$100,000 on a gazebo an hour's drive away.

April 11, 2011 12:59 PM

"The Harper government misinformed Parliament to win approval for a $50-million G8 fund that lavished money on dubious projects in a Conservative riding, the auditor general has concluded." Or maybe not - the final report won't be released until Parliament is sitting again. Or, maybe not - John Baird says the Conservative party would agree to a release of the final report.
posted by joannemerriam (96 comments total)

Also, paper-thin flakes of gold for Tony Clement's morning cereal.
posted by Beardman at 1:06 PM on April 11, 2011 [4 favorites]

Surely this oh who are we kidding
posted by mightygodking at 1:08 PM on April 11, 2011 [23 favorites]

Harper and his cronies lied again? No shit.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:09 PM on April 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

According to my calculations that would make 2.31 million canadian dollars spent at an average of 72.5 km away from the g8 summit site, minus a 100,000$ gazebo.
posted by Meatafoecure at 1:10 PM on April 11, 2011

arrrrgggg
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 1:10 PM on April 11, 2011

A gazebo? I waste it with my crossbow!
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:11 PM on April 11, 2011 [15 favorites]

The April surprise?
posted by rocket88 at 1:11 PM on April 11, 2011

The April surprise?

Only if - and I think this is a big if - the report is so scandalous that it causes the CBC to interrupt playoff coverage in order to discuss the controversy. Then Canadians will be up in arms.
posted by never used baby shoes at 1:19 PM on April 11, 2011 [3 favorites]

Harper misled Canadians? Bird gotta fly, fish gotta swim.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:25 PM on April 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

The worst part of this election is driving home through a virtual tunnel of Shelly Glover signs.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:35 PM on April 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

There is no "worst" part. Everything about this election is equally awful.
posted by Zozo at 1:39 PM on April 11, 2011 [2 favorites]

I even got a paper cut from the voter information mailout.
posted by Zozo at 1:39 PM on April 11, 2011 [15 favorites]

God, I wish Gilles Duceppe and the BQ would run a national slate (as long as they eliminate all of that cultural chauvinism bullshit).
posted by KokuRyu at 1:42 PM on April 11, 2011

God, I wish Gilles Duceppe and the BQ would run a national slate

The left wing isn't fragmented enough in Canadian politics yet?

"YOU get a party! And YOU get a party! And YOU get a party!"
posted by mightygodking at 1:44 PM on April 11, 2011 [8 favorites]

Well, it's just that Gilles Duceppe is the most charismatic and likable of the major political leaders. I guess there's Jack Layton, too, but he has that porn star mustache.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:47 PM on April 11, 2011 [2 favorites]

...but he has that porn star mustache.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:49 PM on April 11, 2011 [8 favorites]

The left wing isn't fragmented enough in Canadian politics yet?

I genuinely don't understand this comment. There is only one major national political party in Canada that is left of centre.
posted by regicide is good for you at 1:50 PM on April 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

I genuinely don't understand this comment. There is only one major national political party in Canada that is left of centre.

Which, I'll interject, is one more than the United States has, you lucky hockey-loving bastards.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:52 PM on April 11, 2011 [3 favorites]

and that party is completely enmeshed with a disproven 60s new left ideology. i kind of want like the reform party with out the social conservatism and the love of big business.

i also want a unicorn.
posted by PinkMoose at 1:52 PM on April 11, 2011 [2 favorites]

God, I wish Gilles Duceppe and the BQ would run a national slate

The left wing isn't fragmented enough in Canadian politics yet?

Every election this meme comes up. It drives me crazy. Let's clarify a couple of things:

1) The BQ are an off-shoot of the Progressive Conservative Party. While they are more socially liberal than the Conservatives (i.e. leaving out Guns and God), there is little about them that is left wing. They favour a VERY limited role for the Federal Government.

2) The BQ have in their past been committed to the break-up of Canada. That has faded only because of political tides in Quebec.
posted by dry white toast at 1:53 PM on April 11, 2011 [4 favorites]

In their defense, the Tories quoted the auditor general as having said that “We found that the processes and controls around that were very good, and that the monies were spent as they were intended to be spent.”

However, apparently that quote is over a decade old and actually referring to the Liberals post 9/11 security spending.
posted by sarastro at 2:02 PM on April 11, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'm not really sure why George Clinton needed to approve this, but I'm bothered Harper faked the funk, nonetheless.

[/Dumb American]
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 2:08 PM on April 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

ah, correction. the quote was from 2010, and it was referring to Liberal security spending in 2004. The letter from the AG can be found here
posted by sarastro at 2:08 PM on April 11, 2011

Hey wow, an 11 point lead!
Thankfully for the conservatives, no one reads the newspapers.
posted by Theta States at 2:17 PM on April 11, 2011

Yep, yet another example of assbaggery that won't interfere with Harper's election campaign. As long as we have hockey, doughnuts, and beer not a goddam thing else seems to matter in this country anymore. And, here's a web comic with a nice summation of all the little things the Conservatives have done to erode what this country actually is.

Harper's Canada
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 2:27 PM on April 11, 2011 [19 favorites]

Every election this meme comes up. It drives me crazy. Let's clarify a couple of things:

Why are you taking things so seriously? We'll have enough time for that once Harper wins his majority at the end of the month.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:31 PM on April 11, 2011

> A gazebo? I waste it with my crossbow!

