Where will the votes come from?
The long-gun registry has always been a target of the Conservatives, who apparently are going to try to kill it now, in this minority government:
According to CTV News, the Tories will start taking action to dismantle that registry as early as today.
CTV reported last night that Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day is expected to announce an amnesty for rifle and shotgun owners. That would mean the registry would only apply to handguns and semi-automatic weapons.
CTV also reported the responsibility for the registry will be transferred to the RCMP from the Canada Firearms Centre.
But all three opposition parties, the Liberals (who created this boondoggle), the NDP (which has become essentially an urban-only party, so has little reason to care about rural sensibilities when it comes to rifles and shotguns), and the Bloc Quebecois (which shares similar sensibilities with the NDP when it comes to social issues), are all against dismantling the registry:
But the minority Conservative government can expect a rough ride.
The Conservatives face three opposition parties in Parliament that all support gun control and have said they will oppose moves to scrap it.
The registry has been a financial and managerial nightmare from its inception:
[Auditor General Sheila Fraser's] report today is coming more than three years after she dropped a bombshell audit that detailed a nearly $1 billion cost overrun in the gun control program, and criticized the Liberal government for not bringing the ballooning budget to Parliament's attention.
The Canada Firearms Centre, which administers the program, operates on a budget of roughly $83 million a year. Of that amount, supporters say, just $10 million to $15 million goes to the costs of the long-gun registry, which covers rifles and shotguns.
That report, apparently, is what the Tories will use to win any vote on altering the registry:
Yesterday, Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz, the Conservatives' critic of the gun control program, said that armed with the second report, the Tories may get enough votes in Parliament to act.
"I hope it will be a wakeup call for the other parties, that this firearms issue is not going away, that it's still a black hole of a money pit," said Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville).
Where are these votes going to come from? I don't see any opposition party voting with the Conservatives on this. I might be wrong, but let's assume I'm right. That leaves two possibilities. Despite the phrasing of the report, that the Tories would "get enough votes" to support changes to the registry, in truth it means that the opposition parties, unwilling to risk prompting an election (though I doubt this would be a vote of confidence), would simply arrange for enough members to be absent from the House when the vote comes.
Or the report means what it says -- some Liberal, NDP, or BQ MPs will vote against their party in support of a Conservative motion to alter the gun registry. Liberals, most likely. That is a huge thing. Besides bucking party unity, which is always remarkable, it would have considerable impact on the Liberal leadership race. Any Liberal MPs who vote against the party would then be in a position to argue that a new Liberal Party needs to face up with the policy failures of the past, including the much criticized gun registry. That would throw down the gauntlet for other Liberals, in particular those vying for the leadership, to defend the financial and managerial nightmare left behind by the Liberal Party, or to join in criticizing this foundation stone of Liberal Party policy. It would also draw a line between Liberals continuing to support the Chretien-Martin legacy, and those willing to jettison that legacy.
Is this why the Conservatives are pushing on the registry? One of the five priorities is a new emphasis on law and order. Certainly the gun registry is part of this priority, but given how controversial the registry is, the Conservatives could be forgiven for pulling on other threads in the law and order tapestry until they win a majority government. But it might be that the Conservative strategists have deduced that dealing with gun registry now is likely to result in political dividends as well as policy ones.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I'd say taking a principled stand to do away with this disgraceful attempted first step towards confiscation is worthwhile whether it succeeds or not.
Posted by: Bill at May 16, 2006 12:10 PM
I have never seen such acrimony between the Libs & the Reds (NDP) in Parliament as now, due no doubt to Smilin' Jack's assumption that his only hope to pick up more seats next election is to ridicule the disorganized, disarrayed & depressed Libs.
Result is that PMSH can expect to gain support from the Libs even if he were to propose a law to make eating fried babies on toast perfectly legal.
Posted by: Alienated at May 16, 2006 12:11 PM
Let's see...guns primary utility is to kill. Governments' primary imperative is public safety. Nope, no public interest in tracking firearms ownership here.
Posted by: joebaloni at May 16, 2006 12:41 PM
God, joe, I never looked at it that way! But of course, all killing threatens public safety. Ducks. Moose. Gophers. Harm a hair of any of 'em and we're all at risk.
Hey, did you know you can buy stuff at the grocery store which KILLS GERMS? I feel unsafe already.
Posted by: ebt at May 16, 2006 01:36 PM
Let's see...murderers primary utility is to kill. Liberals' primary imperative is banning an inanimate tool the murderer uses. Nope, no Liberal interest in confiscation here.
