Wikileaks Says Public Forced Canadian DMCA Delay

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that a new WikiLeaks cable confirms that the Canadian Conservative government delayed introducing a Canadian DMCA in early 2008 due to public opposition. The US cable notes confirmation came directly from then-Industry Minister Jim Prentice, who told US Ambassador David Wilkins that cabinet colleagues and Conservative MPs were worried about the electoral implications of copyright reform."

Comments

Well

[Samalie]

At least they listened for once.

Of course, if our politicians actually, you know, GAVE A FUCK, then they wouldn't have re-introduced the same tired shit. But hey, once at least the court of public opinion stopped a politician from being, well, a lying scumbag asshole politician

Re:Well

[RsG]

You know, this actually is somewhat promising news. It means that, if the Tories gauged it right, this is enough of an issue for the voting public to keep it from becoming law. Either they're worried about voters getting pissed off at new copyright restrictions, or they realize that bowing to international pressure from the US makes them look weak, which their rivals won't hesitate to exploit.

Either way, as long as a minority government remains in place, it means there's less chance of a pseudo-DMCA ever becoming law.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah. That's because the government was a minority government. It makes government much more responsive to the public than they would be in a majority situation. The politicians worry about what the public thinks because an election could happen at any time. It's like having them on a short leash. I love it.

Thank goodness we've had successive minority governments or they would have rammed DMCA-style legislation through at some point regardless of public opposition. And I have to give the previous governments that have introduced these copyright bills to parliament a tiny bit of credit -- slowly the bills are getting less bad with each iteration. Maybe the next one will finally be a proper balance.

I'm also glad that politicians worry about on-line and other public activities regarding these issues. Good. They should worry. They're supposed to be listening to all of us, not only commercial interests.

[raises glass] Here's hoping for another minority government, regardless of who wins the election on Monday.

Re:Well

[SIR_Taco]

Unfortunately, like most (all?) politicians, the are likely just telling us what we want to hear and not what they intend on doing.

Everything sounds fine and dandy until they get elected....

Just my 2 cents (2.1 cents USD)

Re:Well

[Samalie]

If that was Stephen Harper being responsive to the public during a minority, let God have mercy on our souls if he ever gets a majority.

Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.

Re:Well

[whereiswaldo]

The bit on pharmaceutical patents (further down the Cable) is worrying, too.

Re:Well

[Nerdfest]

I was writing letters to my MP about this. There didn't seem to be a huge public outcry, but perhaps it really doesn't take that many letters to MPs to make a difference. I'm fairly upset about the last bill's digital lock provisions. Looks like it's time to write some letters again.

Re:Well

[SpiralSpirit]

responsive to the public, not responsive to his opposition. harper cares about getting re-elected.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

MPs have to read those letters and they do have a lot of swing. MPs will use these letters to back anything, even if they are trying to push something the public doesn't want... if only the opposition writes to them then they can use it as "proof". Writing helps a ton. Ask anyone in the public service if they've received an MP inquiry, anyone who has dealt with these know they come from letters/complaints to MPs and they get dealt with very quickly in most cases.

Re:Well

[Luckyo]

Generally, the letters to major politicians around the world (in democratic countries) are read by a small time member(s) their staff. When same issue starts coming up in sufficient amount of letters, they take it to their boss, usually chief of staff.

And if the chief of staff the amount to be sufficient to matter, he takes it to the politician. As a result, only few such issues raised by electorate is ever given any attention by the actual politician - however this also works in other direction, meaning that issues that do reach politicians' ears are usually taken with a significant degree of seriousness.

You can only assume that it was indeed the AMOUNT of letters in this case, i.e. enough people caring about the issue to complain to actually reach politicians' ears and to make them CARE.

Re:Well

[The Archon V2.0]

Harper certainly cares about being re-elected. That's why he's willing to screw with the system and try esoteric garbage like proroguing in an effort to keep his crap from catching up with him, and then blame yet another expensive election on the other parties because they refused to kowtow to him and that makes the government's fall the fault of the evil opposition.

