Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Throw the dog some table scraps.

That’s my perception of the decision by the Cons to reintroduce legislation to kill the long gun registry. The last bill to try and do this wasn’t even brought forth for a vote because the government was sure to lose when all opposition parties opposed this effort, so what exactly makes the Cons. think they’ll have any more luck this time is a bit of a puzzler.

Perhaps, you might think, they will try to force this through by threatening it to be a confidence vote, as with their other law-and-order bills. That idea, however, has already been ruled out by Stock Day’s own department, so it’s clear the government doesn’t want to fall on this issue, knowing how much flack they’d take from urban centres and in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

This is nothing more then a sop to their core support base out west, but I think even that base will see this for what that is – throwing symbolic table scraps to the dogs, without any real meat on them.


8 comments to Throw the dog some table scraps.

  • Cara

    Is is possible that the Tories are hoping this legislation will be controversial thereby distracting the public from the Mulroney-Schreiber affair?

  • The initial costs were way higher then forecast – no one denies it, Kursk – but the Auditor General has said that since that time, the program has paid for itself, and your own beloved Conservatives according to the news article I linked to actually modestly increased the funding to it last year. That’s why I paint this as a purely symbolic gesture. 

    A tax grab? Please. There is nothing sinister or wrong with keeping track of where the guns are or who owns them. The police chiefs across this country support this registry. I have to ask why the Cons are against the police forces of this country, who think it’s a good thing?

  • kursk

    Killing a 2 billion dollar registry problem should be seen as a good thing…firearms are and will be into the forseeable future highly controlled, and there simply is no need for another layer of regulation.

    All the registry amounted to was a tax grab by the federal govt under the liberals in the guise of public safety.

  • KC

    So by bringing their government down now what "principle" is served?  All of the other issues they have taken "principled" positions on will go unresolved.   Principle is never served by destroying the whole thing over one issue while hundreds of others go unattended.

  • It is a pretty weak principle if you are not willing to risk your government over it.  Rather than principled, I would call it merely symbolic.

  • KC

    I don’t accept your premise.  A move can be "principled" without being a matter of confidence. 

  • KC, if it were truly a principled move they would make it a matter of confidence.

  • KC

    I have to disagree with you on this one Scott.  In fact this is one of the few "principled" things I’ve actually seen out of this government that is obsessed about the image it portrays out east.  The Conservative "core support base out west" doesn’t see scrapping the registry as "table scraps".   At one point it was their raison d’etre and is still a motivating issue.  The fact that they are willing to continue to push for it even though it serves as a convenient bludgeon for the other parties in areas where they need to make inroads is quite ballsy.  
    On the other hand there could be some calculation at play.   Right now the Conservatives have effectively ‘disabled’ the registry through regulation.  If they were to ever restore it to appease eastern voters it would be the straw that broke the back of their core support base.  They’ve put up with a lot of centrism out of Harper and that might be one step too far. 

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.