and they're running for the Liberals because they want to inject more of that Alberta flavour into the federal party.

    Most Liberal candidates in Alberta are in fact Red Tories (Ted Haney is one of many examples); some of them are very worthy candidates, but they'll lose because they are running under the wrong banner ;-)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:43 p.m.  

  • You know, I realize that as Liberals, most coming here wouldn't probably think much of Harpers Childcare cheque, or his GST cut, but on the otherside, Harpers keeping the expectations low, and creating some stepping stones to build on.

    I believe the Accountability Act is extremely important as a first step towards wresting the government back for the people. The rest is fluff, but better to see some fluff implemented to the betterment of the people, than convoluted programs that either don't work, or never come to fruition.

    Martin has had twelve years to keep promises, and he's really shit the bed overall. I'd like to see Government working for a couple of years.

    It's middle of the road, feel good stuff Harpers peddling, but at least its doable.

    Joe Green, you are somewhat right, the agenda is being hijacked by Separatist's, in the hopes that they can find a reason to be in Canada. Democracy is threatened in this country like it never has before. I confess I'm leaning to a separatist agenda myself here in Alberta.

    My belief in Confederation is at a level so low I didn't even think was possible to reach, and I need a reason.

    I need a reason to believe in Confederation, in the democratic process which is sorely lacking in this country.

    Should I stand idle while the nation blithy moves forward knowing full well that I as an Albertan have 1/4 the voting power of someone in PEI.

    Shall I sit and tolerate a Quebec that continually grandstands a better, and better deal, while children get no lunch in school.

    Should I accept that less than 40% of the country routinely votes in the incumbent government, and 60% of those votes come from one province.

    Should I stand back and accept the continual wasting of our hard earned dollars on the flights of fancy by "head in the cloud" Liberals... (I mean no disrepect to the mainstream libs there, I speak of the ruling elite).

    No, I can't do that anymore, and this election is the one which sets the tone for the flavor of my vote for the foreseeable future.

    I personally cannot accept another whitewash government spending my tax dollars with no plan.

    I need hope, many like me need hope,and to see Paul Martin back in will truely be the kickoff for me. It will tell me that Canadians don't give a damn, and that Alberta will never get satisfaction.

    Harper will at least give me pause, and maybe hope.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 3:45 p.m.  

  • Only Joe Green could make, by comparison, look moderately leftist.

    Good grief.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:25 p.m.  

  • Somebody's been channeling David Orchard again.

    By Blogger Michael, at 6:00 p.m.  

  • I feel it's my duty to keep Liberals up to date on Paul Martin's top priorities.

    To that end, the CPC generously has compiled an exhaustive list of all of 'em.

    And remember those words of wisdom:

    “If you have 40 priorities, you don't have any.”

    - Prime Minister Paul Martin, CTV Question Period, January 4, 2004

    I guess he can't count, either.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:19 p.m.  

  • Me and my guys at FMC are going to kick some CPC ass in the next couple of weeks.

    It is very, very, very important that all Canadians have type of Canada they deserve, a Liberal Canada!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:26 p.m.  

  • I'm Joe Green #2 and I have no connection to that other guy! Please don't confuse me with that wierdo.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:38 p.m.  

  • Er, how exactly does stating a public agenda contradict the fears of many Canadians that Harper has a hidden agenda? If Duceppe suddenly said that his top agenda is giving milk to starving kittens, would we stop believing he wants Quebec independence? That's just as dumb as what you're suggesting here, because people don't change so radically as Harper would have you think. I don't buy Hillary Clinton's conversion to Christianity, and likewise I don't believe for one second that Harper is remotely as moderate as he now pretends to be. Conversions for the sake of appearing "electable" are so phony, and I'm pretty sad to see how you've fallen for it in such an acute fashion.

