“But referring to Bill C-68 as the long-gun registry legislation is also misleading. Repealing this law would also mean eliminating the licensing requirements it contains, which include an extensive background check and safety course for anyone acquiring a gun …”
Thus if C-68 is scrapped, Harper will have to craft from new legislation to cover the liscensing part of the bill.
“But since most of the guns in Canada are now accounted for, and the registration is a one-time-only requirement, this portion of the costs should decline to about $10-15 million a year, according to the Coalition for Gun Control. Licences, on the other hand, need to be renewed every five years, meaning that they will make up the vast majority of the Firearms Centre’s costs in the future.”
There are still lots of areas in Canada that support the gun registry, especially in Quebec. It makes me wonder if the conservatives will decide it is worth it to go to the trouble of creating and enacting new legislation (with it’s own possible opposition in the house and cost overruns) and annoying Quebec and other regions for just 10-15M savings a year.
Got it. I had been under the impression that anyone who wants to be PM has to make enough deals to get >50% of the PM’s to support him just to hold the job, no matter who the GG anoints. Thanks.
But apparently he still has to take an essentially centrist (by Canadian standards) line, I take it, even if that means occasional lip service to his base, just like US Republican pols publicly opposing abortion while not actually doing anything about it.
BrainGlutton, as I understand it, the UK has a thriving privately-financed health care system alongside the National Health, which can be opted out of, but Canada does not.
Yep. In Canada, you can campaign from the right, you can campaign from the left, but you have to govern from the centre.
Any attempt to reverse abortion rights or same sex marriage rights would be instant political suicide. Harper is not an idiot. He won’t allow those things to happen in a zillion skillion years, even if, as you say, he mumbles some sop words to the religious conservative constituency every now and then.
Much was made of the fact that the Conservatives kept the lid on their more religious candidates in 2006. The truth is, the Liberals have been doing the same for years; their caucus includes more than a few anti-abortion and anti-SSM members, such as the repulsive Tom Wappel. (Not that everyone who takes those two views is repulsive. Tom Wappel, in particular, is repulsive.)
Every year that passes puts those issues further in the rear view mirror. Harper is simply working, carefully, to get his party to give them up.
As far as I know, the gun registry is a non-issue here. I haven’t heard about it for many years, except here. I don’t think most people care whether the government abolishes it or not. Of course, there would be opposition from a few groups, but nothing major, I believe.
Centerist is the safest and most dangerous place in Canadian politics. The Liberals dominated the Center for 13 years but when they became tainted by scandal they lost ridings to the split on the left and right. They could have come out much worse if it wasn’t for the three major cities that failed to vote Conservative.
Also I don’t think any lip service to his core will cut it right now. Harper is trying to avoid the “Scary” label.
Besides all the Canadian people are really looking for is clean decent governement. That means Harper must do what he says to gain confidence in his leadership by running his government honestly.
Maybe, but how much of these people really care if it is scrapped or not? Did the survey ask anything about how strongly they feel about it? People may find the idea of a gun registry good and interesting, but if it’s not something that affects them or even something they usually think about, they probably won’t do anything if there is a movement to abolish it. Personally, I don’t care either way.
There are more important and more sensitive issues.
I think the Conservatives will be willing and able to scrap the gun registry, because when you get right down to it, keeping track of firearms is an urban issue – and the Conservatives don’t have any representation in Canada’s three largest cities.
I believe this extreme urban-rural split is unprecedented in Canadian politics, and could spell trouble for urbanites in the next several years, especially if Harper comes up with more policies to deal with rural Quebecers (many of whom voted PC before 1993).
As for the other issues they’ll deal with, please shoot and kill anyone who proposes fixed election dates. That’s the worst and stupidest idea ever. All it does is jam up your TV and newspaper with political advertising for 9 months of the year before the election actually happens. I’m talking three ads per commercial break people! It’s frigging insane!.
Of course, since I work in TV, it means I’ll have a steady income, and you’ll never read an editorial speaking out against it. Can’t bite the hand that feeds you, and all that. But shoot that notion DOWN.
I can’t see why the PM would pick you. first of all how the hell did you ever get elected if you are not current with the populace ? No one uses the term “dibs” any more. My 14 year old daughter tells me people nowadays call “shoddy” instead.
First of all, they’re not “Able” to do it without the support of one of the other three parties, which they will not get. All the other parties are for it.
Secondly, why would the Conservatives do something that would alienate the people they most need to impress in the next election? I don’t think you notice they’ve been playing the game a lot smarter lately.
The official line is that they want to keep healthcare public. Stephen Harper (in the past) has been very “pro-private health-care”. He says his views have changed, though.
I don’t particularly believe it, but that’s just me.
I figure when/if he ever gives the provinces more power (it was part of his party’s platform) that provincial control over healthcare will inevitably result.
For example, Ralph Klein (Conservative Premier of Alberta) makes no bones about wanting a two-tier system.
The cynical side of me thinks they conceded the privatization of healthcare issue to grab more votes from the middle and lower class.
Just to clarify (I’m tired sorry), I don’t believe that the Conservative’s would even whisper the words “private health care”.
What is more likely to happen (under a Harper majority, mind you) would be “two-tier health care”. Public health care, alongside private health care. Which is an idea that has been thrown around quite a bit. Which is also a terrible idea that the majority of Canadians would likely reject.
I’m not completely convinced of this seismic urban/rural divide.
Atlantic Canada (Rural) went almost completely Liberal/NDP.
Ottawa (pop. ~ 1 million) a government town, went heavily Conservative
Calgary (pop. ~ 1 million) went Conservative.
Northern Ontario (Rural) went heavily Liberal
So it’s more than a simple farmers vs. progressive urbanites split going on here. Though I’m not sure what.
Provinces control health care now. What’s the punch line?
In point of fact, the province with the most private health care is Quebec.
No government in Canada could get rid of the single payer health care system. It would result in the immediate fall of the government and the complete destruction of that political party.
No, he couldn’t. Even in Alberta, public health care remains very popular.
There is more support for a two-tier system, however, and Klein could get away with that. And I’m sure that Harper would love to implement one if he could.
What could possibly happen is that now that Klein has a ‘friendly’ government in Ottawa to deal with, he could move towards a two-tier system in Alberta again, and the Harper government would be more willing to amend the Canada Health Act or whatever it is that technically prevents this, just for the case of Alberta. This might be palatable, because Albertans would like it and other provinces wouldn’t much care what Alberta does (unless they use a ‘slippery slope’ argument).
This might be a good thing. Alberta can be a test-bed of other health-delivery models. If it works out well here, perhaps opposition to it will fade elsewhere. If it doesn’t, well hey those crazy Albertans just shot themselves in the foot.
Actually I suppose Harper could tie Federal funding levels to Provincial autonomy with respect to the percentage of private care available. Ties in nicely with the asymmetrical federalism the Liberals tried to introduce and would play well in both Alberta and Quebec. He would absolutely have to maintain a single payer system though; I think that’s the key point for most people worried about two tier health care.
