Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

149 to 148

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 1:03pm - 0 Comments

Postmedia finds three NDP MPs who are committed to voting in favour of C-391: Peter Stoffer, Dennis Bevington and Jim Maloway. Carol Hughes is undecided. A spokesperson for John Rafferty, the NDP MP for Thunder Bay, says Mr. Rafferty will only comment on his stance to the local media. (The hilarity of this position aside—the invention of the telegraph in 1794 making it relatively easy to transmit news from one city to another—it should at least compel someone from the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal to give Mr. Rafferty a call sometime today.)

Nonetheless, while we wait to see to which media outlet Mr. Rafferty will reveal his decision, nine NDP votes now remain in play, or at least unaccounted for. Those belong to Malcolm Allen, Charlie Angus, Niki Ashton, Nathan Cullen, Claude Gravelle, Hughes, Bruce Hyer, Rafferty and Glenn Thibeault.

The potential math of this vote has previously been laid out. But for the purposes of keeping score—including the votes of Messrs Mark and Bevilacqua for now, with only Judy Wasylcia-Leis’ seat officially vacant—the known tally at this moment is 149 votes in favour, 148 votes against.

Tags: C-391, Carol Hughes, Dennis Bevington, firearms, gun registry, Jim Maloway, John Rafferty, long gun registry, NDP, Peter Stoffer

More by Aaron Wherry

Emily

If the NDP ends up being responsible for eliminating the gun registry, I think they can kiss all their supporters goodbye.

Crit_Reasoning

That's illogical. Obviously many NDP MPs feel that their constituents support Bill C-391, or else they would simply vote against it.

LynnTO

Didn't those NDP MP's also campaign on killing the registry? I thought I read that somewhere

Style

Yes, as the story notes, although the New Democrats have a party position in support of the gun registry, the Liberals have uncovered their secret agenda to scrap it, despite Layton working to avoid this outcome.

Jenn_

Two things. First, if it is illogical for the NDP to vote according to party lines rather than what their constituents say, why is it okay for Conservatives to do it (without being illogical, I mean). I'm not talking about their freedom to do so or anything else. Surely some Conservative MPs, like my own, live in an urban environment where chances are the majority support keeping the long-gun registry.

Which brings me to point number two. The article linked to above includes this little gem: "The poll was taken online on Aug. 17 and 18 from a random sample of Angus Reid Forum panellists and is considered to be accurate within 3.1 percentage points." How is a self-selected group–I know because I VOLUNTARILY SIGNED UP and am a member of the Angus Reid Forum and I also have been away and haven't been answering the surveys lately–a scientific poll? Don't we know enough by now regarding statistics to know that this is not credible?
Style

Are you responding to my comment? I'm not seeing the connection. As far as voting on party lines, in my opinion, this is a less important issue to whip than the abortion funding vote earlier this year. It's a bit weird, but I really think there's a reasonable dispute to have over the use, effectiveness and appropriateness of the long gun registry that goes beyond "cops use it so it's good v. hunters dislike it so it's bad". It seems like a questionable tool to have given our police forces and I'm always surprised that this aspect is ignored by the progressive parties in Canada.
Jenn_

Sorry, Style. I was really responding to the entire thread under Emily's comment and you were the last of it. I should have picked on Crit :)

I actually agree with you on the long-gun registry, in that it deserves a non-partisan discussion in how we can know about the firearms in our country and can the registry be made better. I mean, on the one hand, we don't seem to be bothered by registering the vehicles we drive, but fly into an outrage when we are expected to register the guns we kill things with. On the other hand, if police are using the registry to definitively tell them whether a gun is in the house they're approaching, I think that's a problem!
LynnTO

Re: That car registration thing

I'm inclined to believe that if registering a firearm for some nominal fee ($60 for the license, I think?) once is an undue hardship that is costing billions of dollars and wasting law-abiding gun holders' time and serves no useful purpose, then registering my car is also costing billions of dollars and wasting my law-abiding time and serves no useful purpose.
Sean

If you leave your vehicle parked in your driveway, or just drive it around your farmland, you're not compelled to register it. Just to keep the comparison honest.

For the record, I think the cost of the program should have very little place in this debate. Either the registry is defensible in terms of some collective benefit, or it isn't. If not, it should probably be scrapped, not maintained simply because it's proponents see it as benign.
Style

Like Olaf below, I can't tell what the registry actually accomplishes. Whatever the registry tells a cop, there may be guns (registered or not) in any residence they approach. Now that you mention it, why do we register cars? When did that start? If it was to deter their use in criminal activity, it doesn't seem to have helped much.
Jenn_

Well, exactly on the guns in homes thing.

But we register cars in case there's an accident. You might not be the driver, but if you own the car you are responsible. You certainly ought to know who was driving your car at the time of the accident–unless you reported it stolen beforehand. I cannot see why the exact same thing isn't required in the case of a firearm of all kinds.