    Go read Harper's 1997 speech again, and ask yourself if you really think such a person can change their long-held political philosophy so dramatically in less than a decade? Yes, I know a Martin Liberal leaked it in an unethical way, but just re-read the bloody thing again regardless of that. If you think that his conversion is genuine, than you're a hell of a lot more gulliable than me. Which is your right, I suppose, but I value the things that Harper and his crew are trying to destroy about Canada. Your (justified) hatred of Paul Martin is blinding you to those very real consequences, and I hope more Canadians are not likewise tricked.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:03 p.m.  

  • I've read the full contents of the 97 speech... I have no issue with his change in stance, as there is only a centerist shift. Remember, things were a little tenser under the reform party.

    Stephens ok, and that speech was fairly benign, and directed with a fair dose of humor.

    I read the red book too... none of it came true either.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 8:16 p.m.  

  • Ryan, Considering that the Liberals brought us Adscam, a $2 billion POS gun registry, a healthcare system that tortures/kills thousands daily, a DND that is a national disgrace, divided the country to the point that about half of it is ready to bail because they can't stand this endless bull**** any longer, yada yada yada yada...

    I just about puke when I read/hear someone trying to make voting for the thieving, lying clowns who who have inflicted this crap on this country sound somehow intellectually sophisticated.

    "I'm supporting a bunch of proven morons/thugs/thieves/liars because Harper is 'scary'. How do I know he's scary? Because the morons/thugs/thieves/liars keep telling me he is."

    $40,000,000 of taxpayers' money not even traceable...but Harper and the CPC are "scary".

    Gomery testimony that Mario Puzo could adapt to his next "Godfather" sequel...but Harper and the CPC are "scary".

    $2,000,000,000 gassed on registering duck hunting guns, while drug dealing gangsters wage war on urban streets a la the OK Corral...but Harper and the CPC are "scary".

    Yeah, right...maybe to anyone with an IQ in the high 50s.

    All this crap going on...and the best a Liberal policy convention can come up with is legalizing smoke dope and prostitution.

    But Harper and the CPC are "scary", eh?


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:34 p.m.  

  • Joe Calgary, springer: you offer a false dichotomy, which is probably similar to Calgary Grit's issues with Martin. Just because the Liberals were corrupt, or just because Grit loathes Martin's leadershop does not affect in any direction the relative "scariness" of Harper. The issues are utterly unrelated at all.

    Perhaps you don't have an issue with Harper's speech. If you don't have a problem with it, I'm not going to tell you not to vote for him. Who else should the radical right in Canada vote for? What I'm talking about is the sudden and dramatic transition that Harper pretends to have given between 1997 and today. It's utter BS.

    If anyone tries to say that Martin will suddenly become decisive and unwavering and principled -- that's BS. If Layton were to suddenly convert and preach the joys of world trade and multinational companies, that would be BS. If Duceppe tried to pretend he didn't care about Quebec independence... well, you get the point. People are who thy are and don't change dramatically overnight.

    In the rare cases where people do change their core principles, they make a solid point of it: if Harper was truly different than his former self, why not say that he no longer feels the same way that he did in 1997? But no, he dimissed it as a "joke". If you ask me, the joke is on anyone who falls for that nonsense.

    In my opinion, the position of Prime Minister in Canada is exceptionally powerful, even in a minority government situation they hold too much power for people to trust in a sudden about-face.

    Think about it this way: I bet you'd believe as I do that Harper is a principled person and Martin is not. Principled people act in princpled ways, even if you don't agree with them you can count on them to act the way that is true to their nature. Martin is a part panderer and part populist and the rest of him is just trying to cling to his power by any means neccessary. But Harper will stick to his true nature, because that is the sort of guy he is. The "hidden agenda" we fear from Harper is that he honestly believes in his die-hard conservative ideas and will strive to implement them if given the chance.

    Radical conservatives that want to see the US Republican agenda implemented in Canada might like that sort of princpled person, I don't blame you if you do. But I for one don't want to see this in Canada. If Canada is to move radically to the right, should it not by explicit choice and not by some electoral trick where Harper pretends to be someone he's not before taking power?

