Canadian Record Industry's Secret Lobby Campaign

CRIAWatch writes "Michael Geist has an editorial published in the Hill Times, a Canadian political newsweekly, about a secret lobbying campaign by the Canadian Recording Industry Association. The report details how days after the last Canadian election CRIA lobbyists worked with officials to plan an event featuring speakers on the CRIA payroll who are promoting a DMCA for Canada, dozens of government officials from seven departments, an expensive lunch with senior government executives paid for by taxpayers, as well as a private meeting with the Canadian Heritage Minister who is responsible for copyright law."

Comments

Plutocracy

[Umbral Blot]

I for one welcome our wealthy overlords. In all seriousness many democratic countries are effectively ruled by the rich already. (For example consider the amount of money needed to win an election, ensuring all candidates are either independently wealthy or in the pockets of their campaign contributors) Why should it surprise anyone that the people in power are making laws that benefit themselves? See Plutocracy and tell me with a straight face that isn't almost every modern "democratic" government.

Re:Plutocracy

[RoffleTheWaffle]

Plutocracy - The best Democracy money can buy.

Re:Plutocracy

[cptgrudge]

All it takes is a few rounds of not re-electing the same bought and paid-for fools. The problem is that the general population is so ignorant, indifferent, or both, that they end up having exactly zero effect on the system. The only change is that the list of laws get longer, the tax code gets more complex, and a bunch more money changes hands.

So, the majority must be more or less accepting of the situation, even if it's grudging. "I know my Senator is corrupt, but at least he's familiar. I don't know how corrupt that new guy is. Strange ideas, he has; Clean Up government? What's his angle?"

People are so distrusting of the system that they don't trust any politicians, but at least they can have "their" own "party" in power.

"He's a corrupt politician, but he's my corrupt politician!"

Re:Plutocracy

[Abcd1234]

Actually, generally speaking, that *doesn't* describe the Canadian government (I can't speak for others, of course). You see, unlike the US, we have laws (such as campaign finance limitations) which prevent what amounts to institutionalized bribary of government officials. Of course, that doesn't prevent lobbiests from finding ways of working around those rules, but the practice is greatly discouraged, and is absolutely unacceptable to the public.

Re:Plutocracy

[Umbral Blot]

Hey, I'm not saying a Plutocracy is necessarily against the wishes of the people. After all it's probably better than communism. I'm just saying we should call it what it is and not pretend we are living in a pure and perfect democracy. Laws like this aren't aberrations, they are to be expected.

Re:Plutocracy

[cptgrudge]

I suppose if the people are moderately happy and generally want the same things, who are we to argue? And I'm guessing that extra marketing afforded to the affluent would ensure that the people getting their three squares of media content per day would be of the same mind of the wealthy.

Not unlike a shepherd herding sheep. Keep them contained and happy, fleece them, and put them back out to pasture until the next time. Everybody wins.

Re:Plutocracy

[OECD]

All it takes is a few rounds of not re-electing the same bought and paid-for fools.

...to create a class that is entirely dependent upon outside finacing. You kids may not remember, but this is what the Gingrich Revolution was about. It pretty much worked, but lasted about two years. Then the new kids at school were facing competition... Predictable outcome ensues.

And that's pretty much the point of this article. Only with a more amusing pronunciation of 'about'.

Re:Plutocracy

[ceoyoyo]

It's also quite possible to get elected as an independent and some MPs are not fabulously wealthy nor have fabulously wealthy friends.

Re:Plutocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also quite possible to get elected as an independent and some MPs are not fabulously wealthy nor have fabulously wealthy friends.

Of course, we don't know who they are, because they are sitting on the back bench, away from any decision making or access to media.

Re:Plutocracy

[StikyPad]

That sounds aboot right.

Re:Plutocracy

[ceoyoyo]

They still have a vote. I'd like to see what happens if we elect a significant number of independents. You know, people who represent their constituents as opposed to their party.

Re:Plutocracy

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

It's not "aboot", it's pronounced "a-bow-oot"... unless you're like most Canadians, who pronounce it the same way as the Usians.

Re:Plutocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The only democratic state which isn't hopelessly corrupt is the one which requires a 99% majority vote for every single expansion of government power. Of course, that democratic state doesn't exist, never has, and probably never will -- anyone care to guess why?

Face it, democracy (and government in general) is designed to benefit the people who run government.

Re:Plutocracy

[Dr Caleb]

Except, under Canadian election laws, individuals are prevened from contributing more than $5400, and corporations cannot contribute a dime to political parties or candidates.

Re:Plutocracy

[eikonos]

and corporations cannot contribute a dime to political parties or candidates

But their kids are allowed to contribute their .. ah .. college funds to their favourite candidate.

Re:Plutocracy

[compro01]

I'd like to see what happens if we elect a significant number of independents. You know, people who represent their constituents as opposed to their party.

anyone around here who has taken grade 12 history knows what happens in that instance. in the weeks leading up to an important vote, no independant MP has to buy food! thats exactly what happened in the early canadian parlament, and i don't think people have really changed all that much in the last 140 years or so...

Re:Plutocracy

[StikyPad]

I just spelled it that way becooze my yoo key is broken; I wasn't making any statements aboot Canadians.

Re:Plutocracy

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Heh. And yet you managed to type "sounds"...

Re:Plutocracy

[Holmwood]

