Share |


Archived posts

Most Recent Posts

  • It’s Spring. Sharpen Your Pitchforks.
  • Ron Liepert, Conservative Nom For Calgary-Signal Hill, Tells Jason Kenney Where to Go
  • Jim Flaherty’s Death Does Not Warrant the Hero Worship he Has Been Receiving
  • Is Anyone Capable of Critical Thinking? Does Anyone Even Care?
  • The Middle Class, an open letter to Tom Mulcair (and whomever else may be listening)
  • Why This Anglo Supports Quebec Solidaire and So Should Other Progressive Anglos
  • Jason Kenney Gets His Job Data From Kijiji — Myths Regarding Labour & Skills Shortages Debunked
  • Come Join the Dark Side! We Got Poutine, Pepsi and Jos Louis! (Mise a Jour) — Part D’Uh??
  • Thursday Night’s Quebec Election Leader’s Debate and The Power of Misinformation
  • Happy St-Paddy’s Day From Sister Sage’s Musings

Jane Taber and Candy Hoeppner Are Now Into Fiction: Part 1– Diabolical Wedgie Games: The Politics

Yes, Jane Taber is all ga ga giddy, again, for her precious Harpercons and this time it’s over her new girlfriend, Candy getchergun Hoeppner .  Boys ‘n’ girls, Janie is all ga ga giddy this time because she is of the belief that Candy getcherguns Hoeppner, and she alone, is responsible for collapsing the Liberal vote last May.  Candy seems to believe this fiction herself! Sure Candy and Jane, Candy did this all by her lonesome–just like Tom Mulcair the mouth spiked the NDP vote in La Belle province. Indeed, it would appear that Jane has gone from gossip columnist to fiction, and she isn’t great at it neither. If you want a humerous take, I invite you to read Jymn’s post from last night.

It looks like it’s time for a little education to set the records straight, here. First, here’s how they all voted in the 40th parliament on Bill C-391 in second reading .  You will notice that those “Y”s highlighted in pink are Liberal and NDP MPs. I will list them below to save you the trouble, as well as the two who abstained. I have provided links to the Wikipedia pages of each of the federal ridings these MPs represent(ed) so you can go check the information such as demographics, and vote margins and whether vote counts went up or down and the like.  You will see where I will be going with this post.

Part 1 will deal specifically with the political aspect of Bill C-391 and the vote that took place last year. More specifically, debunking both Janie and Candy “Getchergun” Hoeppner’s myths.

Part 2, which will be published later, will deal more with the inconsistencies and the hypocrisy of the Harpercons’ disdain for the Long gun registry and their tough on crime agenda. Believe me, there are more holes in their whole “we don’t want to criminalize law abiding farmers and hunters” meme than swiss cheese.

On with the festivities!

Liberals Who Abstained

Albina Guarnieri - Missisauga-East-Cooksville

Jim Karygiannis – Scarborough- Agincourt

Liberals who voted “yes”

Scott Andrews – Avalon

Larry Bagnell – Yukon

Jean-Claude D’Amours – Madawaska-Restigouche

Wayne Easter – Malpeque

Keith Martin – Esquimalt-Juan-deFuca

Anthony Rota- Nipissing—Timiskaming

Todd Russell – Labrador

Scott Simms - Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor

NDP MPs who Voted “Yes”

Malcolm Allen - Welland *

Charlie Angus - Timmins—James Bay *

Niki Ashton - Churchill

Dennis Bevington - Western Arctic

Nathan Cullen - Skeena—Bulkley Valley .

Claude Gravelle - Nickel Belt *

Carol Hughes - Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing *

Bruce Hyer - Thunder Bay—Superior North

Jim Maloway - Elmwood—Transcona

John Rafferty - Thunder Bay—Rainy River

Peter Stoffer - Sackville—Eastern Shore *

Glenn Thibeault - Sudbury *

If you click the link above in that list of how they voted, at second reading of Bill C-391, when both the Liberals and the NDP were not whipped and voting their consciences, some who voted against scrapping the registry did come from rural ridings. Not that many, mind you, but there were a few. I just thought I’d mention that to indicate that those ‘law abiding farmers and hunter’s the Harpercons love to ramble so much about are not breathing, eating and sleeping about hiding their long guns 24/7.

Obviously, the Harpercons, no matter where they came from were whipped into voting in favour of scrapping the registry, as were the Bloc Quebecois by Gilles Duceppe into voting in favour of keeping the registry.  You can click the link above for the entire list.

