To top it off, the firearms registry is responsible for draining precious resources that could otherwise be used to prevent domestic abuse.

Statistics Canada’s 2008 report on Family Violence shows only 40 of over 38,000 incidents of domestic violence involved firearms. In other words, 99.92% of spousal assaults didn’t involve guns. In instances where spousal abuse involved physical violence, firearms were used against women 34 times and against men 6 times out of over 17,000 violent assaults.

According to the Canadian Center for Justice Statistics, the total spending for shelters in 2006 totaled $317 million. In the same year the government spent $82 million on the firearms program.

The 2007 Commissioner of Firearms report states that 70 of the 1,758 firearms license revocations that year were the result of domestic violence. At the end of 2007 there were 1,877,880 individuals licenses to own firearms in Canada.

The numbers translate to a rate of 3.7 revocations per 100,000 gun owners.

The 2006 Census reports there were over 31.6 million people in Canada resulting in a rate of 120.2 incidents of domestic violence per 100,000 population and 53.7 violent assaults per 100,000 population.

In other words, firearms owners are between 14.5 and 32.5 times less likely to commit domestic violence. Yet responsible firearms owners continue to be demonized as ”potential” abusers by registry supporters.

While we must be vocal in condemning all forms of domestic violence, spending a disproportionate amount of limited tax dollars to achieve a relatively meager reduction in the rate of domestic violence seems counterintuitive.

Certainly, the bulk of victims of spousal abuse would benefit more from expanded shelter space and increased funding for existing programs than they do from government spending millions of dollars to maintain a list of firearms. Scrapping the registry will not do away with firearms licensing, the main tool police use to revoke firearms ownership.

Scrapping the registry also won’t make women more likely to be abused. If anything, it will free up tax dollars for programs that make a real difference in keeping Canadians safe.

But don’t take my word for it, look up the stats yourself:

• Statistics Canada – Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2008 – Stats for domestic violence in 2006.
• Juristat – Canada’s shelters for abused women, 2005/2006 – budgets for 2005/2006 spending on women’s shelters.
• Treasury Board – RPP 2005-2006 Canada Firearms Centre – 2006 budget for Firearms Center.
• Commissioner of Firearms Reports.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

I don’t think there’s anything I can add to last year’s post, so I will repost it.

Two minutes. At the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month.

Its a trifling sum to pay for the countless ranks of Canada’s sons and daughters in distant graveyards and under forgotten battlefields. But it is, remarkably, the only price asked for such monumental sacrifice.

Every year the dwindling ranks of veterans turn out in force to mark Remembrance Day. Every year there are fewer men marching, fewer men standing at attention. Fewer men who carry the weight in their hearts of seeing the horrors on the bloody shores of Europe, the frozen wastelands of Korea, and of the carnage of dozens of other places we seem to forget too quickly.

Lest we forget.

We are the last generation that will have known the veterans of the First World War. With time the same will be true for veterans of the Second World War.

The freedom we so often take for granted was paid for most dearly. The payment asked in return is modest; the debt is worth repaying.

At the going down of the sun, we will remember them.

We will remember. We will always remember.

Talk of trouble is sent through the country
And we need an army
To fight for the right
Young men enlist and are sent to the battle
To fight the offender and help our allies

And the young men cry Oh Canada
Well gladly go and fight for thee
And the young men cry Oh Canada
Well fight to keep you free

The battles raging
Gun fire is blazing
A tired young soldier is clinging to life
Hes ordered off
And obeys by advancing
No hope of returning from the enemy fire

And the soldier cries Oh Canada
If it must be so, Ill die for thee
And the soldier cries Oh Canada
Ill die to keep you free

And we all miss oh Canada
The land where we all used to be
And we all long for Canada
The true north
strong and free

And the soldier cries Oh Canada
If it must be so, Ill die for thee
And the soldier cries Oh Canada
Ill die to keep you free

Far away we had seen a great danger
And yet theres a danger much greater within
The noise we make as we constantly bicker
Would hush not a whisper if we listen to him

All the thousands cry Oh Canada
Is that why we have died for thee?
And the soldiers cry Oh Canada
We died to keep you free

And the soldier cries oh Canada
Be true
And strong
For me

Thank you.