    I don't blame Calgary Grit for disliking Martin so, there is a lot to dislike -- something I freely admit even as I'm planning to vote for his party. But just because of his poor leadership and the many problems of past Liberal governments, this does not change the facts of Harper's true personality or his "hidden agenda". Hate Martin without you too pretending that Harper is someone he's very obviously not.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:50 a.m.  

  • Any time I see anyone refer to Prime Minister Martin as "Dithers" in a post, I tend to discount it. The word is used intentionally for it's affective connotation, suggesting a less that objective analysis.

    By Blogger Psychols, at 1:43 a.m.  

  • Ryan, I've read just about everything I can find on Harper, historical and personally authored. The two biographies are next on my list, although I expect to learn little new in either of them.

    He is, IMHO, the most intelligent and capable candidate for Prime Minister this country has seen in living memory, of this I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

    Trudeau just came within a hair of being voted our greatest Canadian...and his political evolution, by comparison, makes Harper's look absolutely inconsequential. But then Trudeau was a socialist/leftwinger, and Harper is not...which seems to make everything okay as far as Trudeau and his like are concerned.

    The 1997 speech is mostly satirical...most of which I found both humorous and, unfortunately, also too appropriate.

    I'll tell you what's really "scary":

    It's living in a country that considers itself some sort of holy bastion of freedom, democracy, and decency to the entire world...and especially where Americans are concerned...

    That can't even find the moral rectitude to rid itself of the worst, most contemptable, most arrogant, most incompetant, and singularly most corrupt government in its entire history.

    And why? Just plain greed and selfishness is why. Worried about losing their place at the government teat of what has become one of the world's premier nanny state of snivelers and whiners. Worried the gravy train of gobs of cash and resourses from out west may get derailed. Worried that Ontario's hegemony over the entire nation may get pared back. Worried that demanding more than mere mediocrity in this country may be just too damn much hassle.

    Political scientists in other nations actually laugh at the suggestion Harper is a "rightwing conservative". One from Australia recently observed that Stephen Harper would be considered to the left of Tony Blair, most US Democrats, and certainly in comparison to the Prime Ministers of both Australia and New Zealand.

    It's not that Harper is so "rightwing"...

    It's that this country of ours has slid that far down the path of state socialism that nobody any longer remembers what actual "conservatism" even remotely resembles.

    But most it's that Canadians have been brainwashed and conditioned into thinking that the "state" is everything, and the "individual" is suberviant to the point of irrelevance.

    Canada has become the world's first...and, thankfully, only...Mediocracy.

    The only place where "average" is esteemed, and "greatness" is scorned.

    How inspiring.

    How typically "Canadian".

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:59 a.m.  

  • I started off this election staunchly opposed to the CPC, mostly because of their myopic obsession with rolling back same-sex marriage. As time went on and I started reading the blogs and getting more involved in reading policy from both parties (I don't consider the NDP to be anything close to a viable alternative considering the mess that they've made of Saskatchewan) I have found myself moving more and more towards the CPC.

    It doesn't help, of course, that my CPC candidate has been running an offensive and ridiculous 'survey' in which he attacks same-sex marriage as nothing less than the destruction of the family unit.

    I don't know if I'm getting old or just plain cynical, but I find that the big 'moral' issues don't concern me quite so much as the state of our healthcare system or the complete dismantlement of our military. We always get big promises from the Libs on these and other issues of national concern, but for all the big spending that they announce, for all the bluster coming from Ottawa, I don't see any changes.

    Whatever happened to attacking the 'democratic deficit' in this country?

    I guess the point of this longwinded post is this:

    What's more important: standing firm on a moral issue that doesn't affect me one iota, or voting for a party that will bring change and potential to acutally do some good for the country?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:46 a.m.  

  • Joe Green,

    You don't know what fascism even is, do you? You better go look it up in the encylopedia.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:14 a.m.  

  • Joe Green, apparently your a piss poor Catholic as well.

    As a Catholic myself, I've only one thing to say... "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Oh and, "man shall have no judge above God himself"... or something like that.

    Anyway, it's not "Catholic" of you to be commenting in such a manner in relation to others and their Christian beliefs. As a good Catholic you should consider it unseemly.