Re:Well

[SpiralSpirit]

yes...this is what I said, except less ranty.

Re:Well

[drgould]

But hey, once at least the court of public opinion stopped a politician from being, well, a lying scumbag asshole politician

I'm not disagreeing completely, but I just want to point out that the stated reason why he opposed the legislation was because of "the electoral implications".

Not for ethical reasons, not because it was the right thing to do, not because it was best for the citizens of Canada, but for "electoral implications".

So I guess that still makes him "a lying scumbag asshole politician". But, hey, whatever works.

Re:Well

[ToasterMonkey]

"were worried about the electoral implications"

THAT gives you new faith in government?

Re:Well

[CohibaVancouver]

Generally, the letters to major politicians around the world (in democratic countries) are read by a small time member(s) their staff. When same issue starts coming up in sufficient amount of letters, they take it to their boss, usually chief of staff.

I can't speak for other nations like the USA, but as for here in Canada, you're greatly overstating the number of people staffing a Canadian Member of Parliament. You'll typically have a staffer or two at their constituency office "back home" and a staffer in their office in Ottawa and that's about it. There will be some pooled staff to support things like travel, but these are non-political staff. An MP will not have a "Chief of Staff" unless s/he's a federal Minister. I recently wrote a letter to my MP and a week later he phoned me. That's not uncommon if your letter is well-written, non-wingnuttish, and under the MP's jurisdiction (i.e. not city potholes).

Re:Well

[theshowmecanuck]

MPs are toothless. If the party leader in Canada tells them to vote a certain way, or talk a certain way, they have to. Otherwise they get kicked out of the party. It has happened before; look at John Nunziata (Liberal fired by Prime Minister Chretien for voting with integrity), and Garth Turner (Conservative fired by Prime Minister Harper for daring to think on his own). Then next election no one will pay for their election campaign and they're for sure out of a cushy job. It doesn't matter much that they aren't given any opportunity to speak in the house during question period if they are independent (only MPs in parties get anything more than around (literally) two or three minutes talking time each year during question period).

I have no idea why we have to pay to have MPs elected in ridings. It would save a lot of money if we just elected the leaders and gave them each a weighted vote commensurate with what percent of the popular vote they got. If we get a majority government in Canada it amounts to a limited term dictatorship. If it is a minority government like we just had, it is a limited term oligarchy. We need reform so that we can have true representative democracy, where the MPs can really vote the way the people who elected them want them to. Then we wouldn't have the BS where everyone in the house yells to get the attention of the party leaders so they can be good dogs and maybe get a bone, and keep their jobs. The party leaders should have no say in how members vote and represent their ridings, nor in who the riding associations (Conservatives, Liberals, etc.) pick to run in elections. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way right now. Our democracy is broken.

Re:Well

[ToasterMonkey]

You know, this actually is somewhat promising news. It means that, if the Tories gauged it right, this is enough of an issue for the voting public to keep it from becoming law. Either they're worried about voters getting pissed off at new copyright restrictions, or they realize that bowing to international pressure from the US makes them look weak, which their rivals won't hesitate to exploit.

They will just wait until after elections to vote on things like these. TFS even says "delay". They WILL vote on this! Anyone who even peripherally follows politics knows how divisive issues wax and wane during election cycles to attract moderates. In this case, younger voters. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are after swing voters, it's not that your opinion is particularly popular.

For the love of God folks, read real fucking news!