Fine. You have angered the gazebo.
posted by davelog at 2:31 PM on April 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

This election is like watching someone walk through a plate glass window in slow motion. Ugh.
posted by stinkycheese at 2:34 PM on April 11, 2011 [2 favorites]

There is no "worst" part. Everything about this election is equally awful.

No, I'm pretty sure that people rewarding contempt is the worst thing about this election. Constantly being reminded of how little understanding people have of the process and principles of our democracy and government is depressing. Worse still is how "the Canadian people don't want an unnecessary, wasteful election" after 2 1/2 years--Americans vote more frequently than that in midterm elections, and the default voting choice of those making this complaint is for a party that wants to make Senate positions elected as well and likely require more elections. It's fucking lazy and ignorant and I guess it's just how my country is these days.
posted by Hoopo at 2:39 PM on April 11, 2011 [9 favorites]

I can't even bear to follow anything election related because I know none of the voters seem to be paying attention based on recent opinion polls. The whole situation is truly and deeply disheartening and really makes me mad.
posted by Go Banana at 2:42 PM on April 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

The BQ are an off-shoot of the Progressive Conservative Party. While they are more socially liberal than the Conservatives (i.e. leaving out Guns and God), there is little about them that is left wing. They favour a VERY limited role for the Federal Government.

I wouldn't exactly say that. See, for instance, their platform (in English).

Salient points, except for the expected "let Quebec do its own stuff, dammit!":

- protecting the environment
- fiscal reform (tax the rich, end fiscal paradises)
- social programs
- anti-scab laws
- maintaining the gun registry
- a more humane justice system
- getting out of Afghanistan
- pay equity

It is true that the original Bloc was made out of seated Conservative MPs (and two Liberals), but in the Duceppe era, the bloc can basically be seen as a promoter of Quebec-style social democracy.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 2:50 PM on April 11, 2011 [4 favorites]

1) The BQ are an off-shoot of the Progressive Conservative Party.

that really means very little considering where they shot off to.

They favour a VERY limited role for the Federal Government.

I'm not so sure about this-- they consistently demand federal investment in industry

there is little about them that is left wing

They are left of the Liberals and Conservatives, at least.
posted by Hoopo at 2:54 PM on April 11, 2011

Constantly being reminded of how little understanding people have of the process and principles of our democracy and government is depressing

Who do you mean?
posted by KokuRyu at 3:01 PM on April 11, 2011

We really don't care. As a nation Canadians collectively don't give a damn right now about the public sphere, so long as the shouting politicians stay in Ottawa and leave us alone. The Conservatives know this, and benefit from it all the time. This G8 thing is just the latest in a string of scandals and corrosive precedents that has failed to penetrate our collective consciousness.

I have to wonder, where is the Liberal base? The Conservatives have their supporters energized and ready, so where's the rest of the electorate that voted for Chrétien and Martin? It's like they all faded away.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:07 PM on April 11, 2011

Who do you mean?

I'm referring to how often I hear misleading Conservative talking points resonate with people, especially concerning coalitions in a multi-party parliamentary democracy, the political implications of minority government in that system, the idea that "contempt of parliament" is just sour grapes from the opposition, etc etc etc. Dan Gardner does a pretty good job filling in any blanks I may have left here in the article I linked in my last comment. Harper obviously knows the system well, but he plays on peoples' ignorance of how it works whenever its convenient.
posted by Hoopo at 3:22 PM on April 11, 2011 [5 favorites]

Only if - and I think this is a big if - the report is so scandalous that it causes the CBC to interrupt playoff coverage in order to discuss the controversy. Then Canadians will be up in arms.

Against the CBC! How dare they interrupt hockey for another election? Anyways, they already rescheduled the debate so it didn't conflict with hockey, knowing that the set of Canadians who would choose to watch the French language debate instead of the first Canadiens game -- against Boston, too -- is a proper subset of the set of Canadians who are currently politicians.
posted by jeather at 3:23 PM on April 11, 2011

I have to wonder, where is the Liberal base? The Conservatives have their supporters energized and ready, so where's the rest of the electorate that voted for Chrétien and Martin? It's like they all faded away.

I'm wondering lately if either really have a true "base" or if most of the support for either party is mostly comprised of "don't rock the boat" centrists. A lot of people jumped ship from the Liberals over corruption, but haven't jumped back when the Conservatives show the same tendencies.
posted by Hoopo at 3:26 PM on April 11, 2011

While I'm desperately arranging vote swapping to get May her seat in Parliament, one part of me honestly hopes for a Harper majority. Our economy, despite its apparent health, is teetering on the brink; what we really have is a resource-explotation sugar high, a housing bubble, and chronic underemployment for college graduates. If that crash comes with the Tories in control they will be punished accordingly. The Liberals are also in some strange self-deluded place, thinking if they triangulate hard enough they will restore their Chretien majority. Much like Harper taking his cues from the GOP, the Liberals are bizarrely taking their cues from the ineffectual Obama administration. They need a wake-up call which will move them left enough to consider a coalition.