No, it won't catch the illegal weopons. They will be a problem no matter what we do. Nor will it "solve" the murder or maiming if the firearm was listed as stolen. But it will be a good starting point for the investigation.

Obviously, I think, making the police work speedier and much more efficient is of advantage to us all. I don't know the statistics of people killed with long-guns, I don't know the statistics of people killed with registered weopons. I wish I did. But if the number is more than one, why isn't it worth it?
Style

You're responsible for ensuring a car that's registered in your name. And we require the insurance because driving does cause an enormous amount of damage, including a lot of deaths. Following that example, wouldn't it make sense for gun-onwers to be responsible for the costs of any damage done by their guns? We could make firearms insurance mandatory. That would make more sense to me than the registry. There are other tools we could give the police that would make criminal investigations easier, e.g national identity cards and a national fingerprints and genetics database. It isn't cost that stops us from doing that.
Holly Stick

Some of those guns in homes are used by men to murder their wives or to commit suicide or both.

"…One incident Cheliak described to SECU was chilling. A family contacted their local police because the father was in a “depressed state” and they wanted the police to “remove all of the firearms from their home”. Family members told the police what firearms were in the house, then the police checked the registry. Cheliak reported that “A Canadian Firearms Registry Online query by local police indicated that there were 21 additional long guns in the home that the other family members knew nothing about. A warrant was obtained and all firearms were removed by police, preventing a potential firearms tragedy. Without the registry, there would not have been any knowledge of the additional 21 firearms.”…"
http://ywcacanada.ca/en/blog/5
Style

It's examples like this that make me think the benefits of the registry are pretty marginal. No matter what the registry tells you, you don't know how many guns someone has access to. There could be unregistered guns in the residence, some of the registered guns could be at the cottage or whatever.

This link from a CPA endorsed site is full of similar examples where the role of the registry was questionable at best. How did the registry affect the Dawson College shootings? The shootings still happened and the shooter was dead 18 minutes after it started. Why is it included in their list of stories of how the registry has assisted police?
http://www.truthsandmyths.ca/how-the-firearms-reg…
Jenn_

Well, good! This is why I think an unpoliticized discussion would be of benefit. Yes, firearms insurance should be mandatory (I have trouble imagining it isn't already–or at least responsible firearms owners don't take it into consideration when insuring themselves for liability).

I'd support a national DNA registry in theory (why stop at fingerprints), but at least there I understand the argument against it. As always though, the devil is in the details. Like I say, I'm open to things other than the firearms registry as it currently exists. What I don't think is the best thing would be to scrap the registry and replace it with nothing at all.
Style

I think a more informed discussion is needed – which is why I find stories about how long it really took to release the firearms report so annoying – I would rather hear what was in the report and how that might affect MPs votes. But I do think this is a debate about competing values and that's what politics is for, so I disagree that the debate should be unpoliticized. Although unpoliticized may mean a discussion that isn't trivialities, soundbites, misdirection and horse race stories…in which case we completely agree.
Jenn_

Yeah, that's what I meant by unpoliticized. I find it extremely annoying that we can't have such a discussion–ever, about anything.
madeyoulook

I'd support a national DNA registry in theory (why stop at fingerprints)…

For sex offenders? All convicted criminals? Or all Canadians?
Jenn_

In Theory, all of it (us?). In Theory, it would be no more intrusive than your social insurance number for those of us not criminals. But there is a problem with theories, in that sometimes stuff doesn't behave according to the theory. So it would need to be very carefully implemented, and even more carefully monitored and all that. And I don't think today's political culture could handle it. I'm not sure today's science could handle it.
madeyoulook

In Theory, it would be no more intrusive than your social insurance number for those of us not criminals.

Then, can you explain what its purpose would be? Never mind the political culture or the science. How many billiondoggles can one nation stand?
Jenn_

Well sure, it would be to separate those of us not criminals from those of us who are. By which I mean those of us who commit a crime and leave DNA on the scene would be pretty easy to catch. But I take your point about the seventygillion dollars. I would not like that.
madeyoulook

Wow, Jenn. Please think this through a little more carefully. I would hope that it is not even the insane $-aspect of your idea that you should find abhorrent. You are, in essence, stating that it could (in theory) be ok if every single Canadian must register with the central authority on its potential-criminal list. No way: even in theory this is a despicable way for the state to "own" its citizens.