With respect, where have you been for the last 40 years? (Teaching at Harvard? (sorry, inside Canadian joke)). First, Canada's campaign finance reform is quite new. It might have the effect you hope for, but certainly the first dividends could be argued to have been the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in the sponsorship scandal. A look at past PM's of Canada: Pierre Elliot Trudeau, very wealthy multimillionaire, PM 1968-79, 1980-1984, Remember his bribe of a swimming pool from lobbyists? The stench of Liberal corruption and appointments was bad by '79 and so reeking by '84 that Mulroney could appear to be a man of total integrity. Joe Clark, PM 1979 -- not notably wealthy. not notably corrupt! John Turner, PM 1984 -- very wealthy Bay Street (=Wall Street for USians) money man 200+ patronage appointments in 1 day, not otherwise corrupt Brian Mulroney, PM 1984-1993 -- multimillionaire businessman and lawyer. Embroiled in massive lobby scandal, investigated for years by the RCMP, nothing proven. Kim Campbell, PM 1993 -- not notably wealthy, not notably corrupt! Jean Chretien, PM 1993-2003 -- multimillionaire, daughter married into billionaire's family with ties to oil-for-food scandal, mysterious fires, strange lobby-scandal loans, ties to criminal donors, sponsorship scandal -- like Mulroney, no one's ever pinned anything on the man himself, but there's a definite odor of sulfur about both of them. Paul Martin, PM 2003-2006 -- worth 100+m, sponsorship scandal happened while he was Finance Minister (from Quebec!), some very mysterious financial dealings at Earnscliffe, especially re lobbyists, his private strategy/consulting firm. Stephen Harper, PM 2006 -- Reptilian Kitten Eater, according to some, but not notably wealthy, and not notably corrupt. Yet. So, yes, there is the exception of a bunch of Conservative Prime Ministers who were poor (well, if worth less than $1m is "poor") and who's collective tenure as PM was about long enough to change a lightbulb, and Liberal John Turner who was wealthy, but apart from an orgy of patronage appointments didn't seem corrupt. But for 39 of the last 40 budgets passed, 38 of the last 40 years, Canada's had a steady stream of PM's from both major parties who were a) multimillionaires, and b) seemingly quite corrupt, or at the very least, highly flexible in their ethics. Doesn't mean some of them weren't good men. Trudeau had an admirable vision for Canada (and was probably one of the least personally corrupt of the lot). But to say Canada is different? Have you looked at how the country has fallen in corruption indicies over the last decade? Holmwood.

Re:Plutocracy

[Holmwood]

OK, I screwed up formatting. Sorry. Please don't kill my Karma. Reposted, readable:

With respect, where have you been for the last 40 years? (Teaching at Harvard? (sorry, inside Canadian joke)). First, Canada's campaign finance reform is quite new. It might have the effect you hope for, but certainly the first dividends could be argued to have been the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in the sponsorship scandal.

A look at past PM's of Canada:
Pierre Elliot Trudeau, very wealthy multimillionaire, PM 1968-79, 1980-1984, Remember his bribe of a swimming pool from lobbyists? The stench of Liberal corruption and appointments was bad by '79 and so reeking by '84 that Mulroney could appear to be a man of total integrity.

Joe Clark, PM 1979 -- not notably wealthy. not notably corrupt!

John Turner, PM 1984 -- very wealthy Bay Street (=Wall Street for USians) money man 200+ patronage appointments in 1 day, not otherwise corrupt

Brian Mulroney, PM 1984-1993 -- multimillionaire businessman and lawyer. Embroiled in massive lobby scandal, investigated for years by the RCMP, nothing proven.

Kim Campbell, PM 1993 -- not notably wealthy, not notably corrupt!

Jean Chretien, PM 1993-2003 -- multimillionaire, daughter married into billionaire's family with ties to oil-for-food scandal, mysterious fires, strange lobby-scandal loans, ties to criminal donors, sponsorship scandal -- like Mulroney, no one's ever pinned anything on the man himself, but there's a definite odor of sulfur about both of them.

Paul Martin, PM 2003-2006 -- worth 100+m, sponsorship scandal happened while he was Finance Minister (from Quebec!), some very mysterious financial dealings at Earnscliffe, especially re lobbyists, his private strategy/consulting firm.

Stephen Harper, PM 2006 -- Reptilian Kitten Eater, according to some, but not notably wealthy, and not notably corrupt. Yet.

So, yes, there is the exception of a bunch of Conservative Prime Ministers who were poor (well, if worth less than $1m is "poor") and who's collective tenure as PM was about long enough to change a lightbulb, and Liberal John Turner who was wealthy, but apart from an orgy of patronage appointments didn't seem corrupt.

But for 39 of the last 40 budgets passed, 38 of the last 40 years, Canada's had a steady stream of PM's from both major parties who were a) multimillionaires, and b) seemingly quite corrupt, or at the very least, highly flexible in their ethics.

Doesn't mean some of them weren't good men. Trudeau had an admirable vision for Canada (and was probably one of the least personally corrupt of the lot).

But to say Canada is different? Have you looked at how the country has fallen in corruption indicies over the last decade?

Holmwood.

Re:Plutocracy

[Abcd1234]

But to say Canada is different? Have you looked at how the country has fallen in corruption indicies over the last decade?

And, funny enough, most of the examples you cite are *illegal* attempts at bribary. Illegal. Why? Because, as I already stated, in this country, the practice isn't condoned, unlike our neighbour to the south. Does that mean it doesn't happen? Of course not. But to suggest that our system is anywhere *near* as corrupt as the the US system is laughable. Furthermore, because the public chose to *punish* our corrupt officials, we now have legislation which will make these sorts of things more difficult in the future. Thus, I would argue we're on the path to a less corrupt system, whereas down south, there's no end in sight.

So, yes, Canada is different. Is it perfect? No. But it's infinitely better.

Re:Plutocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I wish I had mod points for you. That was extremely insightful/informative.

Re:Plutocracy

[Holmwood]

Yes, bribery is illegal in Canada. How many of the people I cited were caught? How many charged? How many convicted?
0, 0, 0.

To suggest that Canada is purer, is, sadly, to live in a dream world.

You point out that the public "chose" to punish elected officials. Fair enough. Thing is, the public did that to the Trudeaucrats in 1984, and to the Mulroneyites in 1993. The Chretien/Martin team was tossed out in '06.

In the first two cases what impact has that had? Zero. How many top people were charged/convicted? Zero. An occasional (literally one or two, and that only if hundreds of millions were stolen) low-level unelected flunky went to Club Fed for a brief term.

In the final case, you're pinning your hopes on a man who may well be good and decent, but who is far right compared to most Canadians. He may deliver, but at the moment it's not looking good. (See abandonment of ethics officer, etc).

Re:It's called democracy

[DigiShaman]

Kinda makes me feel like punching a bunch of corrupt officials. Dunno about you.

Re:It's called democracy

[kfg]

"How do you know it's a DMCA?"

"It's got shit all over it."

"Well I didn't vote for it."

KFG

What's the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

between "secret lobbying" and "bribery"

In my country bribery used to be a scandalous form of fraud.