It'll hurt, no doubt. It will have to hurt, for us to realize that these tired old parties offer nothing for the future of Canada. But hopefully we will figure that out after a couple more years of this shit.
posted by mek at 3:38 PM on April 11, 2011 [4 favorites]

The sponsorship scandal that brought down the previous government was over $5 million dollars in misdirected funds, so surely voters will be 10x as angry about this $50 million G8 scandal.
posted by fairmettle at 3:49 PM on April 11, 2011 [6 favorites]

Day apologizes, says 'proper quote' will be added to Tory dissent report

I can only imagine the update will look like this:

“We found that the processes and controls around that were very good, and that the monies were spent as they were intended to be spent.” -- Auditor General Sheila Fraser on G8 Spending^not

posted by mazola at 3:50 PM on April 11, 2011 [6 favorites]

When I came here in 2003, Canada seemed so much more sane and rational than the US. I've seen such a swing to US-style thought here in the past, say, five years, it just breaks my heart. We have the foresight of seeing how badly the US is screwing itself up - has screwed itself up - with these ideas and policies; we can see how the tactics of the right manipulated the US, and Harper is using those very same tactics, but it's like most people are just too complacent to WAKE THE FUCK UP AND CHANGE COURSE. I don't understand, when we have this bad example to warn us, why what I thought of as that essential sane rationality is not putting the brakes on.
posted by flex at 3:53 PM on April 11, 2011 [8 favorites]

Liberals need talking points. Every time I hear Conservatives mention the word "Liberal" it's always followed by some combination of "Coalition", "Tax and Spend" or 'Unnecessary Election". That shit works on the masses. It programs them how to vote. I don't know why the other parties haven't caught on.
From now on, "Conservative" and "Harper" has to be followed by "G8 spending scandal". Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Intellectual arguments are useless.
posted by rocket88 at 3:57 PM on April 11, 2011 [5 favorites]

I'm referring to how often I hear misleading Conservative talking points resonate with people, especially concerning coalitions in a multi-party parliamentary democracy, the political implications of minority government in that system, the idea that "contempt of parliament" is just sour grapes from the opposition, etc etc etc.

I don't know, I tend to think people are a lot more intelligent than this. Fundamentally, the Conservatives have a strong base who are going to vote Conservative no matter what, as do the Liberals and NDP, so the contempt stuff doesn't really affect their behaviour.

Instead of a confused, misinformed pool of undecided voteres, we just have undecided voters (like me) who have to choose between Conversatives (ugh), Liberals (meh), and NDP (yeah, right).

The Liberals have not really presented a particularly strong alternative to the Conservatives. There's no reason to vote for them. And if you're choosing between the Liberals and the Conservatives, there's little chance that you're going to vote NDP.

So that's where the 40% comes from - it's not that other voters are somehow uneducated about contempt of Parliament, etc.

The real problem here (helping Harper) is voter apathy: too many elections, no good choices, so people stay home. The other problem is Quebec.

I tend to think people are about as smart as I am. To put it another way, I don't presume to think that I somehow know more about how government works than anybody else.

For some people, Harper looks like a strong choice, because the other candidates all look weak.
posted by KokuRyu at 4:12 PM on April 11, 2011

When I came here in 2003, Canada seemed so much more sane and rational than the US. I've seen such a swing to US-style thought here in the past, say, five years, it just breaks my heart.

When I came back to Canada in 2004 all I heard anyone talk about was flipping houses and installing granite countertops. Pretty vacuous culture, but, who knows, if you roll up the rim you may win.
posted by KokuRyu at 4:22 PM on April 11, 2011 [2 favorites]

I don't know, I tend to think people are a lot more intelligent than this.

It's possible, however as a guy in his early 30s the only in-depth civics I ever encountered was a voluntary course at the OAC level of high school (grade 13) and post-secondary. It's not scientific or anything, but the typical man-on-the-street segment on the news seems to show people who "didn't vote for a coalition" or think "Canadians have shown they want Harper to govern" and my coworkers in a few jobs I've had in the last 5 years or so are no different. My experience growing up in Ottawa (for a time, in the same house Bruce Carson defaulted on in the 1980s no less!) was that even in the Capital people don't really think about politics unless they have to. Hell, my stepfather drives around with a Sarah Palin book on tape in his car, and he's French Canadian. My cynical outlook is rooted in real experiences, but I'll grant they may not be yours and they may not be the norm.
posted by Hoopo at 4:37 PM on April 11, 2011

TheWhiteSkull writes "You say that like it's a bad thing."

The dedication to that stache is one of the reasons I think he's make a good PM.

Hoopo writes "even in the Capital people don't really think about politics unless they have to."

I don't know if this falls into unless they have to territory but many people in Alberta are still mad about the NEP. Even those who either weren't alive or moved to the province after it was already gone. It's really amazing.
posted by Mitheral at 4:48 PM on April 11, 2011

Phlegmco(tm) writes "nd, here's a web comic with a nice summation of all the little things the Conservatives have done to erode what this country actually is. "Harper's Canada"

Man that is awesome.
posted by Mitheral at 4:57 PM on April 11, 2011

Browsing through some of the responses above, all I can think of is, "doesn't anyone care about ideology anymore?" Each party has a political/social/economic philosophy that underpins it existence, and all five are quite distinct.