Please give a good-faith attempt to move your reflection on that concept to revulsion at the totalitarianism.
Jenn_

Yeah, see, I understand and respect that argument. Particularly when I'm so gung-ho on our privacy, hence not opening the various government departments to share information about us instead of having a census. However, if we are going to have the state 'own' us, (and if you've noticed, I haven't been seeing a lot of outrage on the above in spite of many attempts to generate it) we might as well. Because the other alternative would be a chip under the skin, like we do with dogs now. But we'll probably end up with both.
madeyoulook

I am disappointed to learn that a rising star in the Liberal Party of Canada, presently the only other party within spitting distance of governing this country, is resigned to eventual state ownership of its citizens. Please, Jenn, remember that freedom is built right into the root word of your party's brand name. You will, no doubt, need to remind many of your friends in your party. Please, do so.
Sean

This isn't too far removed from the Conservative's rhetoric on crime, you know.
Colin

AR tries to maintain a large pool of respondents to draw a random sample from, and then weights all of the samples from these surveys using long form census data (or it tells the users of the data that they need to weight as the case may be) to create a representative sample. Obviously this isn't an ideal solution, and the standard errors are ultimately larger as a result, but it is statistically valid in theory. It also means they are especially hooped by the census changes…
Jenn_

Thanks, but I cannot understand how the size of the pool makes it representative of all Canadians. Those least likely to voluntarily sign up for such a thing would be underrepresented, surely? No matter how they weight the thing–unless one person in an underrepresented group gets to answer for everyone in that group.

Crit_Reasoning

Thanks for the link, Lynn! Those anti-NDP Liberal posters are something else. You'd think they'd at least use silhouettes of long guns in their propaganda, instead of assault rifles and handguns.

WDM

Ian Capstick, I believe it was he, mentioned that the benefit of appealing to their rural ridings may come back to bite the NDP in urban ridings. That could be a pretty good stick for the Liberals to hit them with urban Canada.

OntarioTown

He said that on Power & Politics and he's worried about the effect on urban NDP and he thinks Layton is wrong on this one.

PolJunkie

Not so Crit. The NDP base is NOT in rural Canada. Those MPs might retain their seats but the NDP party will most certainly lose all it has gained in Quebec over this.

If the Liberals play this one right, they just might be handed an opportunity to scoop up votes from the Dippers on this one.

Emily

I agree….it's not about voters in rural ridings, it's about all the others who have been voting NDP and will depart toot sweet if the party votes to end the gun registry.
Crit_Reasoning

Those MPs might retain their seats but the NDP will most certainly lose all it has gained in Quebec.

The NDP have a dozen rural ridings opposed to the gun registry vs. a single seat in Quebec. They might prefer to keep the rural seats, especially since the rural MPs specifically campaigned against the registry. Also, I'm not so sure that Mulcair would lose Outremont over the registry vote.

Mike T.

Yeah, they'll lose 2nd place prairie seats by narrower margins and lose 3rd or 4th place Quebec ones by larger margins.

I do think it might hurt ridings like Jack and Olivia's, though.
PolJunkie

You don't get it, Crit.

The Dippers are splitting the federalist Left vote in many Quebec ridings. I can think of at least 5 key ridings where they lead the Liberals within Montreal. If the Dippers end up being responsible for the death of the registry, that split disappears and the Libs pick up more seats in Quebec.

Picking up seats in Quebec. Do you understand what this spells out in the overall seat count?
Crit_Reasoning

I can think of at least 5 key ridings where they lead the Liberals within Montreal.

Really? That's news to me. I always figured that the Dippers were lucky to hold Outremont, and they were in second or third place in most other Montreal ridings.
PolJunkie

Again, you are looking at this all wrong. The ranking doesn't matter. What you need to look at is how the votes divy up within the group of federalists voters. I'm talking about the group that will not vote for the Bloc is given a proper alternative. Within that group, by coming in second (close second in some cases) to the Libs, the Dippers allowed for a Bloc MP and in some other ridings, the Tory MP to come up the middle.

The gun registry will neutralize the NDP effect and allow the Libs to capture enough vote to take out Bloc MPs.
PolJunkie

"Also, I'm not so sure that Mulcair would lose Outremont over the registry vote. "

Of course you don't. You aren't from Quebec and more importantly, you are not from Montreal. If you were, you'd understand how crucial CRUCIAL the registry is to that constituency. Hello Dawson College shootout and the Polytechnique massacre?

Harper is about to make a serious and costly mistake with this. If the registry goes down, Ignatieff will be handed the single issue that could allow him to secure the federalist lefty vote in Quebec. That is a constituency that Harper could NEVER break into. He didn't have to worry about it because the Dippers had been keeping the Libs at bay since Dion.

That is about to change and throws the current projected seat count in question.
madeyoulook

Polytechnique inspired the billiondoggle that did not prevent Dawson College. Or Concordia. Or Mayerthorpe. Or the ongoing carnage in certain communities of the GTA.

Not that this won't stop dishonest politicians from playing on people's fears, mind you.
Blue

–Stop making sense !
Gayle

Sure. Neither did creating minimum sentences for gun crimes, but that did not stop Harper from touting their effectiveness despite all evidence to the contrary.

sea_n_mountains

not necessarily CR, they could be hedging…. they could believe that their lefty voters feel they have nowhere else to turn and that they might winover some centre-lefties that normally turn to the Libs but support that particlular policy. the CPC played a simialr game with the stimulus.

dillon

To the contrary, the NDP will finally leave the realm of idealogues and enter the realm of ommon sense. The electorate will finally consider them a mainstream political movement.