Re:Well

[theshowmecanuck]

And if your MP/MLA/MPP is not just a lump of shit. I've been helped with an issue I had with the government when I lived in the Winnipeg/Saint Boniface riding. Ron Duhamel (may he rest in peace) helped me when the government was jerking me around financially for about four or five months leaving me short on cash. I saw him in his local riding office (he was in town). He literally asked me if I was bullshitting about anything because he was going to rattle some cages. The problem was fixed in no kidding, two days. Then again, in Kitchener a few years back I needed some assistance from my MP and/or MPP for a medical issue. All I got was a form letter from them saying how they are working on getting Canada/Ontario a better medical system with less waiting times. I ended up getting treatment in Buffalo. So yeah... if you get a fucktard who is only interested in keeping his seat for six years till he/she gets their full parliamentary pension, you get nothing.

And for anyone who watches poker Duhamel is pronounced do-Ham-EL each piece distinctive (especially the EL). Not run together like the mumble they do on TV where the HAM is emphasized and the other two syllables aren't. Sorry... one of those things that sets me off is listening to announcers butcher French names.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

[raises glass] Here's hoping for another minority government, regardless of who wins the election on Monday.

You missed the part where the liberals were going to support it as well, then?

Re:Well

[EdIII]

Yeah... well your two cents is worth a lot more then what you think:

Conservative MPs were worried about the electoral implications of copyright reform

That means they did not give a FUCK about the ethical implications. They did not care about copyright either. What does it mean? What is its true purpose in society? How can we create copyright law that encourages innovation and creativity by protecting the artists while also nurturing and protecting a strong public domain that is critical to the very success of an advanced society? How do we do all that and balance out the motivation to protect artists (really the distribution channels) *temporary* rights we granted them to control distribution and protect profits against the rights of our citizens that we ostensibly here to protect as well?

No.

From that line the only fucking thing they cared about was if it pissed off enough Canadians to cause their fat corrupt lazy asses to be kicked out of government.

Your two cents is a bargain basement price for a +5 insightful.

Re:Well

[fatwilbur]

Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder how many letters they did get. I don't write to my MP that often, but on this issue I did write my MP and the Industry Minister.

Re:Well

[thirty-seven]

They will just wait until after elections to vote on things like these.

The point of the poster to whom you replied is that, as long as there is a minority government in place, they will hopefully be held back from introducing some version of a DMCA by public opinion and a fear that it would cost the governing party at election time. Because in a minority government situation, there isn't really a significant amount of time "between" elections. You might be back in an election just six months after the previous one, so it's not a situation where you can pass unpopular legislation right after an election and then expect that it will be largely forgotten by the electorate at the next election in four years.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

"If that was Stephen Harper being responsive to the public during a minority, let God have mercy on our souls if he ever gets a majority."

Yes, while I agree with you, I honestly don't think *any* of our current main parties deserve a majority, least of all the Conservatives. When I think what any of the 3 main parties would do with majority power, I think minority government -- ANY minority government -- is the best place to be.

I don't care if we have minority governments for the next decade, even if that means we have elections more frequently. But I do want them to get the message that if they don't play nice in parliament together, we'll take it out of their hides (i.e. whichever parties play less nicely will get less seats to work with). In that respect, yeah, I hope it's a minority government by a party other than Mr. Harper's, because his behavior has been increasingly bad. The prorogation was ridiculous. Judging by some of his comments on coalitions being "undemocratic", that guy doesn't even understand Canadian parliamentary democracy. Heck, the UK, from which our parliamentary system is derived, *is* in a coalition right now, and there has been a coalition government before in Canada too. Wait, but I know Harper knows this. He's not ignorant. Thus it is apparent the guy will say any damn fool thing in an attempt to get re-elected. On top of that, he doesn't like answering questions from the media? Too damn bad. It's one of the ways you communicate with the electorate. It's your JOB to talk to the media. You're supposed to answer tough questions, not evade questions entirely. I especially liked the way he repeated his answers in English and in French after the leader's debate in order to get away with answering only 3 questions from the reporters. Hell, even Giles Duceppe answered questions posed in English in English, and questions posed in French in French, and thereby answered more than twice as many as Harper did. The contempt with which he treats his audience is pathetic.