Posted by: Dennis at May 16, 2006 01:38 PM
http://www.theinfozone.net/SALW/Canada.html
The gun registries greatest supporter is Wendy Cukier, who has received almost half a million dollars from the former Liberal government.
What is amazing is that the original promise that the program would only cost $2 million is so out distanced by the paid cheerleader, Cukier receiving 25% of that amount to lobby the government to enact the program.
TIZ
Posted by: TIZReporter at May 16, 2006 01:38 PM
I hope that they do have the votes to abolish this but if they don't, wait til the next election to get their majority. Take a look at this beauty about the libs:
The former Liberal government cooked the books on the much-maligned gun registry program, ignoring legal advice and hiding the true cost of the registry from Parliament, says the auditor general.
While the 10-year cost of the registry through the end of fiscal 2005 has been pegged at $946 million - just below an earlier $1 billion estimate - government officials went to great lengths to obscure the true annual tally, including spreading the accounting of past spending over the next 15 years.
I hope the CPC gets rid of this and does not change it instead.
Posted by: None at May 16, 2006 02:33 PM
All supporters of the gun registry can Blow Me!
Posted by: PGP at May 16, 2006 03:18 PM
The question of votes may be irrelevant. If the government doesn't appropriate money for the long-firearm registry, the Opposition can't force it to spend any (an increase to an appropriation can only be proposed by a Minister). Then, the Opposition's choice would be either to accept an appropriation bill with zero being spent on the long-firearm registry, or to bring down the government on the whole supply vote.
It's interesting to have people on the Treasury benches that actually care about the public purse, isn't it? ;o)
Posted by: Jim Whyte at May 16, 2006 03:49 PM
http://www.theinfozone.net/SALW/Canada.html#AlbinaGuarnieri
Missed solutions?
Lost in the discussion today is the report that Albina Guarnieri prepared in 2004 for Anne Mclellan.
Guarnieri's report, which was declared a cabinet secret apparently suggested taking rifles and shotguns out of the registry, and decriminalization of many registry offences.
TIZ
Posted by: TIZReporter at May 16, 2006 04:59 PM
Harper and co. are going to axe the registry because they have to. The grass roots of the Conservative party will boot them if they don't. It will likely be worth it to Harper to make it a confidence vote, and dare the opposition to vote it down.
Chicken is a game best played when you have a bigger truck than the other guy. Harper's got an 18 wheeler this time.
Posted by: The Phantom at May 16, 2006 04:59 PM
>Let's see...guns primary utility is to kill.
Not really. Context matters. The utility of a firearm in possession of a collector or shooter or hunter is not to kill people.
>Governments' primary imperative is public safety.
Governments' primary imperative is the continuation of government.
>Nope, no public interest in tracking firearms ownership here.
There is no public interest in tracking firearms. Based on historical trends, we know with high confidence that a renegade person with a firearm is likely to kill at most a few people, while a renegade government unopposed by force is likely to kill millions.
Posted by: lrC at May 16, 2006 06:39 PM
Lost amid all the economics is the admission that there is absolutely no empirical evidence to show the gun registry actually made anyone safer. After a billion dollars and ten year the Liberals say it is "too soon" to tell if it worked at all much less was better than other uses for the money.
the whole thing was based on the myth that more guns equals more crime. Britian banned guns and crime skyrocketed. The US increased the number of guns by 70 million mostly pistols and brought in concealed carry for the lawabiding crime has dropped dramatically
the whole registry is based on the strange assumption that cracking down on the easy to get at law abiding at great cost will hamper the few and criminal. In the meantime the RCMP starved for funds admit they are simply ignoring a large % of organized crime and the organized drug gangs that are actually doing the shooting!
Posted by: Bruce at May 16, 2006 07:37 PM
The more I see of the scum that infect the Liberals and the NDP the more that I'm thinking that it will take several terms of Conservative Majority to correct the garbage that these Moonbats have brought in.
Voting out the appointment of the Ethics Commissioner because of an NDP motion that his comments on immigration were "inappropriate" makes me gag.
Pat
Posted by: Pat at May 16, 2006 08:21 PM
I wonder at the person who equates gun ownership with a threat to his neighbours safety. Most people who own rifles have them because they hunt or at least once hunted or the gun was handed down from a father or a grandfather who took pride in that ownership. In many cases the rifle may be the only article that the gun owner has that once belonged to an ancestor. Surely he should not be ashamed to claim it as his own ; nor should he pay fees so that he can keep this in his family. The public should take a hard look at the rhetoric that has been preached by the anti gun folk before they take sides on this one.