Re:What's the difference

[God'sDuck]

between "secret lobbying" and "bribery"

simple: you don't wink when you bribe somebody. it's all about the wink.

Re:What's the difference

[Indras]

In my country bribery used to be a scandalous form of fraud.

Yeah, it used to be scanalous in my country too. And I live in the US.

Re:What's the difference

[jmv]

What's the difference between "secret lobbying" and "bribery"

Bribery is when it goes in the minister's pocket. Secret lobbying is when it goes into the party's pocket. The main problem is that the latter is easier to get away with (especially for the company).

Re:What's the difference

[TubeSteak]

Not quite.

The difference is that lobbying has limits and gets reported according to disclosure rules.

Bribes are anything outside the ethics, lobbying & disclosure rules. So, even lobbying activites that would normally be 100% legit can create a sticky mess if it isn't done according to the rules.

Anyways, as far as any of us are concerned, most lobbying events are "secret". They aren't publicized, but are available in the public record, though not necessarily right away.

The OPED writer uses lots of innuendo & suggestion to leave you with a bad impression of everyone involved.

The email included a suggested outline for a March 2 event focused on copyright reform.
...
One month later, virtually the identical scenario played itself out in Canadian Heritage's Gatineau offices and in the private dining room of a swank nearby restaurant.

Business as usual. Lobbying firms do a lot of scutwork to provide cookie cutter solutions to gov't representatives. Anything from party planning to writing up model legislation.

And you should note that the author drops the word "private" six times.
private meeting x 2
private dining room x 2
private events
private lunches

It makes me want to ask "and his point is?"
Were any laws broken? Is this behavior considerably apart from the norm?

Re:What's the difference

[jmv]

Were any laws broken?

Maybe not, but maybe something's also wrong with the law. The laws are made by the same people who receive the money. Why would they change it?

Is this behavior considerably apart from the norm?

If bribery was the norm as well, it would be right?

Re:What's the difference

[Secrity]

Bribery of government officials used to be a serious offense in the US too, but that all changed when the country stopped being ran by the People and started being ran by the Corporations.

Re:What's the difference

[ignavus]

When you secretly give money to one official, to get them to decide in your favour, it is bribery and illegal.

Whwn you do it on a larger scale, giving money to a whole party, which is more effective, then it is called lobbying, and it is legal.

Apparently, political parties got to make the rules, and provided they get their cut, they are OK with bribery.

It's those loners who keep it for themselves that have to be stamped out.

Re:What's the difference

[Mr. Firewall]

There is nothing unusual about "secret lobbying". That is just the way that politics works. Indeed, when we were working the Open Source bill in the Oregon legislature, we lobbied in secret for months before the bill became public knowledge. And Micro$oft's lobbyists lobbied in secret to kill it after it became public knowledge. They won, of course.

If you think politics is a nice game of tiddlywinks among people who play fairly, you are hopelessly naive. Politics is about power, and the money that buys power. And that's ALL it's about.

Ken Barber
author, Oregon House Bill 2892 (2003 session)

Re:What's the difference

[TubeSteak]

Urgh

Was the legal behavior considerably apart from the norm?

You can do something that is legal, but unethical.
TFA doesn't even accuse them of being unethical.

Lobbying == Bribery

[Anonymous Coward]

call a spade a spade, you hand money/favors to politician in the expectation he gives you something worthwhile for your money
you really think [COMPANYNAME] would spend millions in "contributions" if it made no difference ? do you think these companies treat it as a charity donation or as a strategic investment ?

lobbying is just another word for legalised bribery
democracy has nothing to do with it

money and material desire is the problem

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[QuantumG]

You vote the fucker into power, that's democracy. If you don't like it, vote for someone else. If there's no-one worth voting for, run yourself.

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[Jherek Carnelian]

lobbying is just another word for legalised bribery
democracy has nothing to do with it

Nor does "freedom of speech" - on which grounds lobbying + campaign contributions are usually defended. Bribery of a public official is a crime which should trump any claims to freedom of speech, but somehow in our twisted world, does not.

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[Firehed]

Better yet, run yourself telling the guys handing out the bribes (RIAA, MPAA, any orgs with money you hate) that you'll work in their favor. Accept their generous campaign contributions, then fuck them over.

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[interiot]

Doesn't that just mean that they'll triple their bribes to your opponent in the next election?

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[vinsanity1]

in that case you would have effectively screwed them over.

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[dwandy]

well ... I still don't understand how 'bribery' became legal... but imho it's the problem with politics today.

here's my POV:
If you pay someone money, you're probably expecting something in return.
If you accept money from someone, it's real likely that you either work for them, or you will...
Other than charitable contributions (where the 'return' is the nice feeling you get), no one hands out money for nothing.

So my solution starts with removing ALL campaign contributions. And it has to be 100%, 'cause if you let people donate even a few bucks, they'll find a way to corrupt the system.
To eliminate 'only the rich can run', make funding campaigns a federal budget line item, and maybe mix in the national/minimum-sized media outlets (on an even by-party basis) to reserver 'free' space. TV and radio will be easy, since those require a license :) . So, while everyone will have the same budget, it's cash-in-hand and some ad-space, and each party can do what they want with it.
To those that say that they don't want to pay for the campaign out of tax dollars, I remind you that you are already paying for them when you buy products ... every CD you buy ensures more $$$ for stronger laws that remove your rights. Once companies can no longer purchase politicians, the laws will more strongly reflect what WE THE PEOPLE actually want.

Is this solution perfect? hell no, but imho it's infinitely better than the one we have.

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[Chowderbags]

Vote for who? The other guy who will be just as sleazy if you give him some time? The third party candidate who has no shot of winning? You might as well cast a write in vote for Santa Clause, as much effect as that has.

And run yourself? Are you kidding me? You're facing people backed with millions of dollars in a political war chest who will resort to finding the most menial thing in your past to dredge up and run a negative campaign against you.

Let's face it. The day of the politicians being by, of, and for the people are long over, and they're getting further and further behind every election. The only real hope? Read your history books if you don't know the answer. Hint: It's what eventually happens to every authoritarian government not externally toppled.

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[QuantumG]

I aint gunna hate on you for being fatalistic, but if you never vote for a third party candidate or run yourself you'll never change anything.