Anyway, obviously I reveal my preference, but I'd still take yet another Conservative minority government with Harper over any kind of majority government. Yes, it took a long time, but with 2 failed copyright reformed bills, even his government seems to be getting the message, which is indeed an accomplishment. I have to give them credit for waking up to the fact that, yes, Canadians actually do care about copyright reform and the details of it. I still remember Prentice, who presented the copyright bill, standing up there like a deer in the headlights when a reporter asked him why Canadians should be pleased about new rights for format shifting if they couldn't excise those rights because breaking the "digital locks" in those same DVDs would be illegal. Priceless!

You know. I think it would teach Harper a lesson to have to slink back to parliament with a minority and have to try to get along with the other parties again after he's slagged them so severely during the whole campaign. Talk about burning your bridges. He obviously thought from the pre-election polls that he was within reach of a majority and didn't have to care about them any more, and while the election results aren't counted and it's fair to say a lot is possible, I don't think he's getting the majority he was hoping for. Again.

And if he wins a majority? Uh, I'm moving to the USA. (Just kidding)

Re:Well

[Abstrackt]

"were worried about the electoral implications"

THAT gives you new faith in government?

Yes, because it proves we still have the power to choose and that they're still aware of it.

Re:Well

[Samalie]

Good point

Re:Well

[The Archon V2.0]

Pardon my losing my point in my rantiness: He's NOT responsive to the public, he just manipulates them to try get the public to vote him in.

Saying Harper is responsive to the public is like saying a chess player is responsive to his pawns.

Re:Well

[mark-t]

Delay... not actually discard.

Bill C32, our government's latest copyright reform bill, is not really any better than the DMCA, and in a lot of ways it is much worse. The debates and panels for Bill C32 are on temporary hold until after the election, but it's inevitable that if the conservatives win this election, they will either reintroduce the bill shortly thereafter, or else they will draft up something even worse.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, yes... considerably more faith. I seriously thought that every politician was out to rape me for the fun of it... all of my life... but this has opened my eyes... I actually have a say... this democracy isn't just a show to appease the moderately disgruntled...

Re:Well

[thechink]

In other words: He's a politician.

Re:Well

[mmontour]

Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.

I was amused by a recent Conservative attack ad that accused Jack Layton of being "desperate for power" and "blindly ambitious". They've certainly been taking lessons from the US NeoCons - look at your own guy's biggest flaws and then accuse your opponents of it.

Re:Well

[i_ate_god]

not if they get a majority government. In a majority government, they can pass the law, everyone would get upset, but nothing would change, and by the time the 4 year mandate ends, the population will have forgotten.

but in a minority government, the dynamics are very different...

Re:Well

[whisper_jeff]

Getting less bad with each iteration??? Did you even read a summary of the most recent bill proposal? It gave consumers all kinds of rights and, in the same instant, took them away "if there was DRM". In other words, consumers would have had ZERO rights over content they bought. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Sorry for trying to drill the point home but it's really that serious - the most recent bill proposal absolutely threw out any pretense of consumers having any rights, what-so-ever. They disguised how bad the bill was by describing all the rights that consumers had so it felt good but, in every instance, they immediately took those rights away if DRM was present (it wouldn't have had to be strong DRM - _ANY_ DRM would have stripped away all the consumer's rights).

Seriously, had that bill passed, we wouldn't have been able to legally record a show with a VCR, rip a CD, own an mp3 player (since it wouldn't have been legal to actually play anything...). It was disgusting.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends a lot on the MP. I called the office of the MP where I live (Scott Reid, Conservative), for help with an immigration issue. They asked me to fax in the relevant papers. I called two weeks later and they didn't know who I was. I reminded them that my two children had no mother because she was being jerked around waiting for her landed immigrant status. No action over the next two months.

