Whats up with this Registration bull sh*t!!

[Tussell]

I have heard that the gun registration laws are being lifted? Is this true, and what have we heard on the time line???

[sheephunter]

Lots of process to go through yet.....it will be several more months....if at all.

[270WIN]

The Conservatives have been promising this for the last four years. They now have it in the palm of their hand. Sure hope they don't drop the ball.

[sheephunter]

The Conservatives have been promising this for the last four years. They now have it in the palm of their hand. Sure hope they don't drop the ball.

Sadly it's not up to them........it would have been gone four years ago if it was.

[270WIN]

Sadly it's not up to them........it would have been gone four years ago if it was.

I think they can do it now if they want to and if they manage it properly. My money says they do want to and they will manage it properly. Hope I'm not proven wrong.

[TreeGuy]

I think they can do it now if they want to and if they manage it properly. My money says they do want to and they will manage it properly. Hope I'm not proven wrong.

The Cons are governing with a minority, and even getting the bill to third reading is a minor miracle. Then it's on to the liberal dominated senate for final approval. However, if all goes well, the senate could have a Conservative majority by the new year if we are not forced into another snap election before then. Fingers crossed.......

Tree

[270WIN]

The Cons are governing with a minority, and even getting the bill to third reading is a minor miracle. Then it's on to the liberal dominated senate for final approval. However, if all goes well, the senate could have a Conservative majority by the new year if we are not forced into another snap election before then. Fingers crossed.......

Tree

Yeah. The fact that the Conservatives are on the brink of establishing control of the senate is part of the reason why I'm cautiously optimistic about the bill actually making it all the way through. But even if that doesn't happen do you think the senate would actually overrule the House of Commons? I don't think that has ever happened, has it? It certainly shouldn't anyway.
Like you said, we'll keep our fingers crossed.

[sheephunter]

Ya, the timing of the private member's bill was masterfully planned! All the stars are aligned for sure.

[TreeGuy]

270, for a bill to become law, the Senate must vote in it's favour after it has passed all of the loops it needs to, to get through The House of Commons. Since senators are appointed by the PM as opposed to being elected, it is obviously very partisan in nature. There is a liberal majority at the moment, but the tides shall turn (if all goes well) it into a Conservative majority in the very near future. This will be a very, very good thing.

Tree

[270WIN]

270, for a bill to become law, the Senate must vote in it's favour after it has passed all of the loops it needs to, to get through The House of Commons. Since senators are appointed by the PM as opposed to being elected, it is obviously very partisan in nature. There is a liberal majority at the moment, but the tides shall turn (if all goes well) it into a Conservative majority in the very near future. This will be a very, very good thing.

Tree

:rolleye2: Thanks for the lesson on the legislative process, Treeguy. You're wrong, however. The Senate does not have to vote on a bill to get it through the House of Commons. In fact the Senate and the House of Commons are two separate bodies which,together, make up Parliament. The members of the House of Commons are elected and Senators, as you correctly point out, are appointed. Generally a bill is passed by the House of Commons BEFORE it goes to the Senate which then must vote in favour of it before it goes for Royal Assent and becomes law. My point was that I have never heard of the Senate overruling a bill that had been passed by our elected representatives, ie. the members of the House of Commons, regardless of which party happens to dominate the Senate at the particular time.
Hopefully all this will become accademic if the Conservatives gain control in the Senate. I agree with you that that would be a good thing.

[TreeGuy]

If you'll take the time to re-read my post, I said the senate votes AFTER it has passed through all of the channels of The House of Commons.

Tree

[moosemad]

Dec 6/09 is the 20th anniversary of the Mark Lepine massacre in Montreal. Theres already groups protesting the elimination of the gun registry. Hopefully it will be eliminated anyway.

[270WIN]

If you'll take the time to re-read my post, I said the senate votes AFTER it has passed through all of the channels of The House of Commons.

Tree

I didn't understand the first sentence of your post properly. If thats what you were saying, then you and I are on the same page as far as the process is concerned.
Back to my question. Would the senate overturn the decision of the elected representatives of the citizens of Canada because of their own political affiliations? I know they could, theoretically. But would they? As far as I know, the Senate has never done that. To me it's an interesting question.

Bye for now. Time for me to go huntin'.:)

[Bear]

I didn't understand the first sentence of your post properly. If thats what you were saying, then you and I are on the same page as far as the process is concerned.
Back to my question. Would the senate overturn the decision of the elected representatives of the citizens of Canada because of their own political affiliations? I know they could, theoretically. But would they? As far as I know, the Senate has never done that. To me it's an interesting question.

Bye for now. Time for me to go huntin'.:)

They have in the past. I found this section from wiki. I know don't trust wiki but this does have sources cited for it.

The Senate at times is more active at reviewing, amending, and even rejecting legislation. The late 1980s and early 1990s was one of those periods. During this period the Senate opposed legislation on issues such as the 1988 free trade bill with the U.S. (forcing the Canadian federal election of 1988), and the Goods and Services Tax (GST).[9][10] In the 1990s, the Senate rejected four pieces of legislation: a bill passed by the Commons restricting abortion (C-43), a proposal to streamline federal agencies (C-93), a bill to redevelop the Lester B. Pearson airport (C-28), and a bill on profiting from authorship as it relates to crime (C-220).

