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

152-151

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:18am - 0 Comments

Carol Hughes says she’ll oppose C-391, which makes it 152 MPs opposed to the bill, 151 in favour.

“Should Ottawa have spent a billion dollars on this thing? I say no way, and so do most people around here. But that start-up money is gone, and I want to look forward, not back. I think many people were surprised to learn this month that it now only costs a dime per Canadian to keep the registry running,” Hughes said.

Jack Layton wants to talk compromise with the Prime Minister.

Tags: C-391, Carol Hughes, gun control, gun registry, Jack Layton, long gun registry, NDP

More by Aaron Wherry

Dave

Why would Harper want to compromise on the Best Fundraising Schtick Ever?

Mike T.

Will the diehards keep shelling out like lemmings over it?

Reverend_Blair

That's a good question, Mike. If there's a workable compromise, will they keep paying? Some…those who buy into the conspiracy theory about the government wanting to take their guns away…likely will. Others though? I'm not so sure.
ChrisWPG

Mike, you answered your own question.

The diehards will keep shelling out BECAUSE they are lemmings.

Cats

I don't get this argument. A precondition for getting rid of the registry is a majority. Fundraising helps to win a majority.

Isn't it perfectly natural that people who dislike the gun registry would give money to the CPC ?

To hear Liberals bring this up its like they've discovered some crazy conspiracy. Every time there's a discussion on the topic of the registry media types and Liberals trot out this thing about CPC using the issue to fundraise.

Well duh! They want to get rid of the registry and they'll need a majority to do so.

Obvious Cats.

ChrisWPG

first I'm not a Liberal.

Second that is perfectly natural.

it's not a crazy conspiracy, and if it's true, why does every Con pundit, party official, or other mouth piece deny it like it isn't as obvious as the nose on there face?
Cats

Well usually the conspiracy theory goes something like this:

Harper doesn't really want the registry dead. Those CPC elites are playing you like rubes! They want to keep the registry alive for as long as possible so you keep giving them money. Proof: Why haven't they abolished the registry yet?

Except that makes no sense because every CPC member will be in their seats voting to do so on the 22nd.

Its some bizzare theory about attitudes which has no real life implications because the CPC members will always vote to kill the registry.

Drop these silly talking points please Cats.
ChrisWPG

If the Cons were serious, and thought they had the countries backing, why on earth did they make this a private members bill. The only reason that is logical is they didn't want the bill to pass. 100% of the bills Harper has made confidence votes have passed, and there has been no shortage of them and some even quite controversial. Why not simply make this a government confidence bill and force the opposition to face there constituents if they feel so strongly about it? You and the Cons have just proven the conspiracy theory true.
Cats

Haha what.

Wow someone is big into conspiracy theories.

Until they prorogued parliament the Tories had a minority on all senate committees so the bill would have failed in the senate if they did what you were suggesting.

Since they prorogued they haven't really been in much of a position to make those kinds of threats.

Government house leader having a basic understanding of their job seems far more plausible than a conspiracy theory.

Cats!
ChrisWPG

Wow, somebody will believe any Con talking points they are fed. Cats layoff the catnip so early in the day.
Cats

Can you actually dispute anything I just said ?

Waste of fish.

Dave

Yes. Yes. Oh, God, Yes.

http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

Because the issue can be turned against Harper if the registry survives and Harper refuses to address the concerns of rural voters by accepting Layton's compromises.

Cats

Um no. If someone says "you didn't make form X,Y,Z easier to fill out and reduce the fine for first time offences!!"

The obvious answer is "I want to get rid of the gun registry. Do you? NO. Then if there's something wrong with the process its on you."

There. Done and done Cats.

http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

You've been listening to the howler monkeys for so long that you now believe every Canadian is one. The reality though, is that most Canadians are quite willing to compromise.

Cats

Oh yes, don't worry rural Canadians, we'll make the poison go down a little easier with some sugar.

Sorry Robert but that swill is going to be spat out.