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[Firehed]

Even moreso if people re-elect you based on liking your actions, regardless of advertising. That's what I absolutely f'ing hate about campaigns - it's just making people like the candidate, not what s/he is actually going to do in office. Of all the commercials I've seen locally, not one has told me any of the candidate's position on any issue, let alone the hot-topic ones. It's just "hey, I was sweet growing up, so be my bitch."

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[Trepalium]

Other than charitable contributions (where the 'return' is the nice feeling you get), no one hands out money for nothing.

That's not even true. There can be a big return for charitable donations. You can get tax reductions, public "good will" (warm fuzzy feelings about your Brand because you donate), etc. Take a look at those who rave over Bill Gates charitable donations. Even if you assume that he's doing it for completely philanthropic reasons, no doubt he personally recieves tax benefits from it, and his corporation, Microsoft, certainly gets a certain amount of publicity from it.

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[Chowderbags]

I'll probably never change anything if I do that. Short of actually instigating an armed revolution in this country, there is very little recourse for those in Washington. There's what, a 96% incumbancy rate? Do you honestly think that people aren't trying to vote for other candidates or run for office? Heck, there's enough of a problem getting people to pick anything but the one major political party they've voted for all their life, let alone getting people to pick a political party that doesn't start with an R or a D. With news networks on both sides cheering on their own side with every small guy getting pushed out of even the edge of the limelight, what do you think we can do to peacefully change anything?

Re:Lobbying == Bribery

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's what eventually happens to every authoritarian government not externally toppled.

Which means, in modern terms, nothing. Good luck trying to topple your own government, you'll get Ruby-Ridged before you can even say "Waco".

How sad...

[waTR]

It was (is) bound to happen. We can't be so close to the US without catching "a cold" every now and again. I just hope the police don't start enforcing all these laws as seriously as in the US. weed anyone?

Watch Out Canda!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Watch out Canada! We'll make you into the United States yet!

Re:Watch Out Canda!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. We do thank you for the recent warmer winters.
Not too keen on the warmer summers though, and the beaver don't seem to like it much either.

Sorry, but maybe you could ask your PM (or whatever you call it down there) to go a bit easier on the hot air, eh?

Anyhoo, can't stay and chitchat. Gotta go suck back the resta my beer and go clubbin'

Re:Watch Out Canda!

[Anonymous Coward]

or whatever you call it down there

"Idiot"

Re:Watch Out Canda!

[RealGrouchy]

Watch out Canada! We'll make you into the United States yet!

Sorry, but we don't need you. Our Prime Minister is doing a quick job of it on his own, thank you very much!

- RG>

Re:Watch Out Canda!

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! We've turned you into Minnesotans!!

Who didn't see this coming?

[Twiceblessedman]

When the conservatives won in January it was just a matter of time really.

Re:Who didn't see this coming?

[cbiltcliffe]

You do realize the Liberals were looking at the possibility of something DMCA-like just a few weeks after Martin took the reigns, don't you?

They're all corrupt. Trying to blame one particular party for the corruption and mess that is any government is like trying to blame the pollution in Los Angeles on one particular blue Chevy Nova.

(Why blue? I dunno. Seemed like a good colour at the time.)

Re:Who didn't see this coming?

[14CharUsername]

Well, when the Liberals are back in power we'll blame them for the corruption. Right now the Conservatives are in power so we blame them. See how that works?

"All the other kids are doing it too" didn't work when I was a kid, I don't see why it should apply to people who are pretending to run our country (even if theydo behave like children).

Re:Who didn't see this coming?

[B0red At W0rk]

The NDP are not corrupt. Maybe if people would stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils something good would actually happen in this country.

Re:Who didn't see this coming?

[Toresica]

The NDP are not corrupt. Maybe if people would stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils something good would actually happen in this country

It's hard to do corrupt things if you've never been in power.

Re:Who didn't see this coming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every damned one of them Republican, Democratic and Independent voted for the DMCA here in the USA.
We need to throw all these corporate whores out of office.
This November and in 2008 vote NO INCUMBANT.

Re:Who didn't see this coming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistically about half the population is of below average intellect.
Under our democracy the votes from the stupid people cancel out the votes of the smart people leaving those in charge to do pretty much what ever they want.

Democracy simply does not work.
It was an improvement from prior systems but we stopped advancing at that point.
No one system works, you need to keep changing. Your system will either degrade or get better, nothing stays the same for long.
We should run our government like a business.
Let interested parties tender an offer.
Accept the best offer and if we don't get what we are promised they have to refund our money AND pay a penalty.

A.T. Lin

Re:Who didn't see this coming?

[Idiomatick]

I'd be happy if we at least got proportional representation. And the problem isn't intelligence, while 50% of people are below average intelligence (Duh). About 90% are too uninformed to make a proper desicion. But this doesn't begin to list the problem. Say you were absolute king of the country you could do anything right? Be 100% uncorrupt? WRONG. The way capitalism works the MNCBs means they can tell you what to do, because you need them. If you don't cave to their demands they don't donate and you can't force them to, being out of your jurisdiction and all. Now without these donations and support your country is limping and you will be squeezed until you do cave. ;) Our form of government matters very little until we have a global government.

Re:It's called democracy

[Tackhead]

> "How do you know it's a DMCA?"
> "It's got shit all over it."
> "Well I didn't vote for it."

Bloody peasant.

You don't vote for the DMCA.

Expensive lunch?

[winkydink]

Were you there? Did you see the bill?

Because the word lunch appears in the article 3 times and the word expensive (or its synonyms) don't modify it in any of those appearances.

I'm all for outing questionable behavior, but let's not embellish.

Re:Expensive lunch?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "private dining room of a swank nearby restaurant."

Sounds like theres support for that comment after all.

Re:Expensive lunch?

[shark72]

The article stated that they "enjoyed lunch and drinks at Canadian Heritage's expense in a private dining room at Le Panache restaurant."

Here's some info on Le Panache. Entrees are $24 - $29 Canadian, which is about $22 - $26 US. That's an average price in a major metro area. But, that's probably a lot of money to the sort of Slashdot readers who clicked on this item -- the same sort who think that $0.99 for a music track is way too expensive.