For openers, Jane’s little dispatch, while she was careful to say that some Liberals were not re-elected, the whole tone of the article seemed to imply they were not re-elected simply because they followed Michael Ignatieff’s whip into changing their minds and voting in favour of keeping the long gun registry.  The gist of the article implies that the Liberal vote collapsed because of one lone gun woman, Candy getchergun Hoeppner.  And yes, boys ‘n’ girls, she is happy to take full credit. I think it’s time to set some records straight here.

Never mind that there are planty of reasons for why the Liberal vote collapsed in Canada, but Iggy’s whipping of the long gun registry doesn’t even fall on that list. In fact, it was one of his few shining moments as a leader. Every journo, pundit and critic had their eyes on Iggy. Pressure was certainly on him. Folks had scoffed him when his own party voted against Bob Rae’s motion on funding women’s aid to include safe abortions. They wanted to see if Iggy had the chops to instill discipline in his own party that time around to vote along party lines.  However, not enough to even maintain his party as official opposition, let alone win government.  All Iggy did was prove he could instill discipline, he still wasn’t the leader Canadians wanted as Prime Minister.

By contrast, Jack Layton’s refusal to whip his caucus, was not one of his. In fact,  he did not win any favours for it–at the time.  Had those six MPs not changed their votes, and the gun registry was scrapped, I do wonder what would’ve happened?  I suspect we still would’ve had Jackmania in Quebec, as it is not the most important issue to Quebecers or Canadians for that matter. However,  not to the degree that we did. For one, I believe Tom Mulcair would’ve lost his seat in Outremont, home of the Polytechnique massacre where the survivors and families of the victims would’ve campaigned hard against him, here. It’s not the single most important issue in the riding, but it is up there. Hell, there is a small park around Cote-des-Neiges and Queen-Mary called Parc le 6 decembre, 1989, to commemorate the massacre, with a plaque.   Perhaps Marc Garneau would’ve won by a larger margin in Westmount – Ville Marie, home of the Dawson College shooting, as well as the Concordia University shooting, where disgruntled mechanical engineering professor, Valery Fabrikant, lashed out at his colleagues with a gun about 15 years earlier.

Quebec City and rural Quebec are another story, where folks are far removed from the Montreal school shootings and they’re avid hunters. In fact, those folks are not as warm to the long gun registry, however, it is not the most central issue on their minds. They’re not as passionately against it. Yes, I believe Jackmania still would’ve taken hold around those areas. After all, Jack Layton won them over on his personality and his personality, alone.  As we know by now, folks, for the most part, didn’t know the NDP candidates in their ridings they were voting for and they certainly didn’t really know what exactly the NDP stood for.

Also, let’s take a look at the above MPs, themselves.


Jim Karygiannis,  Scott Simms, Scott Andrews and Wayne Easter were all re-elected in the smaller Liberal caucus.  Scott Simms, by a landslide, I might add. The latter three from East coast rural ridings. Many were concerned if anyone’s seats were on the chopping block, it would’ve been them–assuming, of course, the long gun registry were front and center on the minds of their constituencies.

Anthony Rota, Todd Russell and Larry Bagnell all lost their re-elections, but they were close; all lost by margins of approximately 100 votes or less. In the case of Anthony Rota, it was a loss of by 18 votes after a judicial recount .  If the long gun registry were really front and center in those ridings, all three of those candidates should have lost by far greater margins to their Conservative rivals, even coming in third place. That did not happen.

As for Keith Martin, as much as I despise him for his pro-private for profit health care views, let’s be fair. He chose not to run for re-election.  I remember reading the comments in Election Prediction Project on the Esquimalt-Juan-de-Fuca page where a few had said that it was a “Keith Martin” riding.  After looking at the Wikipedia page for Esquimalt-Juan-de-Fuca election results page over the years , I would have to agree. Keith Martin held the riding since 1993 under four different banners, including as an independent. Granted, in 2008, he won only by about 68 votes, but had Martin decided to run for re-election in 2011, does anyone really know with 100% certainty that he would’ve lost?  Folks may not have liked the Liberal Party of Canada anymore, but some MPs were still liked and folks in Esquimalt-Juan-deFuca obviously liked Martin–they kept voting him in, no matter what party he represented. And if he did lose re-election last May, how do we know that it wouldn’t have been due to other reasons, like his coming out with a bang on private for profit health care?  Let’s remember that poll after poll had put health care as one of the top issues pre-occupying Canadians after economy and jobs; not the long gun registry.  Had Keith Martin run for re-election last May, my educated guess would be that it would’ve been that Martin would’ve lost, but it would’ve been a much tighter three way race between the Con, Troy De Souza, NDP Randall Garrison, and of course, Martin. But, again, no one will ever really know.