Cats.
ChrisWPG

wheres the poison pill in compromise?

Tceh

Ex-Policewomen and now Conservative MP Shelley Glover will of course be voting to keep the Registry in place…right?

153-149

bennji1977

Not necessarily – there was the online poll of front line police offices who indicated that they didn't support the registry.

As we know, from statements made by former PMO spokesperson Kory Teneycke, you just can't trust the validity of online polls as they can easily be manipulated.

I mean, come on, a "source" told him that even Constable Snuffleupagus is in support of scrapping the costly and ineffective long gun registry.

Stewart_Smith

Gee, first the Taliban, now the Conservatives: Jack wants to strike a compromise with just about everyone! Good for him.
Of course, the Taliban are a tad less ideological and more amenable to a rational discussion but it is still worth an effort to go after the Conservatives.

Style

I like that Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff both agree the registry needs to be improved. Except Mr. Ignatieff isn't sure how or when. I bet he advocates caution…

Anon

Actually Jack's proposals closley resemble measures the Michael Ignatieff brought forward quite some time ago for how to improve the registry. In fact it was in announcing these measures that he also announced that the Liberals would all be voting against Bill C-391.

In fact this was back in April as we can see reported in this pre-Kory Sun article, http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/19/….

Style

Yes, and those proposals were described elsewhere are being very similar to the NDP's already existing proposals. I tried to dig up the quote, but have failed. Anyway, it will all be moot soon, they can both vote on the NDP motion proposing these measures.

Richard_S_Argent

Is it just me or is the way that Jack Layton has handled this file kinda, sorta, exactly like the way the Reform Party promised to govern when they came to Ottawa?

Dave

In related questions, when was the last time the Reformatories had a free vote on anything?

Richard_S_Argent

Well that depends – are we talking free votes or "free" votes?

:D

Dave

Ideally without the quotation marks.

Anyone?

ChrisWPG

On the issue of assisted suicides the CPC MP Steven Fletcher was allowed to abstane. That might not be the only example but it's the first to jump to mind….

ChrisWPG

(a) it was Harper who made it free to register the first time, blame him for costing the tax base money, if your going to point fingers….

(b) ya that seems dumb.

Style

Why should you have to learn how to shoot, license yourself regularly and be subject to government oversight just because a deceased loved one is associated with a rifle you're keeping ornamentally? There should be a compromise possible there.

ChrisWPG

sure, take the thing to a shop, have it soldered shut. No longer a functional weapon, no need to register.

Style

Or get a possession-only license. What is the problem that this proposal is supposed to solve?

http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

I think you just made my point. If keeping something "ornamentally" is cause for an exemption, then it creates quite a freakin' loophole, doesn't it? Every gun collector in the country can cite "ornamentality" as a rationale for not registering.

wascally wabbit

Again – it was becoming clear for some time that Carol Hughes (in my riding) was mustering the evidence to support her voting against Candice Hoeppner’s Bill. Some local gun lovers are now vowing to vote Conservative against Ms. hughes at the next election. I’m rolling over and laughing at that – much as I did at Johnny Baird’s pious Presser this morning (Honestly – I really thought he’d bring his hands together in supplication or prayer for a positive new session of Parliament – he certainly did put his hand on his heart several times).
Last time Conservatives showed above the horizon in this riding was the provincial brand – who brought Tim Hudak in as keynote speaker for an AGM…they had to cancel the AGM – because they couldn’t raise a quorum!
and their Federal brand are about as out to lunch!

ChrisWPG

If I were a Con in an urban seat I'd be more worried about the votes they earned for preaching financial accountability and not for there gun registry stance than the NDP in the rural seats about loosing a few votes for there gun registry stance.

RayK

From what I heard in his press conference the proposal regarding inherited weapons was that you would have three months to register the weapon after a loved one dies.