RunningGag

Especially to those 2.5 million people who voted for them in the last election. If only they had opposed the gun registry back then – they could be running this country!

PolJunkie

We can only hope that the Libs won't let this one pass them by without capitalizing on it. Can you imagine the campaign ads that they could run if the Dippers end up being responsible for the demise of the registry?

Forget about coalitions. This one issue could unite the Left behind the Liberals.

Mike T.

It could also cost the conservatives some 905 seats.
PolJunkie

Possibly. I don't know how strong those voters feel about the registry but I can tell you that it is the ultimate litmust test in the 514 and 450 regions.
madeyoulook

ultimate litmust test in the 514 and 450 regions.

Evidence?

John D

Does the idea of socialists with guns make CPC supporters nervous? ;)

Halo_Override

Elitists. With guns. In our cities.

PolJunkie

Pay attention Liberals. This here is the break you've been waiting for to rally more left-of-center votes to your side in Quebec, BC and Ontario.

Mark R

I don't agree at all. A a deep division in this country gets taken care of and Liberals are left out of touch again. I don't think they stand to gain much at all.

Lord Kitchener's Own

A deep division in this country gets taken care of

I don't understand what this refers to. What's the "deep division" in Canada that the NDP will fix by killing the registry?

Mark R

Uhmmm…The gun registry. A predominantly rural-urban division created by the Liberal party.

Lord Kitchener's Own

OK. I didn't actually realize that Canadians were "deeply divided" by the gun registry. I mean, I know the polls say that the "keep it vs. scrap it" divide is pretty close, but "deep"? I'd be willing to bet that the "couldn't really care less about it one way or the other" constituency is twice as large as either of those other two.

I think Canadians are pretty equally divided on the gun registry, but shallowly so. Also, if 35% say keep it, and 45% say scrap it, how does one of those group prevailing over the other "take care of" the divide exactly? Are the 35% who want to keep the registry just uncommitted wimps who'll stop caring the moment they lose, and [POOF!] divide solved?
Mark R

I think you underestimate just how hated the gun registry is in rural parts of Canada.
Lord Kitchener's Own

That could be true. People do sometimes get irrationally excited about politics. If you're correct, I guess getting rid of the registry might not be such a bad idea. I suppose I'd rather have contented rural dwellers with unregistered guns, than angry rural dwellers with registered guns (though, as I believe the feds have stopped pursuing people who fail to register their guns, what I've got now is probably the worst of both worlds – angry rural dwellers with unregistered guns).

Either way though, I suppose I shouldn't be concerned. Unless they're actually so mad that they plan to come in to the city with their guns, the people on the other side of the divide from me are almost infinitely more likely to shoot one of their own family members than they are to shoot anyone I know.
Lord Kitchener's Own

A predominantly rural-urban division created by the Liberal party.

How are you defining "rural" and "urban" there? The way that divide is defined by Statistics Canada the rural-urban division nationally is about 20%-80%. If the issue of the gun registry is really a "predominantly rural-urban division", how is the "rural" side of the division not getting SLAUGHTERED in the argument?
Sean

1. Far more rural long gun owners than urban, thus more 'stakeholder' involvement in the debate.

2. Distribution of seats isn't strictly along demographic lines: rural Canadians have a disproportionately large voice in Parliament, by strict head count of MPs.

(I'm not saying #2 is a bad thing – the attempt to balance regional and population interests is core to our history. But it can lead to some odd dynamics at times – like PEI having a constitutional veto despite fewer residents than a modestly sized city.)

oppo guy

Prediction: Far more New Democrats will vote to save the registry than against it.

It will actually be ABSENT Liberals who give the Tories the edge they need to scrap it. The Liberals will try to blame the NDP but Iggy's inability to hold his MPs will be the true fault line.

Watch and see, Canada.
PolJunkie

I wonder if the Chessmaster-in-Chief realizes that by forcing Dippers to break rank and join him on this vote, he's handing Ignatieff a wonderful opportunity to pick up votes in Quebec?

Could it be that the Chessmaster-in-Chief still doesn't understand how important this registry is to Quebecers? The blowback on this one will make the backlash on the cuts to the arts look like the Summer of Love.

Anon 001

CiC has given up on Quebec. He hasn't been there at all over the summer, not counting the times he's spent skinny dipping at Harrington Lake.

PolJunkie

And has he given up on his existing seats too?

Anon 001

Won't this bill, C-391, die in the Senate anyway?

WDM

Conservatives will likely have a majority by the time it comes to a vote in the Senate anyways.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I wonder how all of the Conservative Senators feel about the registry?

They haven't all been doing as told lately.