All the parties have workable, reasonable philosophies. The differences between them comes down to, what do you want Canada to look like? Is wealth more important than equality? Is freedom more important than security? Is profit more important than public safety? Is environmental protection more important than job creation? Is punishment better than harm reduction? These are concrete choices that voters can make to easily decide which party they support.

The horse-race aspect of the election is media-fed bullshit. There's no such thing as a "credible alternative." Either one thinks a party's philosophy of governance is reasonable or one doesn't, and each is different enough from the others that there shouldn't be any need for confusion -- unless one actually doesn't know what one thinks is reasonable. If that's the case, an election isn't the time to allow one's self to be talked into anything.

Granted, there are times when a vote should be cast strategically, but as far as I can tell, very few people have a coherent political ideology to motivate them, and even fewer know what the core beliefs of the parties really are. If you need any evidence of that, just look at the hysterical responses to CBC's vote compass.
posted by klanawa at 5:05 PM on April 11, 2011 [4 favorites]

Go Banana: I can't even bear to follow anything election related because I know none of the voters seem to be paying attention based on recent opinion polls. The whole situation is truly and deeply disheartening and really makes me mad.

I did some phone-bank volunteering for Vancouver South this weekend. Quite a few people are undecided--my guess is that more people will make up their minds after this week's debates.

There's lots of discussion about the upcoming election on Reddit.

For anyone who wants to get more involved, I'm sure all the local campaigns would be happy to have more volunteers. (The Liberal candidate in Vancouver South won by 22 votes in 2008, and the Conservatives are targeting that riding.) You don't have to volunteer in your home riding--if there's a close Conservative-Liberal or Conservative-NDP race in a different riding, feel free to volunteer there.
posted by russilwvong at 5:19 PM on April 11, 2011

I don't know, I tend to think people are a lot more intelligent than this.

I don't think it's a matter of intelligence, more a matter of not being informed which are two very different things.

Being a resident of this country for more than 40 years I find the present ignorance around politics astonishing these days. As said earlier in this post Harper knows this and exploits this endlessly. He can lie with astonishing impunity and often does.

Someone once said that the Republicans just run Nixon's 1968 campaign for presidency over and over again and I think this is Harper's strategy also. Carefully controlled appearances, limited press access, and using wedge issues that are disingenuous at best and out right lies at worst to fracture the electorate.

The press is a much different animal also now. More centralized with way less resources for reporting the actual news. Look at this clip of Trudeau in 1970 and imagine a reporter having this access now.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 6:05 PM on April 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

Keeping the long gun registry is something that urban folks who have never had to hunt for food or keep predators off their farms are in favour of. It is a stupid peice of legistation and is killing the Libs or NDPs chances in parts of BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Let it go.
posted by PinkMoose at 6:15 PM on April 11, 2011

Did people vote for the worst possible government out of spite when they had to start registering their cars? Or are we truly devolving as a species?
posted by Space Coyote at 6:24 PM on April 11, 2011 [5 favorites]

My district's PC candidate will not be participating in the "all candidates" forum, nor apparently will she speak to the local media without first being provided with the questions ahead of time. Is this happening everywhere?
posted by ODiV at 6:27 PM on April 11, 2011

"And if you're choosing between the Liberals and the Conservatives, there's little chance that you're going to vote NDP."

Not always. I kind of lean Liberal but the NDP has the best candidate in our riding. He was a successful MLA for years and years and most importantly, he actually showed up at the door last election to answer questions. The Liberal and Conservative candidates have never done that, so my choice is clear. If a candidate is truly responsive to local concerns and gets out there in person to talk to people, they can win, no matter what party they represent.
posted by Kevin Street at 6:39 PM on April 11, 2011

NDP (yeah, right)

Since you have volunteered, Kokoryu, I'll ask: what is your problem with the NDP? Unless you've moved since some of your earlier posts, we have been served honourably (gotta dig that 'u' there) and responsively by Denise Savoie, a sensible and hardworking representative, who I'd like to see get re-elected.
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 6:51 PM on April 11, 2011 [2 favorites]

From now on, "Conservative" and "Harper" has to be followed by "G8 spending scandal". Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Also, they need to keep bringing up the fact that the current Conservatives are really just the Coalition of Reform and Alliance Parties. And also Peter MacKay.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:03 PM on April 11, 2011

It's amazing how little we Canadians have learned from watching the America example of the past ten years. Harper is just George W. Bush with spellcheck.
posted by spoobnooble at 8:08 PM on April 11, 2011 [7 favorites]

"All the parties have workable, reasonable philosophies. "

Especially the one who's philosophy is basically gutting the middle class, and giving the extra cash to corporations, and doing it in a way that is "democratic". That's a Leo Strauss-ism for "what they don't know won't hurt them". Which is workable and reasonable if you a) have no respect for democracy and b) think that corporate servitude is the will of the people.

Seriously, you also need to believe that right-wing evangelism is a political philosophy. Do you?
posted by sneebler at 8:14 PM on April 11, 2011 [5 favorites]

Since you have volunteered, Kokoryu, I'll ask: what is your problem with the NDP? Unless you've moved since some of your earlier posts, we have been served honourably (gotta dig that 'u' there) and responsively by Denise Savoie, a sensible and hardworking representative, who I'd like to see get re-elected.