Possession only licences–which don't require the same training–already exist under the current system.
Dave

WRT (a):

1. That's also in the Liberal "compromise" plan from last spring.

2. It's what the Tories have done for the past several years.

So you know have three of the four parties agreeing that registration should be free.

http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

Well, I hope they agree that registering my car should be free also.

dave

Thing is, it's already possible to hold onto firearms relatively indefinitely without license should someone die. Executors are given the power to do so without licensing, in Ontario at least, for a "reasonable" time period; effectively until those responsible for receiving the firearms are licensed to take possession or the weapons themselves can be liquidated should that be what the will mandates.

As such, codifying a 3 month time requirement into law would be adding limitations and restrictions not removing them.

Mike T.

I doubt the particular relationship between an executor and property (it's a temporary trust, not ownership) would attract licensing requirements, esp. since the executor isn't using the gun.

dave

Technically, the Executor is expected to be licensed "eventually", though mainly if they are intended to be the permanent possessor of the firearm in question.

But, what the NDP suggestion does is create a new rule whereby the person the Executor is supposed to give the firearm to now has a limited time period in which to get licensed – which is not the state of law as it stands. This essentially creates a situation where, once three months are passed, the Executor could now be expected by Firearms officers to liquidate the weapons in question regardless of the will's intent because the person to whom they have been left has failed to comply with the new requirement.

You can argue whether or not that would be an improvement over the current status – largely based on where you stand on the issue – but I don't believe the end result of such a change would be what the NDP is supposedly trying to accomplish.

WDM

The intriguing story in all of this: In a vote this close, does Ignatieff get all his MPs to show up. A couple ducking out of town and the bill passes.

ChrisWPG

IMHO if Ignattieff can't get all him MP's to show up, he might as well stay home himself.

Dion, the first leader of the Liberal party never to become PM.

Ignattieff, the frist leader of the Liberal party never to face the electorate as the leader?
Could be if he can't learn to control his MPs.

Cats

Lots of liberal leaders haven't faced the electorate but they were interim leaders.

So Ignatieff would be the first *elected* leader not to face the electorate in history ?

Except he wasn't really elected either.

Hmm Cats.

Cats

I clean my butt with my tongue!

Cats away!

brooster

Shouldn't be hard…your whole heads shoved up it, isn't it?
Cats

The above comment wasn't written by me. Hmm but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery eh ?

Look like I touched some frayed Liberal nerves when I brought up the fact that their leader was NEVER elected and the party is about to tear him apart as he falls back down in the polls.

See today's EKOS. Iggy is in trouble.

Tru Cats!

Cats

1) Plenty of bills were delayed to the point that prorogation or a new election killed them.

2) We both agree that the gun registry is a good fundraising issue. Not sure I buy the argument that for every dollar spent attacking it more money is returned – its still smart to lose money if it gets you votes.

I'm with you up until this point. However, the conspiracy theory conclusion i'm objecting to is this:

Harper is keeping the gun registry alive as long as possible so he can fundraise off of it!!

The people keeping the gun registry alive are the coalition parties which form a majority in the house of commons.

Cats.

ChrisWPG

Oh Cats, I have to leave the computer world after this post (or maybe another ; ) ) to pick up some hunting supplies for the weekend so this will be my last post for a while.

1) It was proven that Senate was not responsible for delaying any bills, it was the House.

2)If you know you can't win the argument, meaning the cons know they can't get this passed in the house, why lay out so much money to fight it if you aren't going to get more back in return. Does this necessarily mean that Harper is keeping this alive JUST to fund raise, probably not, but it's doing one hell of a job.

If we can agree this isn't a conspiracy, can we drop the "coalition parties" from future arguments? The CPC was just as happy to hold hands with the socialists and separatists after the 2004 election. Further to that, the CPC has had to form a coalition in order to pass every single piece of legislation passed or it would have died. That's the way minority governments work.

Cats

I think we can agree to the following points:

1) Harper makes money off the registry
2) Harper wants the registry dead

And agree that the following point is not valid:

1) Harper doesn't really want the registry gone because he makes money off of it.

Cats!

http://www.trpornizle.net rokettube

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral rokettube yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi porn sitesi…