adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Ottawa plans to launch controversial firearms buyback program during election year – CBC.ca

Published

 on


Ottawa is planning to roll out a mandatory buyback program for military-style firearms during the 2025 election year, after the program was delayed by Canada Post’s refusal to participate, sources say.

With only months to go before its launch, details of the vast logistical operation remain in flux, federal officials have told Radio-Canada.

The government likely will need to adapt the program on a province-by-province basis, due to its struggle to find partners willing to collect and transport AR-15s and other weapons that were banned in 2020.

Under the terms of that ban, an estimated 140,000 weapons in Canada cannot be used or sold until the government buys them back.

“No one is rushing to participate in the program,” said a federal government source who was not authorized to comment on the matter publicly.

The Liberals are planning to launch the program next year, even though their minority government will face confidence votes on its spring budget and the election must be called by September.

The Conservative Party and its leader Pierre Poilievre are firmly opposed to the buyback program, as are the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

One expert said the government is leaving itself little room to manoeuvre, given the risk of logistical problems, high costs and tensions with gun owners.

“The government will be facing problems that could slow down the implementation of the buyback program. It’s a risky move for the Liberals,” said Frédéric Boily, professor of political science at the University of Alberta.

An Alberta flag and a pro-firearms flag are displayed outside a rural residence near Crossfield, Alta., Tuesday, June 13, 2023. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)

Ottawa has been promising to launch this program ever since it banned the sale and use of 1,500 models of firearms on May 1, 2020. The buyback plan has the support of the gun control movement but faces stiff opposition from hunters and shooters.

“This seems to be a situation in which the Liberals promised a lot, and maybe they promised too much,” said Boily.

The government had to go back to the drawing board after Canada Post refused to collect banned weapons at its post offices, citing security concerns.

Canada Post is refusing to comment on the matter but sources within the organization said many post offices have little security, with no alarm systems or surveillance cameras.

“Zero,” said a Canada Post employee when asked to describe security at his post office in a small municipality. “The government is crazy if it thinks we can do this safely.”

A small rural post office in Quebec's Laurentians region.
A small rural post office in Quebec’s Laurentians region. (Philippe-Antoine Saulnier/Radio-Canada)

Ottawa was hoping gun owners would pack their unloaded weapons in boxes provided to them before bringing them back to Canada Post to be transported and destroyed.

But many warned that thieves would exploit lax security at post offices to steal high-powered weapons that fetch high prices on the black market.

Canada Post also worried about employees being exposed to angry confrontations with people who do not want to give up their guns.

In a media statement, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers said “our members’ health and safety must be a priority.”

Several government sources say Ottawa is still considering options to collect the banned weapons.

Ottawa might ask police for help with buyback program

Sources said Ottawa could vary how it runs the program regionally, depending on the willingness of provincial governments and local police to participate.

The government is looking at the possibility of working with law enforcement to collect weapons, despite the stated opposition to the program of some police groups and police chiefs. The provincial police services in Quebec and Ontario could be called upon to take part, said a federal source.

Sources also said the government is aware that using police officers to operate the buyback program is not the most effective use of policing resources; the federal government is considering the idea of ​​hiring private security firms.

The government is also considering creating “drop-off points” where owners could return their weapons.

A gun is displayed after being destroyed using a hydraulic press during a firearm buy-back collection event on July 04, 2019 in Wellington, New Zealand.
A gun is displayed after being destroyed using a hydraulic press during a firearm buy-back collection event on July 04, 2019 in Wellington, New Zealand. (Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

In New Zealand, where a semi-automatic buyback program was implemented in 2019, police organized hundreds of temporary collection points across the country where citizens could return their banned rifles.

Even though the government is reluctant to force Canada Post’s hand, sources said Ottawa still hopes the Crown corporation can be convinced to participate.

There are approximately 50,000 banned firearms in Alberta that will be hard to recover.

“No one wants to be involved in this program because it is so unpopular,” said Teri Bryant, Alberta’s chief firearms officer. “I don’t see any way it can be done.”

The Liberals promised in both the 2019 and 2021 elections to buy back assault or military-style weapons. Its credibility on gun control could be damaged if it does not launch its buyback program by the next election.

A candle, rose and white ribbon at a vigil on the 30th anniversary of the 1989 École Polytechnique tragedy Friday, Dec. 6, 2019 in Ottawa.
A candle, rose and white ribbon at a vigil on the 30th anniversary of the 1989 École Polytechnique tragedy on Friday, Dec. 6, 2019 in Ottawa. (CBC)

A survivor of the 1989 gun massacre at the École Polytechnique in Montreal said she wants the program to be in place in time for the next anniversary commemoration.

“You know, in December, it will be the 35th anniversary of the events at Polytechnique. For us, it is necessary for the buyback program to be in place and active,” said Nathalie Provost of the PolyRemembers group, which lobbies for tougher gun control in Canada.

Federal Liberals in Quebec, in particular, want the government to do everything in its power to fulfil its promise before the next election, sources said.

“There are progressive votes that we need,” said a Liberal source. “It’s going to happen.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

News

Justin Trudeau’s Announcing Cuts to Immigration Could Facilitate a Trump Win

Published

 on

Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.

Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.

Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.

My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.

Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.

My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.

To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.

Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…

The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.

The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.

The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.

Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.

In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.

If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.

______________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s

on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

 on

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.

Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”

The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”

Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”

The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.

In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.

A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.

In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.

But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.

“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Danielle Smith receives overwhelming support at United Conservative Party convention

Published

 on

Danielle Smith receives overwhelming support at United Conservative Party convention

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending