Logic? Never heard of it.

Some politicians when making important policy decisions use a mixture of statistics, academic studies, advisory reports and the general public mood at the time. Other politicians base their decisions on isolated anecdotes that go against ALL of the other evidence. Which camp do you think Phil is in?

On October 27, Phil said:

"[W]hen this came before committee, we heard witnesses from the police association. We also heard from individual chiefs from across the country. Some of those chiefs believed that the long gun registry served no specific purpose. Although the police association was involved, chiefs in other areas of the country said that it was not the case in their jurisdictions. Also, front-line police officers, in their basic training, have said that they are told to assume that there are guns inside every door when they go there.

Therefore, the unreliability of information that is not current or updated actually does the opposite. It puts some police officers, were they to rely on the information, in harm's way in terms of this information going forward."

Let me get this logic straight: The majority of police chiefs say they want the gun registry. One or two police chiefs say that the gun registry serves no specific purpose. Therefore the gun registry puts officers in harm's way.

It. Makes. No. Sense.

Why was this man elected to be your voice in Ottawa?