Only Claude D’Amours lost to Con Bernard Valcourt to a wider margin in Madawaska-Restigouche.  Although, I  believe that the Cons just had the right candidate–a former Mulroney prodigal son had returned to the fold, more than anything else.


To use Janie and Candy’s reasoning, the fact that Jack Layton cajoled six of his MPs to change their votes should’ve also done his party in as well. As we all know, quite the opposite happened. However, back in the day, shortly after the vote, Jack Layton didn’t gain any love from either side of the gun registry issue for his trouble. Both sides chided him.  He saw his party’s poll numbers slide for a time. It had even been said that if the registry was scrapped, both Layton and Olivia Chow were at risk to lose their Toronto seats.  However, six MPs saved the day.

Peter Stoffer, Carol Hughes, Malcolm Allen, Glenn Thibeault, Charlie Angus,  Claude Gravelle all changed their minds and voted in favour of keeping the registry. For the most part, ironically, the Harpercons have only their own redneck MPs like Brute Breitkreuz to thank for most of those MPs change of heart, I might add.  Most of those MPs, from Northern Ontario. All were re-elected. Some even saw their vote counts go up, even. Some by landslides.

Likewise, those who voted with the Harpercons: Nathan Cullen, Niki Ashton, John Rafferty, Dennis Bevington, and Bruce Hyer were also all re-elected.

Jim Maloway actually lost to Harpercon, Lawrence Toet , who, would undoubtedly, be another cheerleader to scrap the gun registry, because puppet master Steve says so. Again, proof of a constituency where the gun registry doesn’t really matter.

What if those NDP MPs all voted differently? Would they have been re-elected? My educated guess is more than likely, they would’ve been. Why? Again, the long gun registry isn’t the single most important issue on voters’ minds, as I’ve mentioned, polls have reflected.

Also, to be noted, ridings like Churchill , Timmins-James-Bay , Western Arctic , Skeena-Bulkley Valley , Nickel Belt , Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing , Thunder Bay—Superior North , Thunder Bay—Rainy River , Sackville—Eastern Shore ,and Sudbury are not Conservative strongholds or at least, haven’t been for a very long time.  Nor are Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor and Malpeque .  Obviously, it would’ve taken more than gun registries to put Harpercons in those ridings.

As a side note, the Liberals were once popular in some of those now NDP held rural ridings mentioned above, and some work needs to be done, obviously, but as even NDP MPs like Charlie Angus have admitted, there are more issues of concern to those constituencies than gun registries and the Liberals need to learn to tap into them; to connect to them.

Bringing Back The Long Gun Registry Debate Was Simply Another Divide And Conquer Game of Stevie Harper’s

For it or against it, the truth of the matter is that the Long Gun Registry (Bill C-68)  became law in 1995– a bill that Stevie Spiteful, hisself even voted for–twice, because he said his own constituents supported it . He voted against it later.

Many were kicking and screaming, no question, but eventually, the matter was put to rest. Nobody spoke of it again for many years to come, or at the very least, not nearly as loudly. That is, until Stevie Spiteful came to power.

So why did it become so important to him? Scrapping the long gun registry was always an election promise, yet C-391, a government bill,  dressed as a private members’ bill brought forth by then back bencher, Candy ‘getcherguns’ Hoeppner, would only come much later. It was simply designed to divide Canadians. Rural v Urban. West-North V Central-South.  The usual crap. Most of all, it also served to divide the opposition parties; not just to have the Liberals and the NDP sniping at each other, but also to expose divisions of Liberal v Liberal and NDP v NDP. Obviously, it wasn’t working for the Bloc. If any of the rural Bloc MPs had problems with the gun registry, they certainly weren’t showing it publicly and were happily following Gilles Duceppe.  Bringing back the Long Gun Registry debate, and by extension, the whole gun control debate, was one of Stevie’s most diabolical divide and conquer chess moves.  Nothing more.

A divide and conquer game that had short term consequences for Jack Layton and the NDP and short term benefits for Iggy and the Liberals.  A game, however, that had  nothing to do with the outcome of the last election.  A game that only served to further divide Canadians instead of uniting them–an odd game, as a prime minister is supposed to unite a country, not divide it.

As a matter of fact, pollster Nik Nanos had explained last summer that when Steve and the Harpercons start straying away from economy and jobs, the issues foremost on Canadians’ minds, and start hammering on things like their ‘patriotic’ symbols or dumb on crime and other wedge games, their poll numbers go down .

1 comment to Jane Taber and Candy Hoeppner Are Now Into Fiction: Part 1– Diabolical Wedgie Games: The Politics

  • Jymn

    Thank you for doing what Taber should have done in the beginning. The devil’s in the details, they say.