The Globe and Mail reported on Saturday that Ignatieff is taking umbrage with the latest CPC commercial attacking him for planning a “reckless coalition” in order to seize power if the Liberals don’t win the election. Ignatieff told the Globe:

The Liberal Party would not agree to a coalition. In January, we did not support a coalition. And we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow.

and:

I have a certain credibility on the coalition issue. I could be standing here as the prime minister of Canada. I turned it down. We turned it down in January,

Now, I’m far from being a “political strategist” but it certainly seems to me to be a bad idea to tell everyone how against forming a coalition you were earlier in the year when in reality you were all over the news telling people how you supported and/or wanted to lead it. I mean, you would think somewhere in the bowels of Liberal Party HQ someone might consider doing a quick search on YouTube before sending the leader out to deny his part in the coalition.

If they had they’d probably find these…

… among many other videos showing Michael Ignatieff suggesting the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition was the next best thing since sliced bread.

I appreciate the world of politics is usually full of spin, but it takes either a spectacular amount of bravery or a stunning level of stupidity to tell a bold-faced lie and hope no one notices.

Ms. May received a boost in the 2008 election when then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion agreed not to run a candidate in the same riding. Of course, this wasn’t must of a sacrifice for the Liberals since Elizabeth May decided to run in Central Nova – the riding held by Peter McKay and a Conservative party stronghold. It wasn’t much of a surprise, then, that she lost by some 6,000 votes.

At first blush it would appear like an exercise of pure ego that Ms. May would choose to run in a riding that consistently votes Conservative, that was held by a Conservative MP and cabinet minister.

And it seems Ms. May hasn’t learned.

Saanich-Gulf Islands is currently held by Conservative minister of state for sport Gary Lunn. In the last federal election Mr. Lunn received just over 21,000 more votes than the Green Party candidate. Ms. May would have to pick up over four times as many votes as 2008 candidate Andrew Lewis to win the riding.

It seems odd that the leader of a “federal party” – and I use the term loosely since they have never actually won a riding – would run in an unwinnable riding instead of choosing a relatively “safe” riding. It would certainly seem foolish if Stephen Harper ran in the Liberal strongholds of Toronto or Montreal, if Michael Ignatieff ran anywhere west of Ontario. How well would Gilles Duceppe do in Newfoundland?

Of course, I’m working from the assumption Ms. May actually has a chance of being elected.

But does she?

In the 2008 election the Green Party won 6.8% of the national vote – that’s even less than the 10% garnered by the Bloc, and they only ran in Quebec.

Realistically, Elizabeth May is unlikely to win in any riding.

And if that is the case, why not run in an unwinnable riding? Certainly, in the last election it allowed Ms. May to claim she “fought the good fight”. After all, who can blame her for losing against an incumbent MP and Government Minister? And if you can’t blame her, you can’t replace her.

It’s a cushy gig after all.

And then there’s also the temporary ego boost of taking on “the big guys” which must make the otherwise dull existence in the foothills of parliament partially bearable for a party in waiting like the Greens.

Indeed, the only press coverage Elizabeth May managed to get was during the election. Granted, much of that was questioning why she would run in Central Nova…

In any case, it looks like this election will be just as bumpy. If anything, it will be much worse.

The Liberals are holding a nomination for the riding, as are the NDP. This means Ms. May won’t be getting a free ride from Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals this time around.

She’s not even getting a free ride from her own party from the looks of it. Stuart Hertzog, an environmental and social justice activist and website publisher from Victoria, B.C., will contest the nomination.

But that’s not all. According to the Toronto Star, Mr. Hertzog…

…has also filed a complaint with Elections Canada accusing the Greens of pouring central money into the local riding association to support the May campaign and take away his fair chance at a fight.

“I don’t believe I can compete on a level playing field,” Hertzog said in an interview last week.

He originally decided to put his name forward in the Vancouver Island constituency to protest against what he described as an anti-democratic shift in the party from the grassroots to the leader and executive, but May said her willingness to fight him proves him wrong.

