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?

Phil McHypocrite

Somebody call the waaahmbulance – Phil's been complaining about the cost of an "unnecessary" democratic election again:

"They're upset about having an election that's costing $300 million especially when it's the fourth election in seven years."

Well, Phil, let's crunch some numbers…

• $1.5 million: Annual cost of the gun registry that Phil wants to scrap.

• $3.1 million: "A lot of money" in "small town Ontario" Brantford, Phil says.

• $27 million: Cost of all those Economic Action Plan signs.

• $300 million: Cost of an election.

• $1 billion: Cost of hosting G8/G20 summit, including tens of millions of unaccounted-for spending.

• $2.7 billion: Conservative estimate of cost of "tough on crime" agenda, though the actual amount will likely be billions more.

• $28.5 billion: Cost of F-35 stealth fighter jets that Phil wants taxpayers to buy.

• $55.6 billion: Canada's current annual deficit.

It's extremely doubtful that Phil will address these numbers during our "unnecessary" election:

One Mouth, Two Tongues

French Canadians have an expression that goes, "She has one mouth, two tongues." It means that somebody contradicts themself or says two opposite things. It certainly applied to Phil McColeman yesterday. First, he behaved like a sore loser after losing the vote on the gun registry, which has proven to be an invaluable crime-fighting tool. In Parliament he said:

Twenty coalition MPs originally supported the simple and straightforward bill to scrap the long gun registry, but under pressure from their Ottawa bosses, they turned their backs on their constituents and voted to keep the registry. One of those flip-floppers…

On this side of the House, we do not believe in treating law-abiding hunters, farmers and sports shooters as criminals and we will continue to work to scrap the $2 billion wasteful registry.

Well you know what, Phil? If I don't register and insure my car I can be charged on summary conviction and have to pay a fine. In other words, I'm a "criminal." That's because a car can be used as a deadly weapon and can cause damage to property, in addition to being an invaluable tool. Kind of like a gun, don't you think?

Then, Phil spoke in favour of a nonsensical tough-on-crime bill regarding prisoner transfers, despite the fact that crime has been decreasing for decades in Canada:

…we have taken action on the economy and on many other fronts including cracking down on crime. In particular, we have introduced several measures to crack down on violent gun crimes.
…
The bottom line, as I mentioned, is that Canadians want a justice system that works.
…
[This bill], therefore, reflects this government's commitment we have made to Canadians to stand up for victims and to ensure our streets, our homes, and our playgrounds are safer places.
…
This act would ensure the protection of our society is given paramount consideration

So instead of preventing violent gun crime by making people register their guns, Phil would rather punish people after they've committed the crime. In terms of considering the victim, I think that your average victim would rather not be a victim in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Just ask MP Scott Simms what it's like to have someone in your family killed by a gun. He is one of the "flip-floppers" who voted in favour of the gun registry. If we can prevent even a single death, he said, the registry is worth it. He didn't mention punishment after the fact.

(Mr. Simms also doesn't go around posting tasteless photos of himself with assault rifles.)