Posted by: crowbar at May 16, 2006 08:48 PM
It seems strange that the major benefactor of the registry (RCMP, police) have been very silent on this matter. Apparently there have been approximately 5.2 million information requests from law enforcement agencies into the registry. Are there any law enforcement people reading this that would like to comment?
Regards
Posted by: at May 16, 2006 08:53 PM
Harper needs votes in Quebec and the major cities to get his desired majority.
Quebec support for the gun registry is strong, as it is in the major metropolitan areas. Ontario has come out today and joined Quebec in opposing any attempts to kill the Gun Registry.
Public statements by the Police Chiefs that the Registry is a valuable police tool will also make it difficult for the Harperites to kill this.
And there is no reason to make this into a "Confidence" Vote. It will be seen for what it is - an attempt to bully it thru Parliament over the bogus threat of an election.
Posted by: Scott Tribe at May 16, 2006 09:24 PM
Regards,
The RCMP is silent because the registry does not provide them with useful information. Even if they use it to find out if the address they are getting a 911 call from has any guns registered, that doesn't tell them if there will be any guns in play when they get there.
People seem to have a hard time understanding this. Just because the database says the household doesn't own a gun does NOT mean that some schmuck didn't bring one there today.
Plus, as the Fraser report says, the registry database is riddled with errors. It is not a useful police tool.
Well, unless somebody wants to collect guns from the law abiding citizens who registered. Then its a great thing.
Posted by: The Phantom at May 16, 2006 09:47 PM
It seems strange that the major benefactor of the registry (RCMP, police) have been very silent on this matter.
Open your ears, oh anonymous one. The RCMP, as an organization, doesn't comment on government policy because it's inappropriate to do so. Groups like the Association of Chiefs of Police will comment occasionally but it's not unusually about something politically charged like the Gun Registry.
Individual officers might offer their opinions but that's all it is... their opinions. Here's mine- the Firearms Registry is a boondoggle and a damn expensive one at that. The whole thing should be flushed as quickly as possible.
I can explain the "millions of checks" of the CFAR for you. Checking the CFAR is a simple for cops as checking the appropriate box on the computer screen when doing the "usual" checks (ie: for warrants, parole, undertakings, valid driver's licence, whatever) so, yup, it gets checked. Does it provide meaningful information? Not likely.
The big "it'll save cops" schtick is nonsense of the first order. It's a question of too many ifs.
Let's say a cop is rolling to a domestic dispute. The 911 operator gets a call which is basically a scream of pain with a roar of anger in the background. The cop has the dispatcher do as many checks as possible. The ifs begin....
-if the phone number comes up to a full name, not a name & initial
-if the name associated to the phone is accurate (some folks deliberately register false names on phone)
-if the name isn't so common as to make CFAR searchs meaningless without further details
-if the person in question did the registration instead of having someone else do it for them
-if they bothered to register at all
What ends up happening is the dispatcher searches all databases available to police and tries to find further details, hoping to make the CFAR search meaningful.
Chances are the cops will be at the scene and well into the thick of things before it's possible to make a meaningful search... ie: it's too late to do any good... and it's not guaranteed to do any good because criminals don't register their guns.
Posted by: Mac at May 16, 2006 09:58 PM
I haven't paid much attention to the registry debate until now. Reading up on it one thing is clear it always has been a mess. The planning, the execution, the management, all of it has been a mess from the start. I have no confidence that it has registered anywhere near all the guns, nor that those that are registered are correctly recorded. As painful as it is to realize that 2 billion dollars have been thrown down the toilet that is indeed what I believe. I say stop the bleeding now before we waste any more tax dollars.
Posted by: steve d. at May 16, 2006 10:34 PM
Doesn't work, look at statistical comparisons of Canada's long-gun murder rate versus the U.S. One you deomographically adjust the populations to be similar - the rates are near identical over the past 50 years. One country has a registry, one does not. This ultimately should dispel the notion that a long-gun registry would prevent violent crime.
Posted by: Mitch at May 17, 2006 03:42 AM
Thanks for the replies to my question. Mac you can leave the sarcasm behind.Your obviously very knowledgeable. It was a straight forward question with no political overtone whatsoever. I was just looking for intelligent responses.Yours didn't start out that way but ended up being so.
Regards
Posted by: at May 17, 2006 04:57 AM
The Conservatives are at 40% in the polls.
The Liberals are just itching to have an election with Bill Graham as leader to explain to Canadians why the CFAR is such a good deal.