Now, in a complaint Hertzog said he filed Thursday, he alleges the party’s federal council illegally transferred $62,000 from a special fund it set up to get May elected — after it decided this spring that winning a seat for the leader would be the priority in the next campaign — to the electoral district association, and that it is being used to finance the nomination campaign.

So, Elizabeth May will go into this election with no free ride from the Liberals, a contested nomination, facing a complaint to Elections Canada, and in a riding that has elected Conservative Gary Lunn in the last 5 elections.

Quixote would be proud.

According to a CTV News article, in a speech Tuesday to the Liberal caucus, Ignatieff said Harper’s time as prime minister, “is over.”

The real question is whether or not Ignatieff can convince Canadians that he is acting in the country’s best interests.

First, Liberals must contend with the fact that Michael Ignatieff was installed as party leader after an internal putsch against Stephane Dion. The Conservatives, NDP and Bloc can all argue their leaders were democratically elected, not appointed by a cabal of party elites.

Next, Liberals must contend with the fact that Michael Ignatieff has spent most of his adult life outside of Canada. Hand in hand with his extended absence is the number of shock inducing sound bites his opponents have dug up – from suggesting that the Canadian flag appears like a beer label, to his assertion that he can always go back to teaching at Harvard if Canadian’s don’t make him Prime Minister.

Then there is his age. At 62 Ignatieff is getting long in the tooth. A number of Liberals have suggested that if Ignatieff wants to be PM he is running out of time. And that may well be part of the reason he’s so desperate to bring down the government after a summer of being Mr. Invisible.

To compound the Liberal’s problems their timing might be off. High profile Liberals have spent the past two days telling anyone who will listen that they will not support the Conservative government, under any circumstances and a number of Liberals have suggested that the October opposition day would be a perfect time to move non-confidence.

But it appears that the Conservatives may put a money bill on the table as soon as the house resumes sitting. In fact, it appears the Conservatives are planning on tabling a ways-and-means motion which will include the popular Home Renovation Tax Credit which hasn’t made it into law yet.

It seems, then, that the first test of the Liberal’s resolve to bring down the government will be to kill the implementation of a tax credit millions of Canadians are counting on to help defray the cost of renovations they have already finished.

All this might lead Canadians to believe Liberal fortunes were bleak – a party adrift without a clear policy and languishing in the polls, headed by an appointed leader who has returned to Canada after a 30-year absence, and forcing the country into a second election in under a year – and they’d be right.

In fact, it gets worse.

Even Liberals think Ignatieff is committing political suicide.

Don Martin, writing in the National Post, quotes a Liberal insider as saying:

Wanna hear my analogy to this mess? The car is ready and moving forward. Unfortunately there’s a cliff straight ahead. But the real problem is that the driver is accelerating because he thinks he can jump the canyon.

Indeed. On the one hand Canadians have Stephen Harper and the CPC. They have managed to weather the financial crisis, have implemented a good number of their election promises, and have been doing a good job at running the country. On the other hand they have Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party. They continue to exude the arrogant notion that they are Canada’s “natural ruling party” all the while being unapologetic about plunging the country into a second $300-million election in less than year.

Ignatieff may find he’s actually playing a game of Russian Roulette, and it’s a game he appears to be destined to lose.

Now, with their popularity lagging in the polls and the economy starting to turn around the Liberals are finding themselves with a shrinking list of reasons to force and election. That’s probably why Ignatieff is now telling anyone who will listen that the Conservative government is on “life support” and that the Liberals are going to pull the plug.

CTV News is reporting:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s main task today: turn the doves in his caucus into hawks, and set forth a plan to take down the Tory government in the fall.

“We’ve kept this government on life support for 10 months,” Ignatieff said during a summer caucus retreat in Sudbury, Ont. on Monday, noting his party supported the Tories’ recession budget last January despite major reservations.

“But in June I made it clear that in a whole number of areas, the government’s performance was letting Canada down and it hasn’t got better over the summer.”

In reality, since the last election the Liberals – first with Dion and the ill-fated coalition between the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP, to Ignatieff – have been stalking the Conservative government with a pillow waiting for a chance to smother the government into another election.

It’s fairly clear the only “platform” the Liberals have is “get back into power” and they don’t seem to care how many $300-million kicks at the can it will take. The Liberals aren’t even ashamed to point that out – with a number of insiders indicating much of the weeks meetings are being dedicated to when to force an election.