The federal government holding some sort of function "at taxpayers' expense" (another quote from the summary), particularly one where food and drinks are involved, is certainly not news here in the real world. But if I found that my lawmakers were opting to choose a restaurant in the sub-$30 range for their fetes, I'd be pleasantly surprised.

Re:Expensive lunch?

[hindumagic]

Yeah, well it isn't like they went to McDonald's or anything. The restaurant is rated as "expensive". I think then, that you can characterize the lunch as expensive. It's fine if they cater sandwiches in, but lunch and drinks at an expensive restaurant are just that - expensive.

I agree that it is best not to embellish, but I don't see that here. Editorializing, certainly.

Re:Expensive lunch?

[wrook]

I'm from Ottawa and have been to Le Panache. It is expensive for the area. There are probably a few more expensive restaurants, but not many. I don't know what they had for lunch, but there are plenty of cheaper (and still quite private) restaurants in the area. Personally, I find it offensive that a lobby group asked for a meeting and the government took them out to such a fancy place (or any place at all, really -- they don't have meeting rooms in the parliament buildings???). There are plenty of pro-user lobbiests who can't even get the Heritage department to read an email let alone take them out to lunch.

Re:Expensive lunch?

[serber]

You don't consider $22-26 for an entree expensive? Dang. If that's the price of an entree how much is a main? I certainly wish I could afford to eat places like that on a regular basis!

And no, I don't consider $0.99/track too exepnsive. In fact I think it's just right.

Having said that the govt holding functions isn't exactly news in itself, but surely CRIA should've been able to fund a little lunch... especially if they wanted something. (Who am I kidding, "if" haha.)

Re:Expensive lunch?

[Anonymous Coward]

An entree is a main course.

Re:Expensive lunch?

[ocelotbob]

I would disagree. $30 for food isn't terribly expensive. Moderately priced is much more accurate. Expensive is when you're talking $50+/head at least.

Re:Expensive lunch?

[Frizzle Fry]

If it ends up costing Canadians their rights, isn't that a pretty expensive lunch?

Re:Expensive lunch?

[serber]

According to wikipedia: "In most English-speaking countries outside North America, an entrée (also known as a 'starter') is a smaller course that precedes the main course." Well there we go, confusion sorted. However my point still stands, if not as well - $22-26 is not a "cheap" lunch (for just the "main", of course there are drinks and what not that'll go rather well on top of that).

Re:Expensive lunch?

[Sepper]

$30 for food isn't terribly expensive.

30$ would be ok, but it's 30$ PER ENTREE. Which means the entire meal is more than double than... I don't call this cheap...

Sponsor your own propoganda.

[9mm Censor]

"The music lobby group was planning a study on the Canadian music industry and was seeking $50,000 in funding from Canadian Heritage to help support the project. " I am going to freak, if I as a tax payer have to pay to fund corprate propoganda.

Re:Sponsor your own propoganda.

[Toresica]

"The music lobby group was planning a study on the Canadian music industry and was seeking $50,000 in funding from Canadian Heritage to help support the project. " I am going to freak, if I as a tax payer have to pay to fund corprate propoganda.

To be fair, the department of Canadian Heritage is supposed to give out some funding relating to Canadian culture, which Canadian music is.

Re:Sponsor your own propoganda.

[Danse]

To be fair, the department of Canadian Heritage is supposed to give out some funding relating to Canadian culture, which Canadian music is.

Fine. Sponsor some musicians or something. Don't sponsor a study with an agenda backed by a cartel of multinationals seeking to line their pockets at the expense of the Canadian people.

Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry"

[turg]

The only members of the CRIA are the American record labels. The Canadian labels have all pulled out.

Re:Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry"

[bansai665]

The last time I pulled out, she got pregnant anyway.

Re:Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry"

[hansoloaf]

Is there a list of companies under the CRIA?

Re:Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry"

[Azarael]

They aren't responsible enough to list all of their memebers clearly on their website. This blog has a list of the major players though http://childrensgroup.blogspot.com/2006/04/childre ns-group-resigns-cria.html/

Re:Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry"

[demachina]

"The only members of the CRIA are the American record labels."

Uh ... the big four recording companies which control more than two thirds of the recording business, which are probably the ones that count here, aren't really "American". Some 2004 market share I could find:

"Universal maintains its position as the world's biggest recording company, with a 25.5% share of the world market. Sony BMG is next with a 21.5% share followed by EMI at 13.4% and Warner at 11.3%. The independent sector holds steady with a 28.4% global share."

Universal Music Group, while American in origin, is owned by Vivendi, which is a French company.
Sony BMG is owned by ... uh ... Sony which is a Japanese company and BMG is Bertelsmann a German company.
EMI is a British company based in London.
Last I remember Time Warner sold Warner Music Group to Edgar Bronfman, principal in Seagrams. Seagrams is based in Montreal, though I think Bronfman lives in New York, and a lot of Warner Music is in the U.S. so its kind of a Canadian-American company.

So nice try, trying to ascribe RIAA/CRIA insanity solely to America isn't really accurate. You should probably just refer to them as multinationals, the root of most evil in the world. Greed is pretty much an international disease, the U.S. just has a particularly virulent dose.

Re:Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry"

[RexRhino]

Sony and Universal are the largest record labels, and they are Japanese and French respectively.

Although in the age of global media, nationality is largely irrelevant. Sex, income, age, urban/suburban/rural, and your selected youth subculture has much more to do with what music you listen to than the geo-political boundries that were carved up by European powers in the last century. And the way capital works in the modern market, a company can be "American" because it is traded on the NYSE, but be owned almost entirely by Saudis or Japanese or whoever.

As a slightly related note, Jean Chretien's son-in-law was president of Vivendi/Universal.

Re:Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry"

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

The point was that there are plenty of purely-Canadian labels, and they're against this sort of lobbying. So you can ignore any "in the interest of Canadian artists" arguments, because it's more about the interest of global corporations, as you've pointed out.

Who was there?

[crossmr]

I'd like to see a list of exactly which government officials attended this.

Re:Who was there?

[bansai665]

I'm sure it'll hit the front page of the Ottawa Citizen within a couple of days.

In all honesty, I don't see the current legislation giving in to this. Then again, here in Canada the people let themselves get dumped on by the government daily.

Re:Who was there?