WDM

True, altough they've been thinking outside the box on whether or not they REALLY need to run for election. Considering the registry doesn't impact that, I would imagine they'll be good little soliders and vote in favour of scrapping the registry. Also, considering the Opposition doesn't show up in enough numbers as of now to defeat government legislation, I doubt the Senate would have much impact on the outcome of this bill.

DBM

There are more than enough Senators who will support the Bill to pass it.

But here's the rub – it's a private members Bill, meaning that it is not subject to a government motion for time allocation, or closure of debate. Because the Senate goes through it's entire order paper every day, and things are not scheduled for a certain amount of time as they are in the house of commons, it is possible that repeated amendments and adjournment motions could be used to stall it forever.

The last time this sort of situation was Svend Robinson's Bill which established sexual preference as a ground for discrimination under the human rights act. It eventually got through when it's supporters used an archaic procedural tool – 'the previous question' – in an attempt to close debate and force a vote on the main motion.

DBM

I'd suggest to you that when it worked for Robinson's Bill, it was either because those in opposition to the Bill weren't prepared for it and didn't know what they were dealing with or because they realized they were devoting a great deal of time trying to delay a Bill that had no practical effect (sexual preference had already been firmly entrenched as a ground of discrimination, having been 'read in' to the Act by the courts).

That should not be the case this time.

The real question is whether the handful of Senators who oppose the registry will be willing to oppose the will of the hosue of commons – and likely the will of the majority of their colleagues in the Senate – by debating this Bill to death. Suffering all of the 'undemocratic' and 'obstructionist patronage chamber' rhetoric that will go along with it.

DBM

And by handful of Senators who oppose the registry, I mean handful of Senators who oppose the Bill. Natch.

Wascally Wabbit

Aaron – Carol Hughes will be further pressured by not just the CAW – but quite likely the Steelworkers Union – which is the main union representing mining workers in her riding – who are mad as hell at the way Harper and especially Tony Clement (and before him Maxime Bernier – played handoff with these takeovers by foreign multinationals like Brazil’s Vale (which had a one year standoff union breaking strike with its workers – that just ended with still a lot of acrimony).
Meanwhile – one of the major local newspapers in her riding has come out today characterizing the gun registry issue as a wedge issue created by the Harper government – and NOT a urban vs. rural life style issue as he and Candice Hoeppner have tried to spin it!

Oliver

I think it's hard not see this as a rural vs urban debate. It is, in every way possible.
I don't think that would make the debate in less important, but the people most affected by the long gun registry are the rural canadians and the police. The rural canadians see it as a waste of money (it isn't anymore from what I understand) and don't like getting fined and getting a criminal record when they forget to register their guns (I still don't understand or like that argument, you have to register and license your car too! I guess the criminal record is a bit harsh). The police on the other hand, the urban side of the debate (although not exclusively, but they are the one representing the other side to the debate) support the registry.
Bryan

But why in the world would the Steelworkers care about the gun registry? It's not their issue at all, and it'll just get a bunch of rural blue-collar voters who might vote NDP on economic issues voting Conservative.

sbt

I don't really think killing the long gun registry is going to hurt the NDP all that much. The NDP is a party of activists so I expect alot of noise over the decision from the pro-registry faction but if the main reason someone is voting NDP is because of their support of the long-gun registry and not their other stances on labour, the environment, poverty, etc. then why aren't they voting Liberal already? This seems similar to the flak the NDP took over their opposition to the carbon tax from the environmental activists in their ranks.

WDM

On the carbon tax there was a lot of other ground to stake out on the environmental front. If the gun registry dies because of the NDP swing votes, that's a pretty good talking point for the Liberals in urban Canada, particularly as part of "if you want to get rid of the Tories vote for us" argument.

sbt

There's alot more wiggle room in this vote. Urban NDPers still support the registry and will be on the record supporting it … again. They just don't support whipping their rural counterparts into line. Unlike the carbon tax they don't have to go around espousing views they don't believe.

WDM

That's going to be a tough narrative for Layton to spin IMO.

Olaf

Here is my impression of the long gun registry debate. *clears throat*

Urbanite: "I don't like guns, I don't like violence, I'm sophisticated and peace loving and don't want Canada to be like those stupid Americans, and therefore all the guns that exist should be recorded somewhere by the government because that will end the use… er… no, but people will think twice before… um… no, that's not it either… ahh… what I was saying was, I don't like guns, I don't like violence, I'm sophisticated… *repeat ad infinitum*

Rural folk: "Man, another govmint form!?! Ahhhh pig knuckles!"

Luke

Forms all the forms should be filled out by now.

What will the benefits be to the long gun owners if the bill is passed? Zero
The information of people who hold a valid firearm licence will still be in the registry.

If they purchase long guns from firearm dealers their information will still be held at the dealers place.

Speed limits on the road don’t stop the speeders from speeding, should we abolish speed limits?

Sean

The enforcement of speed limits most certainly does prevent speeding beyond a certain threshold. In Ontario, for example, you can generally get away with 15 km over the limit, but anything past 20 over means you'll likely get stopped and ticketed.