Thanks for asking. I've actually volunteered for two NDP campaigns: once knocking doors for Rob Flemming in 2004, and once as a policy researcher for a federal NDP candidate in the riding of St Paul's in Toronto.

I've met Denise (and nearly volunteered for too) and she's a very nice lady. My problem with the federal NDP (I'm not talking about the walking, breathing clusterfuck that is the BC prov NDP) is that they don't focus on creating a knowledge economy. They don't focus on international trade. They don't focus on entrepreneurialism. I'm not talking about giving money to corporations, I'm talking about supporting small businesses, you know, the people who actually pay the taxes that pay for social programs.

I've never once heard Denise Savoie address this issue. It's like a knowledge economy doesn't exist for her. But what are the alternatives in my riding? Chris Causton is no David Anderson. The Conservative candidate just oozes slime.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:01 PM on April 11, 2011 [2 favorites]

This election is like watching someone walk being thrown through a plate glass window in slow motion. Ugh.

FTFY.

And by fixed I mean I jesus fuck man the glass shards they just cut deeper the harder I try to extricate myself what the fuck is Baird saying now Ignatieff chose to out himself as a Tiger Woods fan in his regular-guy soundbite look Jack Layton's elbowing someone out of the way on national TV to grin smugly at the camera and they won't let Elizabeth May into the debates and the words climate energy reactor leak contempt of Parliament are never spoken anywhere in this fucking campaign just risky coalition risky coalition risky coalition honestly even removing the shards of glass seems to just open up space for new cuts dear fuck Harper's Canada let me out!-ed that for you.
posted by gompa at 9:33 PM on April 11, 2011 [6 favorites]

Did people vote for the worst possible government out of spite when they had to start registering their cars? Or are we truly devolving as a species?

Except Canada's gun violence tends to involve already illegal handguns smuggled from the US, not a farmer's shotgun, or the old Enfield rusting in grandpa's basement. Rural people know this, and feel that they are being unfairly targeted when told they need to register their tractor because teenagers are killing people street racing.

Furthermore, gun owners feel they are being made the potential target of police harassment because any time their plates are run, or their ID checked, the software the RCMP use automatically checks the gun registry.

Finally, there is the issue of not liking your name and address and a list of the guns you own being managed by the RCMP at a time when their reputation is rightfully in tatters. There have been legitimate complaints about the RCMP basically not giving a damn whether this database is secure, and there are credible reports of gun collectors being targeted by thieves who obtained information on their collection from the database. The RCMP's response to this has basically been that they have no way of knowing if any unauthorized access to the database has taken place is hardly reassuring.

As strong majority of Canadians don't think the long gun registry has been a benefit to public safety. Liberal and NDP MPs have already crossed the floor to vote in favour of ending the program for non-restricted firearms.

Personally, I don't really think the long gun registry is either much of a problem, nor do I think it's of much benefit to public safety. I think it's a side issue to the main debate of whether we want an American style justice system. The Liberal and NDP insistence on keeping this unpopular program is letting Harper frame the debate as him wanting to "punish criminals" while the other guys want to "punish law abiding citizens". Instead of arguing over the same nonsense for the past 10 years, the Libs and NDP could be hammering Harper on pursuing a "law and order" remedy that has proved so disastrous in the US, and focusing on their plans to introduced evidenced based drug policy.

Which, as a nice side effect, would probably have a pretty positive effect on public safety and the cost of law enforcement. Ain't that nice?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:37 PM on April 11, 2011 [3 favorites]

contempt of Parliament are never spoken anywhere in this fucking campaign just risky coalition risky coalition risky coalition

my understanding is that a coalition would be risky because it would involve the Bloc, so there's the chance Quebec might fall off and stop mooching and freeloading and making everyone speak French all the time.
posted by Hoopo at 10:00 PM on April 11, 2011

Occurs to me this is as good a place as I'll find on the blue to link to Ian Brown's calm, considered, clinically thorough evisceration of the Conservatives' moronic tough-on-crime prison-building-spree policy plank. Which I suspect will have as much impact on the awesomely complacent Canadian voting public as being held in contempt of Parliament and building gazebos to buy votes for Tony Clement and all that.
posted by gompa at 10:08 PM on April 11, 2011

Editor's Note: The original newspaper version and an earlier online version of this article incorrectly located Abbotsford as west of Vancouver. This online version has been corrected.

Oh Globe and Mail, don't ever change.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:29 PM on April 11, 2011 [3 favorites]

I have voted green for the last four elections. If May cannot get a fucking seat or the greens cant get a fucking seat, anywhere, including but not limited to victoria, then May does not belong in the debates.

Is anyone else getting insane amounts of dead tree and electronic mail from every party of late--i got three emails from the ndp, two from the greens, one from the liberals today, and this week four mailers from the conseratives, two from the liberals, and one each from the green and the ndp.

