The government announced its intention to introduce new gun control legislation in the fall that will be “common sense,” designed to reduce red tape, but would include some new measures like mandatory safety courses and bans on firearms restrictions on those who have been convicted of domestic abuse. In particular, the government was motivated to ensure that those Swiss assault rifles are no longer prohibited, concocting a rather fanciful notion that owners of those weapons – which were reclassified as restricted – would somehow wind up in jail, though that has never happened with a gun reclassification before. Still, it was enough to rile up their gun enthusiast base. More troubling, however, was the fact that the minister referred to gun ownership as a “right,” which it most certainly is not in Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that gun ownership in Canada is a privilege and not a right. When asked about this contradiction, the minister stated that “it’s a right that has responsibilities, it’s a privilege.” Which of course makes absolutely no sense at all because it’s one or the other, and the Supreme Court has already ruled.

It’s not just businesses hiring low-skilled workers that are being impacted by the changes to the Temporary Foreign Workers programme, but high-skilled employers are also being impacted, saying that they were sideswiped by the changes without proper consultation. This includes things like American doctors working in Canada, who now face increased bureaucratic hurdles that will impact their ability to work in underserved rural Canadian regions. Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi says the programme lacks dignity and would rather there be a path to citizenship, but is really unhappy with the government’s changes as well.

During closed-door consultations with charities, the government has floated the idea of having those charities turn over their donor lists to the CRA as a means of matching names with receipts. As one can imagine, it didn’t go over well, but the minister’s office is quick to say that this wasn’t an official pronouncement or policy statement, though it does give one pause.

Oh look – the crime rate continues to fall, as does the crime severity index and violent crime. How long before the government claims that this is all because of their “tough on crime” measures, and nothing to do with trends that have been going on for decades?

In an update on the saga of the alleged Duffy daughter, Duffy now calls it a “private matter and no one’s business” after first denying that he was her father and then later reaching out to her. He has not yet acknowledged paternity. In the meantime, it seems that the two are communicating on a daily basis.

Speaking of Duffy, the Liberals are calling on the Ethics Commissioner to resume her investigation into the $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright to Duffy, but so far Mary Dawson is refusing and not saying why.

In case you were wondering, the most recent quarter’s spending by the Senate was a million dollars less than it was a year ago.

The site of the planned War of 1812 memorial was dedicated on Parliament Hill yesterday, which prompted Maclean’s John Geddes to remind us why he thinks it’s the wrong place for it (and I tend to agree).

HMCS Toronto is off to the Mediterranean to replace HMCS Regina as part of NATO reassurance measures there.

On the eve of her retirement, Senator Catherine Callbeck reflects on the changes to the institution during her time there, not all of them for the better.

Tamsin McMahon collects some of Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz’s most colourful metaphors.

At the International AIDS Conference in Melbourne, Canadian researcher Dr. Julio Montaner unveiled their new goals for 2020, dubbed 90/90/90 – 90 percent of all people with HIV aware of their status, 90 percent receiving treatment, and that 90 percent will have a lasting viral suppression. If this goal can be achieved, they believe the AIDS epidemic can be effectively over by 2030.

Aaron Wherry muses about the counterfactuals of the ClusterDuff affair, and what may have resulted from a more upfront disclosure by the Prime Minister when things first were brought to light, which is an interesting read. Where it falls apart is when he muses about Commons committee hearings, which presumes some level of supremacy over the Senate and would somehow allow MPs to meddle in Senate affairs, which would never happen (for good reason – the chambers are separate for very good reasons), but it’s an interesting thinkpiece nevertheless.

And because it gave Ottawa an overload of cute yesterday, here’s the story about the fox that was found napping on an OC Transpo bus.