Speed limits also have demonstrable benefits in terms of road safety and controlled fuel consumption. I think it's fair to say the case for the registry's benefits has not been so clearly established.

In terms of the FAC already representing an intrusion: think of it as the difference between having a drivers license and having to register every trip you take with the authorities.

Pat

I assume you are attempting humour, but if you seriously think people who support the registry do so for the reasons you cite, you should think again.

Olaf

I assume you are attempting humour

I can't even tell anymore…

Stewart_Smith

It could be that PolJunkie is right and this will help the Liberals in some key ridings. The pent up righteousness of the young Liberals is also understandable. They literally endured years of Layton lording it over the Liberals that they were keeping the Conservatives in power by not forcing an election, which is of course true. However it is also true it was an election that in reality neither was ready to contest.

If anyone out there wants to retain a vision of Harper as chessmaster, then gather around. There are two scenarios for this to play out. 1) Enough NDP (and a Liberal) support C-391 for it to pass. The Liberals scream and point at the NDP. The Conservatives win the issue and in the next election every criticism that the Ignatieff makes about the Conservative record is greeted with Layton explaining how the Liberals are/were/wouldbe just as bad. 2) C-391 fails & the Conservative retain their big fundraiser and pour money into the vulnerable rural ridings generated.

Bottom line, this might be good for the Liberals at the NDP's expense, but they would be very wise to stfu.

PolJunkie

"Bottom line, this might be good for the Liberals at the NDP's expense, but they would be very wise to stfu."

Completely disagree. On any other issue, I would probably be in agreement but not on the registry. There is only one way for the Libs to win the next election and it will be by getting the majority of the Left of Centre vote to rally behind them. I cannot think of a more perfect issue to make that happen. It would be a monumental mistake for the Libs not to throw this one in the Dippers' face at every turn, especially in Quebec. If the Libs don't shake some of the Dipper vote loose, they will remain in Opposition forever.

It's either that or make a deal with the Dippers on a coalition of sorts. Either way, the road to power is with or through the NDP for the Liberals.

Stewart_Smith

In those Quebec ridings, during an election sure. Now they are just creating a problem they don't need.

PolJunkie

I was talking about the writ period. Weren't you?

Stewart_Smith

No.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05…

special thanks to LynnTO above.
PolJunkie

I don't think that promoting the Dippers' betrayal on the registry during the non-writ would be a problem as long as the Libs don't turn around and side with the Tories on an equally divisive issue during that time.

There are but a few hot button issues that could unite the centre left vote in key ridings. The registry is one of them.
Style

Maybe the New Democrats hope the Liberals' vote against abortion funding gives them a margin of manoueuvre here….

ChrisInKW

Safety and victims' rights should be a partisan issue. It's universal. The fact that we're all being painted into a corner by a cowardly private members' bill cheapens our discourse and is a prime example of Harper's democratic deficit.

PolJunkie

Well I think that this will backfire.

ChrisInKW

Ugh. I meant *shouldn't* be partisan. Sorry.

Style

I agree with your second scenario. I wonder if these variations on your scenarios make sense too though.

1) The bill passes thanks to Liberal absenteeism, one Liberal in support and a dozen New Democrats in support. The New Democrats pay a price in Toronto, and maybe Quebec, maybe giving the Liberals a few seats they pick up from either the Bloc or the NDP. That doesn't hurt the Conservatives. But the Liberals are hurt in rural Canada, where the Conservatives score a few wins off them. Also, the Liberals look ineffective as an opposition, maybe costing them votes (particularly meaningful in BC).
2) As above, but with only a couple of New Democrats voting in support. The Liberals and the New Democrats look equivalent. Neither pay a price to the other. But, again, the Conservatives pick up seats from the Liberals and the New Democrats. Also reinforces the Conservative party's ability to govern, the disarray of the Liberals.
3) New Democrats get a last-minute "concession" from the Conservatives about revising the bill in committee to "reform or replace" the registry, vote to support the bill. Liberals look sidelined.

Pat

The liberals have been long associated with the gun registry. I am not sure there are any more votes they can lose over this.

Style

That makes sense – I had the impression their rural MPs had been able to consistently vote against it in the past though.

Stewart_Smith

I certainly agree that if the NDP can get any concession from the Conservatives (that they are willing to sell as a party) then it is a big win for them. Likewise if the Liberals crack then it is a big loss for them. (How they spin one dissenter will be interesting) Still right now, it is Igantieff that is standing tall on principle with Layton dancing & waffling.

The big win for the Liberals & NDP is if they come through this issue without being at each others throats. Harper has now amassed lots of negative baggage as PM, but he has remarkable skills at denying the obvious.

[youtube rm29cgVXJTk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm29cgVXJTk youtube]

All Harper needs to work his campaign magic is for the Liberals and NDP to kick up enough dust going at each other to provide some cover.