So I called the office of the MP where I work (Peter Milliken, Liberal). Within two days they had faxed the immigration office in Manila and got them to return my wife's passport (the office demanded a new medical exam, which required the passport, but the office had had her passport for three months and would not respond to my requests to return it). Granted it was couriered COD, for $150, but at least we were able to get the paperwork done.

I have written several physical letters to Scott Reid's office and not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

Re:Well

[lonecrow]

And don't forget to vote this Monday May 2nd!

Re:Well

[lonecrow]

Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.

We are doing everything right so you should sit down, shut up and do as your told.

- S. Harper

One of the funnier sides of elections is listening to politicians be so logically inconsistent and not even being aware of it. For example our local Conservative MP droned on about how well Canada is doing and about how much was due to his governments good management over the last 5 years. Then immediately warned of the dire and irreversible damage that would be befall Canada if they didn't get a majority. So which is it? Can you manage well despite a minority government? or does a minority government mean woe for all? Cause you can't have it both ways.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

wait, but, wait, damnit, I thought canada had a perfect medical system and the USofgoamerica was shit.

Re:Well

[ppanon]

Apparently you should have been talking to Parm Gill if you wanted help with Immigration matters but couldn't get through to the Minister of Immigration.

Re:Well

[BloodAngel_Au]

We know the feeling well, with the recently booted Labour government from NSW getting the flick after similar stupid tricks, and a PM who is most defiantly 'my way or the highway' also, after saying during the re-election campaign 'No carbon tax', now she's in with a minority, she's all We need this carbon tax thanks to the jackass greenies.

So we get it in both flavors here in Aus

Re:Well

[metacell]

That last 0.1 cent must feel realy good for you :)

Re:Well

[realityimpaired]

^^

I would normally just moderate the above, but I need to share my own experiences which were disturbingly similar...

I have needed the help of my MP 3 times in the last few years... twice for a passport issue (needing to get a passport issued in a rush for X reason), and once concerning an issue with the office of the registrar general. I contacted my MP (Gordon O'Connor, Conservative), and was told in no uncertain terms that he was "too busy" to occupy himself with my troubles, or that he wasn't interested in helping me out, or some other excuse. Every time I contacted him.

In all three occasions, I contacted Paul Dewar, NDP, who was my MP when I lived in town. And in all three occasions, the issue was resolved within a week of contacting Mr. Dewar.

So yes, it really does depend on who your MP is. Some of them, like O'Connor, are as useless as condoms to a lesbian. Others really do remember who they work for, and are a joy to work with.

Re:Well

[realityimpaired]

He's the single most dangerous prime minister this country has ever known.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Some tools to utilise in order to make sure Harper doesn't get a majority vote:
Check your riding to see if it's a close race
If it is not a close race, see if you can swap votes with someone using votepair

Let's kick the bastards in the nuts and hope the door hits them in the ass on the way out!

Re:Well

[Digital Vomit]

blame yet another expensive election on the other parties

What most people don't seem to understand is that Canadian elections are *cheap* compared to the boondoggles that get passed in majority governments (e.g. the gun registry). It irks me to no end end politicians try to get votes by claiming Canadians hate voting and that elections are expensive.

Re:Well

[tbannist]

He may care about getting re-elected but he only cares about the around 40% that he needs to get a majority. He doesn't really care much if a majority of Canadians disagree with him, as long as the 40% he needs to get elected are with him on the issue. So he's only responsive to a specific section of the public.

Re:Well

[Morose]

Absolutely, people just don't listen as much when you only have 1.9 cents to give :(

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

I was amused by a recent Conservative attack ad that accused Jack Layton of being "desperate for power" and "blindly ambitious". They've certainly been taking lessons from the US NeoCons - look at your own guy's biggest flaws and then accuse your opponents of it.

There's also the attack ad they ran that criticizes Michael Ignatieff..... for running attack ads.

Brilliant.