[crossmr]

I wrote the previous heritage person last year when I found out that several companies were lobbying under the guise of "saving canadians from another tax" to remove the media tax and turn us all into criminals and make lawsuits easier. At that time they didn't seemed at all inclined to buy into it. I'm not sure how the current indivdiuals are operating. They don't seem foolish enough to go down the american slippery slope and I think thats one thing we have going for our government. Anytime something comes up that would make us "more american" they seem to get pretty leery.

Re:Who was there?

[blackest_k]

I'd like to see this reach the mainstream press,seriously the coverage of this story by p2p.net slashdot and hill times is pretty meaningless. Thier readership are already well informed about the issues.

The majority of the canadian people who already pay the levy on blank media, who will be criminalised for the benefit of multi-nationals, they need to be informed.

The CRIA and the Politicians will not feel any heat until canadian citizens are enraged about this, canadians who know about this story need to bring it to the attention of mainstream canadian media and start writing to thier representatives. If questions are raised about this in the canadian parliment and the mainstream press raises the awareness of the average canadian about this issue, then canadians might actually stand a chance of mitigating the effects of this lobby group.

Canada is not an American State and doesn't wish to become one - does it?

Re:Who was there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada does not want to become an American State. Harper does.

DMCA for Canada

[DrMindWarp]

As signatories of the 1996 WIPO Copyright treaty, Canada is legally obliged to create a DMCA type law. They signed up to this already - it is just a matter of implementation.

Re:DMCA for Canada

[NihilEst]

Well. They're obliged?

Well, well, well. So I have a couple of suggestions:

1. Craft a law just like the US version of the DMCA, except:

2. Make any violation of thie Act a misdemeanor with no civil penalties possible.

3. Make the penalty exactly $1 CDN and 1 minute in jail.

There. That should be the lesson the **AA needs: there is a letter of the law and a spirit of the law. They don't seem to recognize the difference.

Re:DMCA for Canada

[djmurdoch]

Canada signed it, but hasn't ratified it. It is not law yet. Just like the USA and the Kyoto Protocol, one would hope: signed but never to be ratified.

Except that the current government is now revealed to be in the pockets of the multinational copyright mafia...

Re:DMCA for Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

"Canada signed"

The Liberal government of the day signed... so the former government is now revealed to be in the pockets of the multinational copyright mafia...

Asshole.

Re:DMCA for Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

So what, We signed up for Kyoto too. That's so last year already.

Re:DMCA for Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

The so-called "liberal" government was just another corrupt group of conservatives. Millionaires representing other millionaires.

There will not be any REAL change in Ottawa until we throw the lot of them out and put in the Green party or even the NDP. Fuck anyone who would say that those parties suck, the libs and torys have proven that they suck far far worse.

Re:DMCA for Canada

[Jerry Rivers]

If you think the NDP is any different than the Liberals or even the Conservatives you're living in dreamland. Bob Rae, the former NDP Premier of Ontario, is now he's running for the leadership of the Liberal Party. So much for party loyalty in the NDP and so much for opportunistic politcal whores.

Re:DMCA for Canada

[djmurdoch]

The Liberal government of the day signed... so the former government is now revealed to be in the pockets of the multinational copyright mafia...

"Now revealed"? I think that was clear before, and it lost Sarmite Bulte her seat in Parliament. But now, if they are smart opportunists (which they used to be, I'm not so sure they're smart these days) they'll take this opportunity and run with it. Probably the NDP will.

Canadian Heritage

[kevin_conaway]

I had no idea what the Canadian Heritage was, so I looked it up. Apparenty, its an official goverment branch that is responsible for national policies and programs that promote Canadian content, foster cultural participation, active citizenship and participation in Canada's civic life, and strengthen connections among Canadians.

Re:Canadian Heritage

[jhines]

That is where Bob & Doug McKenzie on the old SNL show came from. Because part of the production was in Canada, they wanted some Canadian content. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas, a pair of really funny guys, they were given the orders to go out and "do something Canadian".

They had a musical hit, with Geddy Lee of Rush, with "take off". And a modest movie "strange brew" with Max Von Sydow.

Re:Canadian Heritage

[multisync]

That is where Bob & Doug McKenzie on the old SNL show came from

It was actually SCTV, but you're right -- they were told by the CRTC to come up with two minutes of "identifiable Canadian content," so they improvised two guys drinking beer and wearing touques.

Re:Canadian Heritage

[schon]

they were told by the CRTC to come up with two minutes of "identifiable Canadian content,"

Do you have a link to back that up? Because the entire fscking show was "Canadian Content" - *ALL* of it (which you'd know if you'd ever read the CanCon regulations.) CanCon has nothing (as in ***NOTHING***) to do with the subject matter of a program. At all.

The real story behind Bob & Doug goes as follows:

Because commercial time in Canada is two minutes shorter in Canada than in the US, SCTV needed two extra minutes of the show for the Canadian broadcasts (ie, a single two-minute sketch that would be deleted from the US broadcasts.) The producers decided to make it a parody of Canadians, and Bob and Doug were born.

Re:Canadian Heritage

[dognuts]

Let's not forget about Sheila Copps & the "500 of the Best Dumb Blonde Jokes" that cost us $98,000 That's our Heritage Ministry hard at work!

Re:Canadian Heritage

[multisync]

Do you have a link to back that up? Because the entire fscking show was "Canadian Content" - *ALL* of it (which you'd know if you'd ever read the CanCon regulations.) CanCon has nothing (as in ***NOTHING***) to do with the subject matter of a program. At all.

Well how about this one from the CBC's own website:

"The characters came in response to federal government requirements to include "identifiable Canadian content" in homegrown television programming."

From Rick Moranis' bio at IMDB:

"Moranis and Dave Thomas originally created the characters Bob and Doug McKenzie in protest against government requirements for "identifiable Canadian content" in domestically produced television programming."

Google for either Rick Moranis or Dave Thomas and the phrase "identifiable Canadian content" and follow the links yourself. There are hundreds of them.

Maybe it is just an "urban myth," but Thomas and Moranis have certainly never done anything to dispell it.

Do *you* have a link supporting your contention it was not a response to Canadian government requirements for identifiable Canadian content?

It's Called "Kleptocracy"

[Doc Ruby]

You can call secret meetings with public officials to take rights from the people to create property for corporations "democracy", but that's your problem.