Style

Layton is certainly in a tough spot here and Ithe only reason I see for Mr. Harper to agree to any concession at all is if the Conservative vote in suburban Ontario is actually vulnerable on this. If it is, tying the bill up in committee or working party discussions until the next election might suit him perfectly.

The Liberals and the New Democrats have to go at each other because they are competing with each other for votes. it would be nice if the Liberals would stop splitting the progressive vote in AB, BC and Quebec, at a minimum, but I think we have to accept that's not going to happen as long as the party polls above 20%.
PolJunkie

"The big win for the Liberals & NDP is if they come through this issue without being at each others throats. Harper has now amassed lots of negative baggage as PM, but he has remarkable skills at denying the obvious."

Disagree again. It's not enough to just vilify Harper. The Lib/Dip constituency isn't going to vote for him anyway. What the Libs need to do is shave off support from the Dippers and bring it on their side. The registry vote will provide them with that opportunity.

Voters can despise Harper all they want. As long as they continue to split their anti-Harper sentiment 4 ways, he's going to stay right where he is.

Stewart_Smith

Well we disagree. Although the juicy, easy to get at voters for both the Liberals & NDP are from each other, the ones pulled from the Conservatives are ultimately more important especially in Ontario.

That said, I don't think that the Liberals & NDP should run as a coalition either, rather than they should operate with respect for each other and avoid negative campaigning targeting the other. The Young Liberal campaign and Pat Martin's comments serve to counter each other yet both solidify Harper's position.
PolJunkie

"the ones pulled from the Conservatives are ultimately more important especially in Ontario."

I don't know if they are more important but they are certainly harder to gain than the centre left vote. Realistically, the Libs have a far better chance of getting in power with the centre left vote.

"The Young Liberal campaign and Pat Martin's comments serve to counter each other yet both solidify Harper's position."

With whom? The rural vote? Sure. But again the Libs and Dippers' base are in urban centres so please explain to me how killing the registry could ever solidify Harper's position with those groups?
Stewart_Smith

I think more important than the gun registry, census or any other issue in contention is the style and integrity of Stephen Harper. Certainly there isn't even a whiff of Harper attempting to personally financially benefit from his position (unlike the accusations Mulroney, Chretien & Martin faced) and Harper has been scrupulous in keeping his cabinet clear of this type of scandal. However, his no holds bar, no convention left unbroken approach to getting and holding power has worn thin on the electorate (especially in Ontario where the memories of Premier Harris are still fresh). That said, they are still generally pissed with the Liberals and the NDP are widely considered to be overly opportunistic
under Layton. It is not a particularly profound statement to say that Canadian are unhappy with their political choices.

The Liberals have to elevate their approach to politics in order to differentiate themselves from Harper especially at a national level. If they can do that, the voters that scattered in both directions when the RCMP announced it was investigating Goodale will return.
PolJunkie

"The Liberals have to elevate their approach to politics in order to differentiate themselves from Harper especially at a national level. If they can do that, the voters that scattered in both directions when the RCMP announced it was investigating Goodale will return."

I wish you were right but I just don't see this happening. My math tells me that the fractionning on the Left is almost unsurmountable. The Libs need voters to abandon the Dippers (and the Greens in some ridings) en masse for that to happen. The Libs have no choice but to fight a battle on two fronts (that's if they continue to refuse to make deals with the Dippers), three even because of the Bloc and we all know what happens when you fight that many fronts simultaneously…
Stewart_Smith

interesting read if you haven't already
http://www.ekoselection.com/randominsights/?p=159

Bob

All this talk about how this will affect vote intentions is nonsense. The only people who are likely to change votes based on the outcome of the gun registry are gun owners. Whether you support the registry or not, the next election will not be about the gun registry.

Pat

I do not think any votes are going to change. The registry has been an issue for gun owners since it came in. Why would votes change now?
tobyornotoby

I agree, and posted to that effect below before reading your post.

Earth to Wherry

Harper is a control freak who convinced Iggy to be a control freak who is trying to convince Layton to become a control freak. Brilliant.
Attention criminals, register those guns or you will go to jail for not filling out your long form census. Don't worry folks it all makes sense to liberal thinking liberals.
ChrisInKW

At what point does the national interest demand reconciliation with the local? This bill does nothing to build compromise. The government seeks to cheapen the debate even further by not having the courage to put forward a proper government bill to give this issue the wholesome debate it deserves. For shame.

PolJunkie

The purpose of this bill is to force Lib MPs to break rank and embarass Ignatieff. If Iggy is able to maintain control of his caucus on this, it will backfire on Harper.

ChrisInKW

Exactly my point. Using public safety and victims' rights as a wedge and for political gamesmanship is shameful. Whether or not it's successful remains to be seen… so far, as you said, it's not looking good for Harper.

PolJunkie

Welcome to our canadian world under Harper rule.
madeyoulook

Using public safety and victims' rights as a wedge and for political gamesmanship sounds perilously close to how we got this billiondoggle in the first place.