    Besides, as a good Catholic, you should be encouraging a bullet in Castro's head since he's a communist and Catholics hate communists... least ways thats what my cousin the priest says.

    Of course he also says I'm going to burn in hell one day as well.

    Anyway, I can be right wing and not necessarily evanglistic. I think Billy Graham is an idiot, but then, I think Bishop Fred's a few bricks short of a load too. Regardless, you shouldn't attack a man's religion...

    Let him find out for himself that god is a women.

    Oh, and having now read over 80 Harper speech's, some dating from the early 90's, I see no true divergence in his beliefs or message. Remember, a man's beliefs are one thing, his parties are another. I will admit he down play's things he has said in the past, but Martin has made looking hypocritical an art form, so I won't hold that against Stephan.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 12:27 p.m.  

  • Joe, you are so full of s***, it's simply not worth responding to...especially regarding our DND, of which about 6 studies over the last two years have invoked such terms as "rust out", "beyond the point of no return", and "bordering on collapse" to describe its disasterous state.

    Haven't come across anyone who insists upon being so remarkably wrong this side of for a long, long time...and hopefully won't again any time soon.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:30 p.m.  

  • Oh Joe Green, I forgot to mention, the Catholic church is all about politics, and if you think that the Church endorses staying aloft of secular government, time for you to go back to the religious studies class' bucko.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 12:34 p.m.  

  • Joe, I don't know if you noticed or not, but your posted definition of fascism pretty much outlines the behaviour of the LPC in recent years. To suggest that in this federal election the LPC is the only choice because of past corruption in provincial conservative governments is ridiculous. Grant Divine and his ministers lining their pockets somehow exonerates the federal libs filth??? Take your meds Joe, Take your meds.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:45 p.m.  

  • Joe Green,

    Just to humor myself, I'll respond to you. Firstly, your right, I'm not a liberal, and I belive you'll see that I've in no way in any of my postings attempted any deception in that regard. I'm probably more of what's called a Red Tory. Point of fact, if you click on "Joe Calgary", it will take you to some of my more rabid tory rantings.

    Secondly, I am a Catholic, in fact, I'm a really bad Catholic, but unfortunately for you, I've got the baptismal cert. to prove it. In fact, my family is so Catholic, they gave Toronto it's first ever Bishop, and at least several Catholic churchs in Calgary alone are a direct result of the amounts of money my great Aunt gave to the Church. Hell, she chucked so much at them they made her a Duchess of the Church. I unfortunately am not that devoted... and if you think for a minute that the Catholic Church is an innocent lamb... I'll repeat myself, back to bible school for you chum. Regardless, God and I can decide the merits of my disdain for my religion... not you. I just keep that handy "Jesus save me" phrase for when I arrive at Dante' hell. Great thing about Catholism, once your in your always in, whether you will it or no.

    In regards to Gun Control, unfortunately for you, I've actually done a white paper up on the subject, and know it very intimately. So I'll enlighten you, please feel free to ask questions...

    Anyway Given the fact that over $2 billion has been spent at an annual cost running into the tens of millions, each registration by owner costs about $900 for every $100 spent by a user per annum. Put another way, each firearm cost the Federal Government an average of roughly $300 to process at $31 per registration per gun per year. On top of that, it is an incomplete database.

    Theoretically, the gun registry costs more than all the guns in this country combined.

    Gun related crime actually increased since the programs inception, and hardly any firearms retrieved from gun related homicides have ever been registered.

    In July of 2005, Deputy Prime Minister Ann McCellan announced the program had successfully prevented a little over 2000 applicants from receiving license’s for firearms, and that the nations police had made over 20 million inquiries to the register. This, she proclaimed, was proof the program was money well spent.

    The same day she made the announcement, the gun related homicide statistics for the province of Alberta were released announcing that they were up in 2005 by 33% over the entire year of 2004. Only a small percentage of the firearms used were registered.

    The program’s success is obviously highly debatable.