Re:Well

[gfreeman]

Indeed - elections are not expensive to Canada as a whole. As far as I am aware, not a single penny gets spent outside the Canadian borders, and so it's a good stimulus to the economy. It also aids unemployed Canadians who are available and eager to work for Elections Canada during the polls.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe more Canadians should be mad that their government told the US government these things that they were unwilling to tell their own citizens. I certainly wouldn't consider voting for clowns engaged in this kind of asshattery directly opposed to democratic principles and accountability.

where is the outrage? this is certainly outrageous behavior on the part of your elected leadership.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

How true, how true. They just keep bringing back bad legislation until it passes. They are scum. I hope our election ends with another minority government. At least then they will be limited in power.

Re:Well

[isopropanol]

On the anti-circumvention clause issue I spoke in person with Jack Layton and my MP (NDP critic for First Nations) at an event and both were well aware of the issue. Jack asked me to send him an email to his non-Parliamentary email address, which I did. I also sent emails to the Parliamentary email addresses of my MP, the NDP and Liberal heritage critics, and several members of the heritage committee. Stuff like this is why it's GOOD to have a minority government... In a minority, committees have much more clout, which means your MP has to (if in the governing party) and has the ability to (if in opposition) actually represent the constituents.

I have always made a point of getting to know my MPs and MLAs (even when they're not the same party as me). It's a very good way of getting issues heard (as long as you're not a wingnut).

Also re: a post further down... Before we met, my wife was getting jerked around by citizenship and immigration because she moved here at 6 months old but didn't get citizenship and had been working for >15 years. One letter to our MP and the issue was resolved in two weeks. She now votes for that MP.

I don't know about the other parties, but each NDP member has one staffer specifically dedicated to helping constituents (of any party) with beurocratic situations.

Re:Well

[Saint Aardvark]

Peter Millikan is a class act. I'm going to miss him as speaker.

Re:Well

[green1]

You seem to be under the misguided thought that this is a Conservative only bill... I have news for you. This bill WILL pass, no matter what government gets in. The only question is how may tries, and how long it takes. The official platforms of the opposition parties all include reference to copyright changes... and you can guarantee none of them involve increasing fair use or shortening copyright term!

Re:Well

[Mashiki]

Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.

What? ~13 years of a liberal majority weren't enough for you? Or did you just turn 18 and this is your first election?

Re:Well

[alexo]

If that was Stephen Harper being responsive to the public during a minority, let God have mercy on our souls if he ever gets a majority.

And yet, this is exactly what heâ(TM)s about to get unless everybody who gives a damn gets off their lazy bums and votes against him. And, yes, it includes you !

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

2 failed copyright reformed bills

Three.

The first died on the order paper when the last Liberal government called an election. Yes, that’s right, the first time it was the Liberals who tried to pass a DCMA-equivalent.

Re:Well

[Fancia]

Have you actually looked at the other parties' platforms? The Liberals and NDP are both in favour of ensuring consumer rights to circumvent DRM on material one legally owns, among other things. If everyone had exactly the same opinions and just wanted to screw the consumer, the bill would have passed already.

Re:Well

[green1]

re-read those policies... anyone who thinks we need to change current copyright laws, and does not talk about shortening the term is trying to screw over the consumer.

As for why it hasn't passed, has nothing to do with the opposition, they didn't vote against it, the bill died on the order table without any vote. had it been voted on you can guarantee it would have passed.

Re:Well

[mark-t]

The bill *IS* a Conservative-only bill... at least for the moment. All the other parties that I am aware of which have made any formal statement on this bill, including, but not limited to the NDP, Bloc, and Liberal parties, have been quite outspoken on their views about the C32's anti-circumvention restrictions on digital locks, claiming that they are too strict, and a compromise on those issues is mandatory before they will support it. The conservatives, in spite of claiming that they are willing to seek compromises on the bill in order to have it pass, have not yet demonstrated any willingness to do on the digital lock provisions of this bill.