The Bloc are losing support to the Conservatives in those rural areas of Quebec where the gun registry is no more popular than other rural areas of Canada.
And the Opposition is going to show up to vote on a bill to transfer the registry to the RCMP and provide indefinite amnesty to non registered owners?
Because a year or so from now, or whenever the Conservatives have a majority, an inoccuous little report will surface from the Public Accounts Committee that the RCMP has determined the registry is not worth the money to continue.
The devil is the details.
Posted by: john at May 17, 2006 05:14 AM
Everyone knew from the beginning that this was going to be a mess - I knew it, you knew it, even my cat knew it. After all, it was fronted by Allan Rock for gosh sakes!
That it was just a cash grab became obvious when you had to renew your registry. Renew? I thought that to register something you just had to do it once. But then again, I'm not fluent in Liberal.
And of course, there was the most obvious problem of all: criminals don't register their guns. Though for the life of me I can't figure out why.
Posted by: Ron at May 17, 2006 08:16 AM
"Quebec support for the gun registry is strong,"
Ironic though that the most outrage over liberals cooking the books is higher than support for this program, particularly in Quebec.
The fate of the program is less important than the fact it was used to defraud taxpayers by the liberals.
As for the usefulness of the registry, did it save the lives of the RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe? Or how about that Constable in Quebec that was gunned down by a perp that wasn't even suppose to have a gun?
If it even saves one life? News flash, it won't save even one life. Getting criminals arrested does. Registries don't do that.
Posted by: gimbol at May 17, 2006 09:33 AM
"That it was just a cash grab became obvious when you had to renew your registry. Renew? I thought that to register something you just had to do it once. But then again, I'm not fluent in Liberal."
You might want to check your car's licence plate - you know, you have to renew your registration on that every year. They give you a little sticker.
This little message has been brought to you by the reality-based community.
Posted by: Tybalt at May 17, 2006 01:13 PM
"News flash, it won't save even one life."
We don't know how many lives were saved by (for example) the 2,500 mentally ill people who were turned down for registration since the registry began. We can't. Maybe none - I'm still happy they're doing it.
(Yes, I own guns - registered ones. Are yours?)
Posted by: Tybalt at May 17, 2006 01:15 PM
"We don't know how many lives were saved by (for example) the 2,500 mentally ill people who were turned down for registration since the registry began. We can't. Maybe none - I'm still happy they're doing it."
As a gun owner, you would know that the circumstance you refer to has nothing to do with the "registry". Rather, that is what licensing is for. So are you stupid or just a bad liar?
Posted by: Weinstein at May 17, 2006 01:53 PM
Getting rid of the long-gun registry - there has been a handgun registry since the 1930s - is being framed by the Conservatives as necessary because it is too costly to maintain. In fact, the issue is more about ideology: whether or not a registry should exist at all.
After all, if the registry was beneficial to society, then the Conservatives could demonstrate they are truly different than the Liberals by making it more efficient and cost-effective, instead of just demolishing it.
However, it seems clear this is less about money and more about appeasing a rural/Western Conservative base, who are more likely to own long guns than others, and the general idea of having a registry for these weapons at all, regardless of its cost-effectiveness.
I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, we accept a handgun registry and we a vehicle registry, so clearly having a registry of things that can kill people is something we accept. And these registries appear to work, so there seems to be no reason why a long gun registry could not be similarly effective.
On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that the state needs to keep track of everyone's weapons. I'm still a little paranoid about what may lie ahead in the future; if we are, say, invaded by the Americans, the long gun registry would probably be the first thing they'd want control over, to track down the people likely to take potshots at them.
This might seem a little crazy, but the same principle is embedded in the US Constitution.
When it comes to cops, police should probably automatically assume the people why wish to apprehend are armed, and operate accordingly. Having a long-gun registry seems little more than a way of cops saying, "Okay, we ought to be extra careful at this house." But perhaps they ought to be extra careful at every house.
Posted by: Ade at May 17, 2006 02:21 PM
It is ironic to read lefties complaining that ending the Firearm Registry is strictly politics rather than public safety... since the motivation for the creation of Firearm Registry was strictly politics rather than public safety.
If public safety was the issue, the Liberals could have purchased a secure gun locker and trigger lock for every gun in Canada with the amount of money thrown away on this ten year exercise in stupidity known as a registry.
Posted by: Mac at May 17, 2006 10:45 PM
Weinstein has posed what's called in the trade a false dichotomy. The man can easily be both, and indeed, it looks like he is.
Posted by: ebt at May 18, 2006 03:47 PM
 
|
|