I guess they can worry about policy later.

Recently Michael Ignatieff told Le Devoir, a French-language newspaper, that “an election would not create instability.”

The Toronto Sun is reporting that Conservatives are lashing out at the Liberals over the suggestion. Frankly, it shouldn’t just be the Conservatives.

We’re in the midst of a recession – one we’re only starting to recover from. Still, Ignatieff had the following to say:

But now, we are in a different situation. We can have an election without threatening anything whatsoever. We could even say it would be good for the country.

Without threatening anything whatsoever? Does Ignatieff really believe proroguing Parliament, stopping all the work committees are doing, killing any bills on the table, and throwing the country into another $200-300 million dollar election wouldn’t threaten anything?

In reality an election now will delay things by months – first there has to be an election, ministers need to be named and sworn, MPs need to get settled in their offices, etc.

What’s the point? The polls certainly suggest another Conservative minority.

But I guess when you’re the “natural governing party” you’ll use any excuse to try and claw your way back into power. I mean, if the Liberals just force enough election maybe – just maybe – they can be in charge again.

So what has Michael Ignatieff done this summer? Well… he gave up his European vacation.

According to the Globe and Mail:

Liberals defend Mr. Ignatieff, saying he has been touring the country, meeting the grassroots. As well, he did not take his usual holiday in Europe, spending time instead in Ottawa in July, working on his speeches and his platform.

Indeed. While Canadians across the country are tightening their belts and stretching their dollars further in an effort to weather the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression it seems that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s biggest sacrifice was passing on his “usual” holiday in Europe.

Usual vacation. As in customary. As opposed to say, “once in a lifetime” or “special” or “we’ve saved up for a few years and are finally going on” vacation.

And then Liberals wonder why people think Ignatieff is “out of touch” with Canadians.

Much of the speculation over whether or not there will be an election hinges on the fact that the Liberals still seem to lack a cohesive strategy or message.  Clearly it would be in the Liberals’ best interests to have a clearly defined platform before launching an election campaign. Time is running out, however, if they plan on attacking the Conservatives on the economy. During the past year its been fairly clear that the Liberals have relished in every stock market dip, business closure, and release of job loss numbers.

Things get worse for the Liberals.

They lack a clear message, they’re losing an easy point to attack the Conservatives, and they have a leader that’s starting to look as ineffective as Stephane Dion.

I’ve seen a number of articles refer to Ignatieff as the invisible man. And it’s not hard to see why. He’s spent the summer, ostensibly, meeting with grassroots Liberals. However, the only press coverage regarding his coast-to-coast trip related to complaints his handlers have prevented many Liberal organizers they didn’t think were “important enough” from meeting Iggy.

Ignatieff was touted as being an internationally celebrated intellectual.

So far I don’t see it. He’s failed to define himself to Canadians, failed to come up with anything resembling a party platform – other than suggesting 9 weeks of work should be enough to entitle you to a year of EI – and failed to stand up in the house.

If anything, he’s turning out to be just like the last “intellectual” leader he replaced.

Another striking moment came during the international policy discussion portion when NDP MP Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre) suggested that Tamil actions in blocking traffic in Ottawa and occupying a highway in Toronto were legitimate methods for Tamils to get the attention of the Canadian government.

What was Paul Dewar thinking?

How is it legitimate to block traffic? To put women and children on a 400-series highway with a 90-100 km/h speed limit? To inconvenience thousands of commuters?

People get the attention of the Canadian government all the time without resorting to disrupting traffic, costing thousands in taxpayer dollars for special police presence, and generally behaving like idiots.

While I had, at one point, sympathy with Tamil victims of the war in Sri Lanka the fact that the “protestors” response to the OPP presence was to put women and children at the front of the protest has left them with zero credibility in my books.

You don’t “stand up for your cause” by hiding behind women and children.

That Paul Dewar would condone the behavior of the protesters is irresponsible. That no one within the NDP has come out to suggest it’s not acceptable to take over roadways in order to “be heard” suggests they agree.

No wonder the NDP is considered a fringe party by a lot of people.