    The cost of the registry database is misrepresented as "information". If one considers having information on registered guns and law abiding gun owners the measurement of success, while ignoring gun crimes, unlawful gun distributions and the ever increasing use of guns in criminal behavior. Then one could say the program is a success.

    However, if one begins to take gun crimes, prevention of unlawful gun distribution, and the percentage of crimes involving guns as the measuring stick, (this being the published and stated goal of the CFP) then the program is a failure.

    The registry "information" is wrongly promoted as gun control where there are no mechanisms, implementations or even a means of "control". The originally proposed cost of $2 million is fair to create and manage the run registry. The cost of $2.3 billion is a result of "trial and error" based on misunderstanding a bad design, while attempting to make the database a source of information and information as control.

    Where did it all go wrong?

    Simply put, the Government had the right idea to commence on a program, namely the gathering of all pertinent information regarding who owns what guns.

    Raymond V. Hession, who was contracted by the Federal Government to do an independent evaluation of the program, summed where the program failed best. He stated categorically in 2003;

    “The first baseline forecast suggesting that the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) would cost taxpayers only about two million dollars in excess of the fee income it would generate was plainly based on flawed assumptions. The technical requirements and business processes that were developed to implement the stipulated functions of Bill C-68 (Firearms Act) proved to be dauntingly complex.

    And, the project struck to manage the development failed to prescribe the business process and technical architecture of the solution based on which it would be designed in detail, built, tested and rolled out. Without that full architectural expression, it was not feasible to do a proper estimate of development costs. Instead, the architecture evolved and, change-by-change, the project grew more complex. The development costs escalated.

    And, because the CFP was a wholly new venture for the department, there was very limited operational experience on which to draw as a check on the unintended deleterious effects of policy requirements on efficient program administration. The procurement method employed by the government allocated little performance risk to the two contractors who were asked to detail the design and build the solution. They did what they were told to do and billed accordingly”.

    Clearly, lack of understanding, and an unclear definition of what was attempting to be achieved, completely derailed what in essence is a very simple program.

    In other words from the beginning the IT companies controlled the whole process, they provided the hardware, developed the software and data processing, and maintained control over it leasing it back to the government. Every time a change was made, a charge was issued, driving up the operational costs of the CFC and the CFP. The costs were in the millions, and the government still did not own the hardware, software or data, this was still the property of the IT companies.

    It is apparent that in this case, large multi-national companies took complete advantage of the ignorance of the managers from the government side of the equation. As Eugene Plawiuk, an executive member of CUPE states:

    The result of all this outsourcing of computer technology for the CFP is the recommendation from Hennison that "to bring development costs under control, with the exception of normal application maintenance, no additional software functions should be added to the existing technical infrastructure." So when outsourcing fails once we try it again and when it fails again and cost overruns occur we now freeze the program.

    Like EDS, Team Centra benefited from outsourcing. "By joining forces with AMS, CGI has doubled its critical mass in both the United States and Europe. With 25,000 professionals and US$3 billion in revenue, CGI is one of the largest independent IT and BPO companies in the world," says their web page. And again they profited from cost overruns at CFP, just like EDS.

    He basically states that the P3 model deployed for this program was a complete wash, and that because of lack of technical expertise on the part of the Government, the large multi-nationals were able to lead the Government managers down the garden path, by not helping to educate them on what they were attempting, but rather allowing them to think they understood the end run goals of the program on the implementation side.

    This is confirmed in Hennsion’s report, although he states it in a much more diplomatic manner.

    The first baseline forecast suggesting that the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) would cost taxpayers only about two million dollars in excess of the fee income it would generate was plainly based on flawed assumptions. The technical requirements and business processes that were developed to implement the stipulated functions of Bill C-68 (Firearms Act) proved to be dauntingly complex.

    And, the project struck to manage the development failed to prescribe the business process and technical architecture of the solution based on which it would be designed in detail, built, tested and rolled out. Without that full architectural expression, it was not feasible to do a proper estimate of development costs. Instead, the architecture evolved and, change-by-change, the project grew more complex. The development costs escalated. And, because the CFP was a wholly new venture for the department, there was very limited operational experience on which to draw as a check on the unintended deleterious effects of policy requirements on efficient program administration. The procurement method employed by the government allocated little performance risk to the two contractors who were asked to detail the design and build the solution. They did what they were told to do and billed accordingly.