[alittlej]

well they may have not "over turned" or "refused" a recent bill but they "ammended" the 2 for 1 deal our fine "innacent" "victums" get while "waitng for justices". this was passed by the commins as a 1 for 1 deal and the liberal ruled senate was forced to come up with a 1.5 for 1 settlement to save face !!!:tongue2::tongue2: if the we are forced into another elecation before the gun bill gets 3rd passing it will die on the floor and we have to start all over again ...... not sure what happens if it gets to the senate and then the goverment falls ?

derek

[Okotokian]

I didn't understand the first sentence of your post properly. If thats what you were saying, then you and I are on the same page as far as the process is concerned.
Back to my question. Would the senate overturn the decision of the elected representatives of the citizens of Canada because of their own political affiliations? I know they could, theoretically. But would they? As far as I know, the Senate has never done that. To me it's an interesting question.

Bye for now. Time for me to go huntin'.:)

Couple of corrections... As far as order in which bills pass, legislation CAN start in the Senate, and has in the past. It's only "money bills" which must originate in the lower house.

As to the Senate amending or blocking House legislation, it's happened many many times, on small bills (tax) and high profile bills (abortion).

So certainly the Senate could block a gun registry bill. Depends on the mood and background of the members. They don't always follow their own party lines. Right now a tobacco bill that was unanimously supported by all parties in the house is in danger of being derailed or amended in the Senate. Oh, you didn't know that all those little flavoured cigars and cigarillos we love to puff on in camp are going to be banned? No more wine-dipped or vanilla flavoured number for you and me.

[qballs]

IIRC, the liberals do not have a majority in the senate anymore. There is one seat open at the moment, and if the independants voted with the cons, they would have a majority right now.
Here's hopin.

[270WIN]

Thanks to the last several posters for the additional info on the role of the Senate.

Treeguy, no need for you and me to get into a petty squabble in connection with something I'm pretty sure we both agree on, that being that it would be a very good thing if we could get rid of the long gun registry.

Come to think of it, maybe we can make it even better. Now if you and I were to figure out a way to get rid of both the long gun registry and the Senate at the same time...:lol::lol:

Have a good day-all of you. Still a few more days 'til the end of deer season.:)

[Okotokian]

Come to think of it, maybe we can make it even better. Now if you and I were to figure out a way to get rid of both the long gun registry and the Senate at the same time...:lol::lol:


I tend to agree, but am not sure about just getting rid of the Senate. A major reason for it's original creation was to ensure that regions got some form of representation given that the lower house would be ruled by population. Even then they needed safeguards to ensure Ontario (Upper Canada then) didn't have all the say. Upper Canada got 24 seats, Lower Canada (Quebec) got 24 seats, and Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PEI got 24 seats together. Some form of regional representation in the chamber of sober second thought isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Problem is that regional representation in the Senate is WAY outdated and more than a little unbalanaced anyway. Did you know that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each have 10 seats while Alberta and BC, provinces many times bigger, only have 6 each?

OK, enough hunting talk. I should get back to work. :lol:

[JBG]

Sadly it's not up to them........it would have been gone four years ago if it was.
I'd love this to be made a confidence measure. Maybe we don't get repeal in that case but we get to call Iffy's bluff, and hopefully off to the polls!!!

[sheephunter]

I'd love this to be made a confidence measure. Maybe we don't get repeal in that case but we get to call Iffy's bluff, and hopefully off to the polls!!!

Personally, I'm glad it's a private member's bill. Another election would unquestionably end in another minority government.....could be Conservative or it could be Liberal. Barring an election or some of the Liberal and ND members changing their vote, this thing may sneak through the house and Senate without Canadians going to the polls. At least that's what I hope.

[Okotokian]

I'd love this to be made a confidence measure. Maybe we don't get repeal in that case but we get to call Iffy's bluff, and hopefully off to the polls!!!

Yes, but the Conservatives like this way better. Right now they aren't really seen as pushing the bill. They can say "It's a private member's bill, not a government bill" They would like the registry to go away so they can check off one campaign promise for us, but they don't want to ire anti's and lose their votes if they don't have to. If it goes through as a private member's bill the Cons will like that best. My take on it anyway. They do NOT want to make guns a potential election issue.

[TreeGuy]

It's all good 270. I wasn't trying to squabble with you at all. It was just getting on to bedtime and I was too darn lazy to do the research to answer your question properly.:lol:

And yes, we are on the same page. Here's to hoping there isn't an election anytime soon. For now, I believe that the Conservatives are working toward the elimination of the registry via, 'Death by 1000 Cuts', until they can earn a true majority in the House.

Tree

[JBG]

They do NOT want to make guns a potential election issue.I'm a Yank who doesn't know much about Canada. Why wouldn't it make a good election issue? Or good issue for the government to fall on?

[singleshotom]

Strange as it might be if you talk to the people working at the registry they say that there is another opening for 30 more new hirees
And if you look into the 2010 budget for the government there is an additional 11 mill dollars set aside for additional long gun registry office's in Ottawa....
This concerns me as to why plan to spend more, when your promising to end it?????????? Fruit for thought ....
SST

[Okotokian]

I'm a Yank who doesn't know much about Canada. Why wouldn't it make a good election issue? Or good issue for the government to fall on?

Because gun owners are a minority in Canada, and I would hazard to guess that most of them already vote Conservative. Aggressively pushing the pro-gun position in a high profile way doesn't offer the Conservatives many new votes and could possibly turn away a lot of middle of the road non-gun owners. That's why I think a private members bill is the preferred way for them to approach the problem and get it done.

It's the same reason that in the US the Republican party nods towards the "pro life" groups but doesn't actually make getting rid of abortion one of their main campaign promises. They know it's a loser electorally. And they don't even try it when they are in power and have both the Presidency and a congressional majority. They just make pro-life noises to keep those groups onside.