Also, its not about the conseratives convincing everyone to vote for them
posted by PinkMoose at 10:35 PM on April 11, 2011

The conservatives are war dialing me like crazy. All 708 area code (not 780. apparently someone mis-programmed their PBX. I hope.) so now that I'm on to it they are easy to avoid.
posted by Mitheral at 11:17 PM on April 11, 2011

We've been thankfully spared the worst of the war dialling, but there have been flyers left at our door. At least the other parties' candidates make the effort to at least note the main planks in their platforms and what they themselves stand for. The conservative one has a picture of the candidate on the front, harper and iggy in the inside, and another picture of harper on the back. No indication of what the candidate stands for. Harper could put a piece of broccoli up for election with flyers like that.

At least then we could bring Nextwave in to clean house.
posted by LN at 6:00 AM on April 12, 2011

My school is talking about building an expensive and pointless gazebo and no one knows where the idea came from. I guess we know now.
posted by willhopkins at 7:15 AM on April 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

PinkMoose: Is anyone else getting insane amounts of dead tree and electronic mail from every party of late--

I'm not, but then I'm in Vancouver-Kingsway, which is an NDP-Liberal race. Which riding are you in?

Following up on gompa's link to the Ian Brown article on crime, here's some critiques of the Conservative policies:

Canada needs to start over on fighter jets

Waiting for a budgetary surplus to implement a costly new program is a recipe for fiscal disaster

'Tax break' conceals low benefit

How TFSA expansion will hit future tax revenues

This is entirely separate from questions of mismanagement (turning a $13 billion surplus into a $10 billion structural deficit, G8 spending, the November 2008 economic update, failing to screen Bruce Carson, failure to use the stimulus to invest in infrastructure, the HIV/AIDS project) and from the long and growing list of contempt and legal issues (refusing to give information to Parliament, the media, and the public; killing the long-form census; politicizing the nuclear safety issue and firing the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission; lying to Parliament, e.g. Bev Oda; the ex-integrity commissioner who failed to investigate anything and then got a $500,000 severance payment; violating election fundraising limits). I've been chronicling them at harperwtf.blogspot.com.
posted by russilwvong at 7:24 AM on April 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Eglington Lawerence.
posted by PinkMoose at 8:17 AM on April 12, 2011

Harper could put a piece of broccoli up for election with flyers like that.

If Harper could grown his candidates in vats, you know he totally would. And they'd all have creepy grins.
posted by bonehead at 8:32 AM on April 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

That;s the great lost Atwood novel.
posted by PinkMoose at 8:41 AM on April 12, 2011

Dan for Mayor!
posted by stevil at 9:48 AM on April 12, 2011

If Harper could grown his candidates in vats, you know he totally would. And they'd all have creepy grins.


Are you sure he didn't?
posted by Hoopo at 10:24 AM on April 12, 2011

> When I came here in 2003, Canada seemed so much more sane and rational than the US. I've seen such a swing to US-style thought here in the past, say, five years, it just breaks my heart.

Just wait until Sun TV launches.

*sighs heavily*
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:58 AM on April 12, 2011

I should add that all of this is depressing, but I'm cautiously optimistic that the Cons' support has peaked (many of the polls seem to be trending Liberal).

Of course, I was pretty sure Torontonians would come to their senses right up until 8 PM the night of the mayoral election, so take that with a salt lick.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:04 AM on April 12, 2011

I live in Van East, which is pretty much as safe an NDP seat as there exists in the country. I think our MP, Libby Davis, received more votes than everyone else combined in the last few elections. Oddly enough, we were targeted for a few years back with inane conservative flyers that were gross distortions of reality concerning crime stats in this country. They stopped after a little while when I suppose someone higher figured out that there was no chance whatsoever for the conservatives in this riding. Other than that nothing, no calls, no anything from any federal candidates.

Which, to be honest, I really don't have a problem with.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 11:05 AM on April 12, 2011

Apparently we have the NDP to thank for preventing the release of the Auditor-General's report.

Moving to the local level, I have yet to see a candidate in my riding. I barely even see any election signage. The Tories have the most signs up (unfortunately we've got Tory Cabinet Minister in our riding who is going to get re-elected even though he really doesn't deserve to be). The Liberal was late in getting signs out but there are a couple. (Actually I've been told by local riding officials, the candidate didn't realize he needed signs. Brilliant.) The NDP's signs are useless. All they have is Jack Layton's name on them. How that is going to put the local candidate's name in front of the public, I have no idea. I think I've seen one Green sign. No party has distributed campaign literature to my mailbox yet.

The local all-candidates meetings is going to be a joke for a number of reasons including:

a) the fact that it's not being held in a public building, but in a religious institution

b) all of the issues that are going to be disucssed are issues which the federal government has very little direct say (if any at all) and most of them are "soft" social issues.

Oh well, bring on the federal debate.
posted by sardonyx at 11:39 AM on April 12, 2011

"And if you're choosing between the Liberals and the Conservatives, there's little chance that you're going to vote NDP."

Fact:
my riding doesn't even have a Conservative candidate. (We were also the only ward to vote Mayor Ford in third place / brag).

But back to this: I'm still grumpy about the G20 last summer. My friends got arrested; my boyfriend and I got searched trying to get on the streetcar (at Ossington! far from any politicians!). I'm even more mad about the environmental deadbeat-ness of this government, and the CIDA meddling, and more.