Re:It's called democracy

[Traiklin]

> "How do you know it's a DMCA?" > "It's got shit all over it." > "Well I didn't vote for it." Bloody peasant. You don't vote for the DMCA. Well sure you don't vote for it in the normal sence.

If you pay taxes you are voting for it though (just read the summary, everything these lobbyists are doing is on the tax payers dime not their own).

Absolutely true, but it does not mean the DMCA...

[Hamster Lover]

While it is true that Canada signed the 1996 WIPO treaty it does not mean that we have to pass a law anything like the DMCA in the U.S. Before it was killed due to the last Federal election, the copyright reform act that was proposed did contain provisions for criminalizing the circumvention of digital copy controls, but only if the intent was to pirate. Circumvention of a copy control for personal use was excepted, so ripping a copy of a DVD to your hard drive or cracking e-book encryption to interopt with text to speech software and anything else that could fall under personal was permitted. Huge, huge difference. That's not to say the bill was perfect, libraries and universities were not happy with some of the provisions. I am sure they are happy the bill died.

Also, the personal exemption for private copying of audio works was untouched, so one could continue to make copies of CDs and tapes without worry of prosecution.

Hey, it might be cold in Cananda, but were not stupid. When the previous bill went to committee it was brought up again and again how the DMCA in the U.S. had failed and was a model for how not to implement the digital copy controls outlined in the WIPO treaty. I don't think the current Conservative government wants to go through all that again, so I doubt that any copyright bill they propose would differ substantially from the previous one, although you can be sure that libraries, schools and universities are going to make themselves a little better heard.

Re:It's called democracy

[Castar]

"Well, how'd it become law, then?"
"The Lobbyist of the Beltway, *angels sing* his arm clad in purest Armani, held forth money from the bosom of the recording industry, thus signifying that I, the DMCA, was to be the law of the land."
"Listen, strange men hanging about in offices distributing cash is no basis for a system of government. Legislative power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical economic ceremony."
"Be quiet!" ...

Telling Statistics of their Piracy reports

[failedlogic]

Something seems a bit fishy about the motives of CRIA and its not just this Canadia-taxpayer funded meal.
Not only have most of the Canadian labels pulled out, but they don't seem to easily identify which labels they represent.

More telling though is this site http://www.cria.ca/stats.php which has their industry statistics on CD and DVD sales. I'm not an accountant or trained in business, but doesn't it feel funny to read this sentence? "Sales information is supplied by members of CRIA and tabulated by Grant Thornton without audit." I take their said statistics with a grain of salt.

Politician: So are you saying movies and music are being pirated? Do you have less sales records as proof?
CRIA: Yes.
Critic: So who tabulates the records? Is there an audit trail?
CRIA: One person. Sorry no audits available.
Politician: Enough! The proof is in the records!
Critic: But they're not even responsibily tallied! We need more information.
Politician: We're passing the law.

Ah, Democracy!! (sigh)

Re:Telling Statistics of their Piracy reports

[shark72]

You probably already have good reason to distrust the CRIA, but just for what it's worth, when companies report sales for stuff like this (industry rollups and the like), they don't bother going through the trouble of bringing in auditors. It's expensive and, frankly, pointless for this sort of purpose. Since, as you've pointed out, you're not an accountant or trained in business, I can see why that phrase might sound weird. Nonetheless it's par for the course.

Re:Telling Statistics of their Piracy reports

[Snad]

For the record, Grant Thornton is actually an international firm of accountants, and not just "one person" at his kitchen table with a pocket calculator and a combover. The "without audit" disclaimer is merely the standard one used in order to avoid any legal responsibility on the part of the accountants in question. ie they were not paid for, and therefore did not undertake, an audit of the data supplied. It's pretty standard stuff.

Not that that necessarily invalidates the rest of your post, or validates the numbers.

Re:Telling Statistics of their Piracy reports

[failedlogic]

Thanks for clarifying. I knew that some of the role of not auditing the results was simply the costs related to the matter.

Re:Telling Statistics of their Piracy reports

[elpapacito]

What in the world makes you fault democracy for corruption and incompetence of politicians ?

Re:Telling Statistics of their Piracy reports

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Probably the same motivation that faults Communism for corruption and incompetence of politicians.

Already spoke in person with my MP

[earthforce_1]

I spoke with him and a fellow cabinet minister in person yesterday about C-60, and let them both know my concerns about the bill. Face time is worth a dozen letters.

Re:Already spoke in person with my MP

[BitterAndDrunk]

Face time is worth a dozen letters.

But still worth less than $1,000. Even if it's not Canadian $.

Re:It's called democracy

[Indras]

Kinda makes me feel like punching a bunch of corrupt officials. Dunno about you.

I seriously first read that as:

Kinda makes me feel like purchasing a bunch of corrupt officials. Dunno about you.

That would've been funnier, I'm sure, but as a serious comment I was a little peeved. I mean, isn't that exactly what we're trying to stop?

Re:It's called democracy

[Cheapy]

Now what do you think the chances of those same government execs meeting with someone who can't brib- I mean pay for the government officials' lunches?

Lets get on with the reforms!

[dognuts]

Well this would make it the 3rd round of copyright reforms being sought by the CRIA in the past 8 years, or maybe it's the 4th? dam I've lost count! Anyway, after each previous reform attempt the CRIA suffered a severe defeat, the last reform actually ended up making it perfectly legal for Canadian's to download music. I imagine if this new reform push goes through the CRIA will likely have to pay us Canadian's to listen to their music. That's what you get when you have American lawyer's trying to rewrite Canadian laws! A little tip for all those American RRIA lawyers up here helping out......read the Charter of Right's before you try changing our laws!

Tagged!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tagged: Your government sucks too...

I'm shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this? The **aa using dubious practices to promote it's dubious agenda to politicians? Say it aint so!

Extra! Extra!

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Politicians Corrupt, Money Buys Laws!
Other breaking news:

• Pope Catholic!
• Bear sh*ts in woods!
• Frog's Ass Watertight!

Re:Extra! Extra!

[Anonymous Coward]

Frog's Ass Watertight!

I await CowboyNeal's confirmation on this factoid.