Re:Well

[mark-t]

Considering every other party has been outspoken against some of the provisions in the bill, and the conservatives, for the moment, have a minority government... then you are incorrect - it would not have passed... at least not without some compromises on its digital locks provisions.

Re:Well

[mark-t]

It gave consumers all kinds of rights and, in the same instant, took them away "if there was DRM". In other words, consumers would have had ZERO rights over content they bought. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Quoted for truth.

Canada's Heritage Minister's official response to this concern was something along the lines that the free market would determine how much rights consumers had, and if consumers wanted to have privileges to do things like make backups, format shift, etc, without necessarily playing by any rules that the distributor sets out (for example, format shifting to play on a generic mp3 player instead of only an iPod, which the distributor may officially endorse and permit), then the consumer remains free to elect to only buy works which do not have the digital locks.

It is nothing less than appalling, IMO, that this response is utterly blind to the not improbable likelihood that if C32 were to actually pass with its digital locks provisions intact, widely available unlocked works would all but vanish from circulation, given the significant economic incentive that such a law would grant publishers by adopting a business model that utilizes digital locks.

Re:Well

[green1]

The compromises the liberals were asking for was to send more money to the American record labels... hardly a compromise in our favour!

Face it, this is not a one party issue, the problem is with all the major parties.

Re:Well

[blahplusplus]

You do know they are planning to dismantle healthcare by stealth right? Conservative government = end of public healthcare through purposeful neglect and not enforcing the canada health act.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Um...

Beholden to the Public They Serve

[Ruke]

I'd sure be nice if politicians were this concerned with passing legislature that their constituents supported all of the time, instead of only during election season.

Re:Beholden to the Public They Serve

[Luckyo]

If you ever invent a political system where such thing is possible, I strongly suggest you keep it to yourself.

Because if you even whisper about it, you going to vanish. Essentially all the powerful people in the world like the current system very much, especially because they can run through things that are in direct opposition of public interests using their political puppets, and still get those puppets re-elected a few years down the road instead of having to invest in new ones.

Re:Beholden to the Public They Serve

[FiloEleven]

The system is in place. The trick is that the public has to realize that voting is one of the least important political actions. Far more important is to be in frequent communication with your representatives' offices and convincing others to do the same. It takes a decent chunk of people making a lot of noise to convince a politician that he'll lose the next election by passing a particular measure. That requires paying consistent attention to what's happening in the off-season, and it requires a much larger time investment than voting once a year or so.

The politicians are certainly shirking their responsibilities to the public by ignoring what it wants until they are beaten over the head with it. The public is equally guilty of shirking its head-beating duties.

Re:Beholden to the Public They Serve

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what about shorter perio[EOF]

Some advantages...

[CCarrot]

I guess there's got to be some advantage to having an election every 18 months...

Re:Some advantages...

[stanlyb]

That's right baby. And we won another sweet battle. The traffic cap limits that Bell/Rogers wanted to force over independent providers like TekSavvy. They were forced to stop the bill, and with the coming elections, it is effectively put in the garbage bin, where its place is, if you ask me.

Re:Some advantages...

[Samalie]

We are winning some victories. Now if we could just get rid of the CRTC entirely and let REAL competition in...

Re:Some advantages...

[Digital Vomit]

Right, because deregulating an industry is a "great" idea. *rollseyes*

The problem with the CRTC is not that it exists, but that it is a captured regulator. It is a regulatory body controlled by the industry it's supposed to regulate.

Re:Some advantages...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how that works, huh.

Re:Some advantages...

[Samalie]

I didn't say deregulation. I said get rid of the CRTC.

You are entirely correct in your assessment of the CRTC. If you didn't have the CRTC (but still a regulartory body protecting consumers) then we could ditch all the farked suck-off-Canadian-corporations rules and bring other global players into the TV/Cell/Phone/Internet/etc space.

Re:Some advantages...