Clearly I'm an out-of-touch Torontonian, since I don't understand why this is the government that polls are still predicting for the win.
posted by smallvictories at 12:45 PM on April 12, 2011

I mean the G20 makes me furious, and mostly because it suggests the complete audicious contempt for urban areas that the conseratives have, though 75 per cent of us live in in cities.
posted by PinkMoose at 12:58 PM on April 12, 2011

The conservatives have contempt for citizens, there just happen to be more of them to be squished in urban areas.
posted by Mitheral at 2:29 PM on April 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

We got beer, some blankets, and had a blast staying in last night and live-tweeting the debate. Good times.
posted by Theta States at 6:26 AM on April 13, 2011

We got beer, some blankets, and had a blast staying in last night and live-tweeting the debate. Good times.

Man, did that ever settle nothing, eh? Harper comes off as cold and calculating while spewing talking points, Duceppe looked angry and kinda scary, Layton was energetic and not really taken seriously, and Ignatieff was pretty good but sort of underwhelming. I'm not a fan of the debates, to be honest.

Keeping the long gun registry is something that urban folks who have never had to hunt for food or keep predators off their farms are in favour of. It is a stupid peice of legistation and is killing the Libs or NDPs chances in parts of BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Let it go.

While it may be true that the legislation does nothing to address illegal firearms, it's hardly the case that violent crime is exclusively happening in big cities and urban centers as opposed to rural areas and small towns. Gilles Duceppe was pretty on point about this issue at the debates when he gave an example of going hunting and the only thing not licensed--including the dog, the car, the boat, the hunting permit--is the gun. I don't really have an opinion on the registry either way, but my understanding is that it's basically registering and paying a $60-$80 fee every 5 years, hardly a big deal. I don't see how it's so bad that someone has to register a collection of potentially deadly weapons. It doesn't really affect me, but I don't get why this is such a sticking point for people that they would base their vote on the issue.
posted by Hoopo at 10:27 AM on April 13, 2011

They don't focus on international trade. They don't focus on entrepreneurialism. I'm not talking about giving money to corporations, I'm talking about supporting small businesses, you know, the people who actually pay the taxes that pay for social programs.

The NDP does actually have tax incentives for small businesses as a central part of its platform, but in terms of a knowledge economy or entrepreneurship, all I've heard from any party is whether they are going to raise or lower taxes and which industries they're specifically targeting for investing in. There was a pretty good article the other day in the Globe about how the corporate tax cuts haven't accomplished much for further investment in the Canadian economy and have instead gone into corporations' cash reserves, which don't create jobs.
posted by Hoopo at 10:51 AM on April 13, 2011

It doesn't really affect me, but I don't get why this is such a sticking point for people that they would base their vote on the issue.

Because unlike cars, dogs and boats the registration of firearms invariably leads to the confiscation of firearms.
posted by Mitheral at 11:46 AM on April 13, 2011

forgive my ignorance, but where does the linked article say that? or is that the point...
posted by Hoopo at 11:59 AM on April 13, 2011

In 1934 handguns were required to be registered.

In 1951 automatic weapons were required to be registered.

In 1969 some handguns and most automatic weapons were moved to the new prohibited category. Owners were allowed to keep those weapons under very heavy restriction. Transferring those weapons became almost impossible, even from father to son. Police were given the power to seize registered weapons with they felt the weapons were a hazard.

1977 No one can acquire a gun without a license.

1991 Acquisition and transfer of weapons that merely look scary (similar to the assault rifle ban in the states) is further restricted. Sorry, no SPAS-12 for you.

1995 Many formerly legal pistols are moved from restricted to prohibited classification including the PPK. A law that especially galled me as it is one of the firearms I wish to own and I was thwarted by being born three years too late. Prohibited weapons are essentially nontransferable to 99.999% of the population and their use is limited even on your own property. You can't even display a prohibited weapon unless the firing mechanism and the barrel are kept in separately locked rooms resistant to break ins (and ammunition must be stored in yet another locked room or storage area).

2003 Failure to register a long gun becomes a criminal offense. One for which your firearms will be seized until the outcome of the trial and if you lose you are unlikely to ever receive a PAL.

I predict that heavy caliber single shot rifles will be the next weapons to reclassified as prohibited. All it will take is a well publicized, horrific sniper attack in the US, UK or Canada using one of those weapons.
posted by Mitheral at 12:27 PM on April 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

So not really "confiscated", but more heavily regulated. I just don't have a problem with handguns and automatics being outlawed. I mean, maybe in Churchill to protect from polar bears, but aren't rifles generally Ok for hunting and controlling pest animals? It's all my Dad has, and he used to shoot all kinds of guns for sport. Personally I don't see why I should automatically be licensed to own a firearm when he dies--I don't know the first thing about using a gun.
posted by Hoopo at 12:42 PM on April 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's also more like confiscating a shovel or a pick axe or something like that
posted by PinkMoose at 7:56 PM on April 13, 2011

"Rural people know this, and feel that they are being unfairly targeted when told they need to register their tractor because teenagers are killing people street racing."

My brother owns 2 handguns and a rifle, lives in Downtown Toronto, and registered his weapons without fuss and without complaint. I have a farm in the countryside of eastern Ontario, have no gun, and would register a gun without fuss and without complaint should I ever get one (which is not likely even with all the bears and coyotes around).