OntarioTown

Layton has such an easy out on this and he doesn't know it. He could simply say that in all good conscience he can't let his MP's vote to dismantle the registry without full disclosure and information so that they could make an educated decision based on the true facts.

What has Harper promised Layton?
tobyornotoby

I really don't see the potential harm for the NDP that commenters on this forum are predicting. I think we have evidence that some of the Conservative support is from one-issue gun nuts, but there's no evidence the NDP has a similar vote base that will decide based on the party's position on gun control, let alone a registry that hasn't exactly delivered gun control.

In any case urban NDP support would be for more stringent control of handguns, not necessarily long guns, and more effective gun control in general than has been accomplished by the registry developed by the Liberals.

Sometimes there really are more than two sides to an issue, but go ahead with your wishful thinking everyone.

hosertohoosier

The key constituency in question are what I call yellow dippers. They are the kind of voters that normally have a high propensity to vote Liberal strategically, even though the NDP is closer to their values. And nobody is dumber than strategic voters. I have met many people who said they planned to strategically vote Liberal to stop Harper, even though they lived in ridings that featured an NDP-Liberal competition. Their well-being is derived from being smug about their choices, and gun control offers them the chance to distance themselves from Canadian hicks and Americans.

tobyornotoby

The NDP just doesn't swing like that. They have a core, not unlike the Cons, that surges depending on the behaviour of the Liberals, the economy, and local issues. Have you ever even met an NDP voter? They really aren't that rare, and you could just ask one rather than making up sh#t like this.

hosertohoosier

I am not talking about core NDP voters, but rather about NDP-Liberal switchers, which have been important to the growth of the party.

PolJunkie

"In any case urban NDP support would be for more stringent control of handguns, not necessarily long guns, and more effective gun control in general than has been accomplished by the registry developed by the Liberals."

So you think that this group would be fine with scrapping the registry alltogether and be left with no control at all?!? And you misunderstand the point being made. The Dippers have the seats they currently hold because many Liberal votes went their way in the last election. Just look at the percentages of Dip voters who say that the Libs are their second choice. Those are the ones that would move to the Libs if Iggy plays this registry issue properly.

I think you and others, including the Chessmaster-in-Chief and Layton, seriously underestimate the damage that this bill can have on their electoral fortunes. If the Libs capitalize on this in key areas namely Quebec, it would increase the Lib seat count.

tobyornotoby

"If the Libs capitalize on this in key areas namely Quebec …"

What is it that they will be doing to capitalize? Running around calling the NDP soft on gun control? Ads with Jack Layton double hammering a six gun at the Registry? In bed with Harper? When the Liberals fail to capitalize on it, I suppose you'll also be able to explain all the reasons why that didn't happen.

My point was, and remains, that not enough of the voting group you identify, and that Hoosier seems set on calling "yellow" for some reason known to him I suppose, have enough concern about this one issue to make it the reason for switching their vote. How would the gun issue account for their swings back and forth in the past? As swing voters would they not be more likely than partisans to swing on the big issues like jobs or free trade or environment or healthcare?

I think you are overestimating the influence the daily blow by blow of politics has on the final decision.

PolJunkie

"As swing voters would they not be more likely than partisans to swing on the big issues like jobs or free trade or environment or healthcare?"

At the exception of the United States, every G7 jurisdictions have some form of gun registry. Why do you think that is? Because the population demands it. But you somehow think that Canadians, especially the ones with left-leaning politics would be fine with the removal of the registry?

TThe removal of the registry is just part of the "daily blow by blow of politics?!?" What planet do you live on?

tobyornotoby

I never said that voters would be fine with the removal of the registry. It's like you're trying not to understand me. I'm saying that there's a big difference between being unhappy or disagreeing with what a party or candidate does about one issue and making that your reason for voting (or not voting) for them.

I don't think there are many voters who are completely comfortable with every position of the candidate/party they vote for, but if they are, I suspect they are committed partisans, and by definition not swing voters.

Btw, I live on the planet where there are more than three colours and two economic ideas, and where not everyone lives and breathes politics, even if I do. Swing by sometime.

Bryan

Anyone who thinks that killing the registry is an unambiguous loser for the NDP is deluded about who actually votes NDP. Sure, there is a certain type of urban culturally liberal NDP voter but the party still gets more of its seats from working-class voters in traditional heavy-industrial areas, some of which (forestry and mining areas) are very rural. I mean, the party has more seats in Northern Ontario alone than in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal combined. You really think one of Carol Hughes' constituents in Nickel Belt who votes NDP out of union loyalty but likes to go hunting on the weekend with his fellow INCO workers is going to be passionate about keeping the gun registry?
Lord Kitchener's Own

I can imagine being a farmer.

I can imagine being a farmer with a long gun.

I just can't imagine being passionately opposed to the long gun registry. Are many farmers also passionately opposed to registering their trucks?