Guns and votes
Open letter to Larry Bagnell,
This letter is to let you know that I will not be supporting you or your party in the upcoming election.
This is in part due to Prime minister Paul Martin’s rash statement that he was committed to an outright ban on handguns, and the equally ridiculous statement that provinces/territories have the option of opting out.
The latter part of this statement does not treat all Canadians equally.
I am committed to support a leader who can make sound, common sense decisions.
A person who thinks an outright ban on handguns will decrease the amount of handgun-related crime is spending too much time in la-la land.
Most handgun crime is committed with guns that are smuggled into Canada and if there was an outright ban, criminals would just smuggle more of them into Canada to satisfy the demand.
Over a period of many years, the government and police forces have been unable to stop the smuggling of illegal drugs, therefore, they will also be unable to stop the smuggling of illegal firearms.
If there are insufficient handguns, rifles and shotguns will be stolen or smuggled in, sawed off and cut down to make them concealable.
Presently in this country, crime pays, and crime will continue until we change things so that it doesn’t.
I have spent almost 30 years of my life in the Canadian Forces, many times in dicey or unpleasant situations, to defend your rights Bagnell, and now your party wants to further restrict or eliminate some of mine.
Also, in light of the present firearm-related dilemma, anyone can see that the almost $2-billion firearm registry was just a big waste of the taxpayers’ money, money that, had it been spent in other ways, would have saved countless lives.
It should also be noted that almost all of the handgun-related crime in the Toronto area is being committed by one criminal gang against another in a turf war over the illegal drug trade.
As an honest, taxpaying Canadian, I would hate to lose more of my rights due to the actions of the criminal element in this country.
I would also like to note that if handguns are banned and the government reimburses those people who own handguns, they are doing it with our own (taxpayer) dollars.
I would appreciate a reply that is directly related to how you and your party believe the banning of handguns will make Canada a safer place.
Why Larry works for me
I am not prone to writing letters to the editor but I think it is important to the Yukon that, no matter what happens nationally, we return Larry Bagnell to Ottawa.
In the last 40 years, I have lived in five federal ridings and been represented by seven different MPs from all three national parties.
I have been, at least, on a speaking basis with four of them including one who was a next door neighbour and friend.
Three of these ridings were urban and two rural with the Yukon being, not only the furthest from Ottawa, but also, by far, the biggest.
None of my MPs has worked as hard for his riding as has Bagnell over the last two parliaments.
He is home in the Yukon virtually every weekend when Parliament is in session, which takes an inordinate amount of travel time, and I have run into him many times in both the Edmonton and Vancouver airports.
Not only does he put in the time but he also makes himself very available for his constituents of every political stripe.
We are lucky to have Bagnell as our MP and I would strongly encourage the voters to get out and ensure that his representation continue.
Bagnell’s the best
Open letter to Yukon MP Larry Bagnell,
Words can’t say how much we thank you for what you have done for the Filipino community.
You, sir, were the most likeable, giving member of Parliament we have ever met.
You have done something quite remarkable by fulfilling the wish of our dear friend and Nanay (mother) who suddenly passed away recently.
With your tremendous help and support, her beloved son was able to arrive in time to be with her before the Lord took her to heaven.
We are very, very grateful to you. You are a very good member of Parliament for the Yukon territory.
Your performances have earned respect and bring comfort as well.
I have had conversations with so many people you have helped.
Their experiences were much like mine: You helped me to renew my passport so I could go home to visit my very ill mother in the Philippines.
I won’t go into the specifics of the experience. But the efforts of your kind office staff serve people who are desperate, and provide emotional help to our community.
On behalf of all the Filipino-Canadian community and from the bottom of our hearts here in the Yukon, and in the Philippines, a big thank you.
We will make sure we will support you on election day.
Vangie Ramirez Toquero
Open letter to Lyle Henderson, director of lands branch,
Could you please answer a few questions on how the process and the direction by which the Land Application Review Committee and/or Federal Territorial Lands Advisory Committee have entered into an Agreement of Sale with applicant 15459 Km 49 Silver Trail?
This is a parcel of land, which once was Mayo’s main waste and garbage dumpsite.
After this parcel was decommissioned and abandoned as a dumpsite, C & I Construction Ltd. applied for a private pit land-use permit 19 years ago.
It then located and flagged out a parcel of land, cleared a section of land approximately 240 metres along the gravel reserve and disposed of all trees and debris in preparation for future gravel extraction.
Private pit rates are $1.50 per cubic metre (2004 invoices & land use permit No. YA2Q922, expiry date June 12, 2005).
This would verify that we have private pit status.
Public pit fees to date are $0.25 per cubic metre with no land-use required.
Land-use permits and quarry permits are interests in land and a form of legal tenure, and, therefore, conflict with any proposed surface disposition.
As a matter of law, it is not clear how your office can dispose of a surface title with an existing tenure in place. It is not a mere mistake to do so, but a violation of fundamental principles of property law.
As you indicated in your letter to my company July 16, 2004 “there were discrepancies in the review and approval process resulting in the 1.3-hectare parcel (circulated for public review) being increased to two hectares in the offer letter.”
It is more than that. In fact, it is not a mere increase in size, but its movement to encompass the entire area used by our family business.
Would Land Application Review Committee and/or Federal Territorial Lands Advisory Committee have approved the application had they known of the extra land and the change in location of the parcel?
Were all of the affected parties notified by Land Application Review Committee and/or Federal Territorial Lands Advisory Committee?
C & I Construction was not notified. It seems peculiar how the only land tenure holder in question was never notified.
The same federal lands inspector dealt with both C & I Construction Ltd. and applicant No. 15459, and was well aware of the land tenure held by C & I Construction Ltd.
The inspector’s signature on the land use inspection report is dated February 27, 2002, four months prior to applicant No. 15459 June 10, 2002.
Why didn’t the lands inspector notify C & I Construction Ltd. of the application No. 15459 on June 10, 2002 upon receiving the application for title land?
Your letter dated July 16, 2004 indicates that there were discrepancies due to “internal mapping errors.”
This is disturbing in an age of GPS systems and advanced survey techniques.
Mapping errors of less than half a metre are understandable, but 0.7-hectare increases and the movement of the parcel of land by two hectares?
Accordingly, it is within your department’s power to kill the sale agreement.
As you have indicated, an error was made.
It is incumbent on your office to fix it. Evidently, C & I Construction deserves a thorough investigation into this matter.
Kim and Dan Klippert, C&L Construction Ltd., Mayo