Re:Plutocracy in New England

[RealGrouchy]

In all seriousness many democratic countries are effectively ruled by the rich already.

I remember one state (I think it was NH) touted recently that the annual salary of their senators is but $100. Now that guarantees that only the rich will get in.

- RG>

There's never been anything secret about CRIA

[XB-70]

CRIA were sniffing around our campaign offices DURING the election - that's when politians are most available.

The fact of the matter is that the recording industry is actually at odds with artists and concert promoters. The reason is that if a certain amount of pirating goes on, it's a form of guerilla marketing. Net net, awareness of the artist grows because more people are listing... sales evolve from that.

The CRIA, in contrast, represents the 'successful' artists who have multi-million dollar marketing campaigns tied directly to sales. If a Canadian pirates a Barbara Streisand song, Babs and the record label lose money. If the same thing hapens to Mugwump Freezer, someone hears them and might go to the concert and maybe pass the song on - much like radio airplay sold (sells?) music.

These guys (CRIA) are dinosaurs with their fingers in the dykes. There is no way that they can prevent piracy - if they hadn't been so greedy in the first place, people would be buying legit tunes from them.

Re:There's never been anything secret about CRIA

[Anonymous Coward]

"If a Canadian pirates a Barbara Streisand song"

Sorry, but we can't "pirate Barbara". All downloads are legal here.
Unless you mean uploading Barbara.

Well, Duh!

[RexRhino]

If you have a form of government that is highly centralized, with virtually no limits to the control it can exercise on people, then opportunists will take advantage of that power. The more centralized a government, the easier it is to control, and the more powerful a government, the more opportunity for power or profit by manipulating it.

It is unrealistic to assume that a state as centralized and powerful as the government of Canada wouldn't be ripe with corruption. People don't understand politics, because they try to understand politics and government as a "moral" issue that is somehow seperate from the laws of physics and reality. Any system gets large enough, and it is more and more difficult to fight entrophy. In creatures, large creatures are more prone to parasites and diseases, and require much more food energy just to survive with little added benift. In a software project, as you have more and more source code and more and more complexity, development of the software will require more and more resources just to manage the project and debug. Likewise, a large government like Canada will naturaly have vast amounts of corruption. In everything from Empires, to bread molds, to youtube internet memes, there seems to be a certain threshold for growth beyond which a system tends to lose cohesion and fall apart.

Many Canadians still don't get that they are no longer a "small" country. It is no longer the "northern wilderness" it was 100 years ago, and the government has grown to be a leviathan. Canadians think theirs is a "smaller, friendlier" government, because they tend to compare themselves to the United States which is the epitome of vast unchecked leviathan monster government. But the Canadian government has become a vast beurocracy that dominates nearly all of Canadian life - Making secret deals with the government is the only way a large buisness can survive in Canada.

If Canada didn't have a "Heritage Minister" to control the flow of information, there would be no central authority for big media to manipulate (real heritage is a spontanious cultural expression of the people, and not a commmodity like water or petroleum to be centrally planned by the state). If the government didn't have vast powers to regulate communication protocols, media, computer networks, and electronic devices, bribery and corruption would be irrelevant: There would be no point in trying to manipulate authority that doesn't exist.

Damnit.

[foamrotreturns]

I was just thinking about moving there. Seriously. Well, I guess it's time to learn how to speak Svenska and move to Sweden instead...

Re:Damnit.

[robertjw]

Just go to China. Copyright is one law they don't care much about.

Re:Damnit.

[foamrotreturns]

Copyright is one law they don't care much about.

Great. I'm free to copy my own digital possessions for my own personal use, but I have to live under an otherwise oppressive government? No thanks.

Re:It's called democracy

[aevan]

I'd like to consider this funny and laugh...

...but it's more apt then satire...Monty Python *does* describe our goverment.

Either way, damn you...I've that skit continuing on in my head.

On second thought, let's not go to Parliment. It is a silly place.

Corruption

[DogBotherer]

The only difference between corruption in our western democracies and that of the developing nations which head the Standard and Poor's corruption league is how much it costs and therefore who can afford to buy!

Re:It's called democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, using vigilante force to accomplish your political goals, great idea. Much more effective and less imprisoning than voting. Let us know how that works out for you.

Re: Seagram's based in Montreal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seagram's based in Montreal? I'm sure that's news to all the Seagram's employees that lost their jobs as they shut down Montreal operations.

Re:Plutocracy in New England

[drewsome]

That's their state congress, not US congress. Federally elected officials -- President, VP, US Senator, Congressperson -- all have federally set salaries, and it ain't $100.

NH, known for being tight with a dollar, pays it's state senators and state representatives very little money. But they're also not in session year round, either. You can be a very middle-class farmer type in NH and be a state senator or representative.

Cost of new election

[Simonetta]

For example consider the amount of money needed to win an election, ensuring all candidates are either independently wealthy or in the pockets of their campaign contributors)

    Actually the cost of an election has gone way down, in America that is. Only a fraction of the money that used to be spent lying to the electorate is now necessary to bribe the programmer of the Diebold election machine. Pay off the programmer and you win: 51% to 49%, each and every time.

Re: Seagram's based in Montreal?

[Sepper]

Seagram's based in Montreal? I'm sure that's news to all the Seagram's employees that lost their jobs as they shut down Montreal operations.

The original Seagram company the the GP post spoke off is long gone. If my memory is correct, everything was either split off, sold or closed... try: http://www.seagram.com/ to see what's left of it...

Re: Seagram's based in Montreal?

[demachina]

I stand corrected. Bronfman diversified away from Seagram's and alcohol and it appears the Seagram's assets were scattered through Vivendi, Pernod Ricard, Pepsi, or who knows who. Bronfman was head of Vivendi Universal for a while after the merger and then bought Warner when he cashed out.

His family was one of Canada's richest, Jewish, and started moving to New York with Jr.s birth there. I guess you could say Warner is an American company.

Shit hits Canada at last

[unity100]

All the while they were too comfy in their northern country, almost ignored the crap going on down west, and now, see, the northern counterparts of the withered white-asses got courage from their southern counterparts and killing canada.

Canda IS part of the US ...

[jbeaupre]

... they just don't know it yet.

Am I making a joke, or prognosticating? Let's see... My hands haven't gotten hairy, so it must be a joke.