You want to know fuss? Try marrying someone who is not Canadian and jumping through all the hoops necessary to make them a long term resident. When it approaches 1/100th the hassle that is, there will be a valid complaint regarding the gun registry.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 5:57 AM on April 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

After looking up the guns Mitheral's talking about (PPK and SPAS-12) I can't help but notice:

"The SPAS 12 was designed to function primarily as a semi-automatic firearm, with the pump-action mode used to reliably fire low-pressure ammunition such as tear gas rounds or less-lethal bean bags....Early SPAS-12 models featured a lever-type safety, but over time it would begin discharging the firearm when switched on or off. This was eventually recalled by Franchi and replaced by a push-button crossbolt safety.[3] Many guns remain with the lever-type safety so caution should be used.[3]

The barrel of the SPAS 12 was externally threaded to accept a wide variety of attachments, from chokes to gas grenade launchers. One interesting and particularly rare attachment, called a "diverter", spread shot vertically or horizontally.[4] All barrel attachments are considered rare, and demand premium pricing on the secondhand market."

and the PPK:

"The most common variant is the Walther PPK, the Polizeipistole Kriminalmodell (Police Pistol Detective Model), indicating it was more concealable than the original PP"

So I don't understand why it's a total bummer that farmers can't have an easily concealable handgun designed for use by undercover police or a combat shotgun with grenade-launcher attachment for shooting pesky coyotes and raccoons. Tough.

Those weapons are banned for good reason--they're not designed for the purpose people are claiming rural people need them for, they're designed for use against people and/or in combat situations. These are simply not analogous to tractors, pickaxes, or shovels and there's no comparison to hunting rifles to be made. There's an easy parallel in what kinds of knives are outlawed here vs which are considered OK.
posted by Hoopo at 12:09 PM on April 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Remember when Stephen Harper was just plain old Steve? Don't miss the last one. Via the G&M.
posted by bonehead at 4:57 PM on April 18, 2011

Prime Minister Jack Layton. That would be interesting. Not too likely, but not fish-falling-from-the-sky unlikely either. A possibility, at least.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:05 PM on April 26, 2011

Hoopo writes "So I don't understand why it's a total bummer that farmers can't have an easily concealable handgun designed for use by undercover police or a combat shotgun with grenade-launcher attachment for shooting pesky coyotes and raccoons. Tough."

The only reason the .380 and larger caliber PPK is prohibited is lack of 3/4" of barrel length. In fact because the limit is on barrel length and not overall size you can get legal pistols that are smaller than the 6" overall length of the PPK because they squeeze a larger than 4.14" barrel into the six inches. It's pure baby stepping to an ultimate goal of prohibiting all hand guns. As to why it's a bummer: well, guns are fun. They are marvels of mechanical engineering and production that are enjoyable to hold and contemplate if you are into such things the way a watch or a Kurta or typewriter or triple two barrel carb installation is. And proficiency with them comes after extensive and steady practice not unlike golf. Plus loud noises.

The safety problem is common on many models of legal long guns including other shotguns. If the problem with the spas is it's hard to get attachments then make those illegal (oh wait, silencers, grenades and grenade launchers already are) and let people buy a perfectly serviceable if scary looking firearm. Barrel threading is a red herring anyways. Any of those attachments could be affixed to any shot gun with the use of either set screws or a non permanent twist lock compression fitting (similar to that found on tripods and beach umbrellas).

Variable chokes are common on birding guns; my shotgun has one built in. I can go from cylinder to full with a simple twist of the end of the barrel. The 4:1 diverter would be handy for some types of pest hunting but it's range would be pretty short I'd guess. It would be fun to take out an entire row of targets on a log with a single shot though. I wonder if they are illegal in Canada if permanently attached.

Finally knife laws are crazy in Canada. Spike wrist bands and dog collars are illegal in Canada. Technically speaking carrying any "weapon" concealed is illegal and that includes lock blade pocket knives which is why I carry my leatherman in a sheath on my belt. Knives that can be opened with one hand are illegal unless the opener is attached to the blade. In BC the liquor control act prohibits patrons from having a knife in a place that serves liquor. Many municipalities have restrictions on blade length. Some places it's a minimum and other places it's a maximum. I think Vancouver is one though I can't find the law. Could be a VPD harassment lever but I dropped them an email to their inquiry address asking. And again you'll find that "scary" looking knives like butterflys got prohibited because they were associated with gang violence in the Grease era. The flip side is that open carry of any fixed blade is A-OK. Strapping a machete to your thigh or a claymore to your back before a walkabout is fine as long as you don't tell the officer it's for defence from humans when you are questioned.
posted by Mitheral at 8:42 PM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]

Knives that can be opened with one hand are illegal unless the opener is attached to the blade.

Or unless the owner has use of only one of their arms.

No, seriously. Don't ask why I had to look into that.
posted by Zozo at 4:45 PM on April 30, 2011

Ya, I forgot about that part. You can even get a permit for spring activated blades like switch blades Out the Front spring blades. I don't want a butterfly knife quite badly enough to cut off one of my hand though.
posted by Mitheral at 6:46 PM on April 30, 2011