Wait, what is the actual change here? We were already supposed to have permits to transport restricted firearms?
No previously your license acted as a transport permit under changes made under Harper to reduce bureaucracy and simplify the processes
Posted 28 May 2019 - 03:42 PM
Wait, what is the actual change here? We were already supposed to have permits to transport restricted firearms?
Posted 28 May 2019 - 03:46 PM
No previously your license acted as a transport permit under changes made under Harper to reduce bureaucracy and simplify the processes
Posted 28 May 2019 - 03:53 PM
Are you sure? I've still applied for and received ATTs in the last few years
Posted 28 May 2019 - 03:56 PM
From Wikipedia: Bill C-42 amended the Firearms Act, which caused ATTs to become a condition of a licence.[4] "Authorizations to Transport become a condition of a licence for certain routine and lawful activities such as target shooting; taking a firearm home after a transfer; going to a gunsmith, gun show, a Canadian port of exit; or a peace officer or a Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) for verification, registration or disposal". Effective September 2, 2015, these changes to the Firearms Act came into force meaning an ATT became a condition of a licence for the foregoing routine and lawful activities. In other words, an ATT is automatically included into any valid RPAL licence
Posted 28 May 2019 - 03:57 PM
Hmm perhaps the last time I applied was pre- September 2015. Thanks for that exerpt, RFS.
Posted 01 June 2019 - 08:00 PM
https://torontosun.c...k-in-his-favour
Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:34 AM
Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:46 AM
Governor General Julie Payette's D-Day speech seems extremely disrespectful and just bad. She called the conflict "deadly stupidity" and said it was our fault for "failing to get along".
Camera panned to some D-Day vets in the audience who didn't look too impressed.
Posted 10 June 2019 - 10:28 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 11 June 2019 - 07:56 AM
the 'progressives' are really nervous as people are finally waking up to their games....Engage should disclose who funds them...I bet there would be a load of pi$$ed off Union workers when they realise this is what their dues are being used for
Posted 11 June 2019 - 10:19 AM
An organization called Engage Canada, appearing to be heavily funded by unions but unwilling to unveil its funding sources, is already airing anti-Scheer attack ads. Because the election period has not begun, it is not bound by federal election restrictions and regulations created to hold political advertisers to account.
Important read: https://www.ctvnews....-game-1.4460332
The election spending laws are a joke. Helps spent more money then she did the previous cycle but all her financial manager had to do is make sure that only $50K was reported as being spent after the campaign period started.
Posted 11 June 2019 - 06:14 PM
Attack ads should be outlawed. How about the parties spend their time (and money) informing the voters of how good they are instead of how bad the others are? What is this, second grade? If you need to kick someone else down to make yourself look better, you have some major issues.
Posted 11 June 2019 - 06:41 PM
Edited by Victoria Watcher, 11 June 2019 - 06:41 PM.
Posted 11 June 2019 - 07:24 PM
I don't know why they advertise at all. If you can't figure out who you are voting for without watching ads maybe you shouldn't vote.
Posted 11 June 2019 - 07:43 PM
Attack ads should be outlawed. How about the parties spend their time (and money) informing the voters of how good they are instead of how bad the others are? What is this, second grade? If you need to kick someone else down to make yourself look better, you have some major issues.
Goes both ways - the anti-Trudeau attack ads are now also going full blast.
I'd far rather hear what the parties' platforms are and how they propose to make our lives better...and how they intend to pay for it.
Posted 11 June 2019 - 09:14 PM
Edited by Belleprincess, 11 June 2019 - 09:20 PM.
Posted 12 June 2019 - 04:33 AM
most voters don’t give it that much time or even express a desire for that level of detail. most people don’t read newspapers or listen to news radio or watch tv news. the ads are designed for those people.Goes both ways - the anti-Trudeau attack ads are now also going full blast.
I'd far rather hear what the parties' platforms are and how they propose to make our lives better...and how they intend to pay for it.
Edited by Victoria Watcher, 12 June 2019 - 04:35 AM.
Posted 12 June 2019 - 08:18 PM
And naturally - again - political bulls*** surfaces and will likely negatively impact the NSP, which is already in enough trouble as it is without 'political considerations' rearing their ugly head. I've said many times the DND - CCG procurement process is a mess, and meddling like this - aimed solely at kissing Quebec's behind, does not help.
https://www.timescol...yard-1.23853389
Really why does Canada even bother to fake having even the barest minimum of an Armed Service/Coast Guard capability? Clearly we don't have the will nor the desire to do and spend what it takes to get the job(s) done properly - just be done with it: tuck our tails between our legs, pony up $25 billion or so annually and pay the US to provide defence on our behalf. Sadly we've shown over and over and OVER again we are utterly incapable of getting it right, either because we're too stupid, too incompetent, too indifferent or some combination of all of these considerations.
At least we know with 'Murricans in the event military force or coast guard resources are needed in an emergency they won't send ships, helicopters, tanks and aircraft older than me.
It must be so disheartening for the good folks in uniform who serve and are forced time and time again to accept whatever meager and pathetic military equipment crap the feds deign to flick their way from the military Used Bargain Bin...
By the time this icebreaker gets built, if it gets built (and where have we heard that before?), the crews serving today will likely be long retired. What a damn shame and as a nation re: Defence and General national Security matters, what a clown show we are....
Posted 12 June 2019 - 11:39 PM
And naturally - again - political bulls*** surfaces and will likely negatively impact the NSP, which is already in enough trouble as it is without 'political considerations' rearing their ugly head. I've said many times the DND - CCG procurement process is a mess, and meddling like this - aimed solely at kissing Quebec's behind, does not help.
https://www.timescol...yard-1.23853389
Really why does Canada even bother to fake having even the barest minimum of an Armed Service/Coast Guard capability? Clearly we don't have the will nor the desire to do and spend what it takes to get the job(s) done properly - just be done with it: tuck our tails between our legs, pony up $25 billion or so annually and pay the US to provide defence on our behalf. Sadly we've shown over and over and OVER again we are utterly incapable of getting it right, either because we're too stupid, too incompetent, too indifferent or some combination of all of these considerations.
At least we know with 'Murricans in the event military force or coast guard resources are needed in an emergency they won't send ships, helicopters, tanks and aircraft older than me.
It must be so disheartening for the good folks in uniform who serve and are forced time and time again to accept whatever meager and pathetic military equipment crap the feds deign to flick their way from the military Used Bargain Bin...
By the time this icebreaker gets built, if it gets built (and where have we heard that before?), the crews serving today will likely be long retired. What a damn shame and as a nation re: Defence and General national Security matters, what a clown show we are....
i know you're frustrations are with large-scale federal procurement in general, but: The Canadian Coast Guard is not military, or even paramilitary. They're scientists, search and rescue operators, and cops. They belong to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not National Defence.
Posted 12 June 2019 - 11:57 PM
i know you're frustrations are with large-scale federal procurement in general, but: The Canadian Coast Guard is not military, or even paramilitary. They're scientists, search and rescue operators, and cops. They belong to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not National Defence.
Yes I'm well aware of that however the story pertains to the Coast Guard - and the same federal procurement system used to screw up the military is the one relevant to the CGS: same bureaucracy at play, the same political crapola, the same broken promises, rinse, repeat - the "promise" as always is to build x ships, and more often than not ultimately deliver nothing - a result which unsurprisingly is strongly implied here.
The feds "promised" the CG would finally after 30 years get the badly needed heavy icebreaker replacement for the Louis St Laurent which is now an incomprehensible 50+ years old. Yet per the article clearly whether the new ship ever gets built is now seriously in question. One comedy of errors after another.
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users