    The Federal Government made the mistake of assuming that because you have information at your fingertips, you have control. They commenced on design with an eye towards implementation, and discovered they hadn’t put enough into the planning stage, thusly forcing them to continue to go back to the developer companies to revamp this form or that, and those companies cheerfully took their marching orders without explaining the complexities that were mounting with the continual changes. They would just send a bill and do the change.

    This categorically shows that the implementation of a policy is a crucial if not the most important factor of enforcement. A conventional and political way of introducing policy would typically result in "putting the cart before the horse".

    Like "gun control" and most other policy implementations, they come to the conventional route of "information = control = enforcement" where "information" is misinterpreted as "control", and "control" is misunderstood as "enforcement". The control and enforcement are designed and applied based on the assumptions that law-abiding citizens are accounted for and would commit a majority of the gun crimes.

    Essentially, the Government succeeded in learning who legally owned guns… well they already knew that didn’t they? It’s sort of like going to buy a $19.99 toaster of which you already have one in the cupboard, and deciding instead to spend $1.9 million redesigning it so it came out to be the same $19.99 toaster you already owned.

    The government could have been doing what needed to be done before, which is admit that they FUCKED-UP, and instead throw some serious dough at enforcement, denial, and prosecution. Nope, the liberals went and poured more money into a flawed Gun Control program.

    This is about optics, plain and simple.

    What we emphasize in relation to the gun control program is the importance of trying to have people learn the costly lesson of what not to do in every aspect of the program. In the case of the CFP the design, development, implementation, deployment, and the risk management resulted in mistakes, and the cost of that has been clearly shown.

    Without knowing where to go, and how to get there, it is fair to say that the Government got on the wrong bus at the cost of $2 billion, and are still figuring out which direction to go.

    In relation to cost vs benefit vs control, It would have been cheaper and more effective to purchase a handgun for every Canadian over the age of 16. Then everyone would have a gun, every gun would be noted in the registry, and illegal gun distribution would effectively be eliminated because everyone would already own a gun.

    Most importantly, the database to store ownership information might cost around $20 million, and the Government would have spent less than a billion dollars.

    Irony has no limitation.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 6:31 p.m.  

  • Sorry, I meant to sum up that it is typically facist to continue down a path from which no positive result can occur. This is in no way me saying Liberals in Canada are facists, just some of the ruling elite tend to lean towards conduct that smacks of it sometimes, as in the case of the flawed gun control program.

    Oh and Joe Green,Communism is anethma to Catholism because Communism considers the Catholic Church one of the main stempoints for oppression. Therefore, by the very nature of the Catholic Church it must be eliminated simply because it denies God and the Pope. That was the point behind the "put a bullet in Castro' head". Personally, I couldn't care a less if he lived or died.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 6:45 p.m.  

  • Does anyone else have a mental picture of the vein in Joe's head just throbbing as he hammers out his ridiculous and shrill remarks?

    Banning guns entirely is a sure way to guarentee that only criminals have them. Or did you fail to notice that virtually all the gun violence in TO this year was perpetrated with illegally obtained firearms?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:29 a.m.  

  • Joe Green I didn't fail to mention it, it's not relevant. Don't misunderstand me, I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiments of Canadians, what I disagree with is the methodology employed to satisfy people using money poorly. There are better ways to control firearms, and a database registry is not going to do that. What about people with a genuine need for those firearms? It's easy for an urbanite to say "no one should have a gun", and in relation to city living I'd agree, but I spend alot of time on Indian Reserves, up north etc... and those people do have good reason to own a firearm, be it hunting, or pest control, or what have you.

    The truth is, the real target that is able to be controlled is the ammunition, but that's a diatribe for another day.

    Lets just agree to disagree on this.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:31 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home