[Clueless Moron]

As an example, some years ago the corrupt CRTC allowed Rogers to buy out Fido, thereby creating a GSM monopoly. And this was supposed to somebody benefit Canadians? Unbelievable.

Get rid of the bastards. Replace them with almost anything; it couldn't be worse.

Re:Some advantages...

[green1]

The CRTC isn't stopping competition from getting in, the government is. The CRTC is only enforcing the rules. letting competition in is simple, change the law to allow it. Something the government has refused to do.

Boring

[poity]

Where are those bank memos we were promised?

Re:Boring

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are those bank memos we were promised?

Are you talking about the ones Anon released? Or are you talking about some super secret archive of misdeeds?
Here you go - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/bank-of-america-anonymous-leak-mortgage_n_835220.html
If HP isnt your cup of tea do your own googling.

Re:Boring

[shentino]

Don't you mean wikileaks?

Re:Boring

[poity]

Hey thanks, that went under my radar until now. However, a cursory glance puts those emails at being from 2010. I was referring to the ones WL was hinting at back late last year, I remember they said the emails were from 2006 and earlier, before the whole meltdown thing, which makes them especially juicy.

The rule is

[countertrolling]

You put the vote off on these laws until after the election.. So everybody will forget by the next election. They could've passed it without serious consequence.. Hell, nobody's protesting the wars. You think anybody gives a damn about this?

Re:The rule is

[Altrag]

People tend to give more of a damn about things that affect them directly than things happening in other countries. Even if the "other country" thing is comparatively horrific (as in the case of copyright here vs war and killing there).

Whether anyone knows this is happening or understands the consequences is a much bigger concern. The media and other copyright promoters do everything in their power to convince everyone that "we've got to stop the pirates" when in reality most of what they're doing will have little to no impact on pirates but will affect average users severely.

Take a really simple example. How many pirates bother watching the 2-minute (per language up here in Canada!) FBI/Interpol warning on their movies? Probably very few -- its either stripped off or at least the "unskippable" flag is removed on almost every torrent. Yet legitimate viewers have to watch the thing over and over and over again.

And don't even start on those DVDs where they decided to mark the ads and previews as unskippable.

Or all of those various CD "protection" hacks in the late 90s/early 2000s that did little more than prevent the discs from playing on older (legitimate) CD players. Yet it didn't stop them from showing up on Napster within a day or two of release.

Re:The rule is

[dbIII]

How many pirates bother watching the 2-minute (per language up here in Canada!) FBI/Interpol warning on their movies?

I actually didn't know that still existed because I have not seen it in a long time. A few software players let you skip over it even on real DVDs. I think Handbrake (ghb) which lets you move it to USB device to play in a set top media player doesn't even list that stuff in the track list.

Beware still

[Citizen of Earth]

They still need to be worried about this. The Conservatives won't be getting my vote next week specifically because of DMCA 2.0 (and the Internet snooping and censoring that is certain to follow).

Re:Beware still

[Skidborg]

You you really believe any other party would do differently? They're all being lobbied by the same industry goons. The Liberals, Green, and NDP would probably end up doing exactly the same.

That said, I'm voting for the Pirate Party this election.

Re:Beware still

[Anonymous Coward]

Surveillance?

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5733/125/

Re:Beware still

[Anonymous Coward]

The Liberals, Green, and NDP

I'm not Canadian so am somewhat ignorant but I vaguely remember an earlier story not that long ago that said the Canadian Greens and NDP were in opposition to most of the changes in the CDMCA.

Re:Beware still

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you and I am hopeing for another Minority government. I think that has been the only thing saving us from this US shit for the past few years :( I think if any party gets a majority, that's it for Canada.

Re:Beware still

[mirix]

The liberals can be bought. I think it would have to be a cold, cold day in hell before the NDP passes anything that is both American backed and pro corporate. Simply not their thing.

Re:Beware still

[Anonymous Coward]

They still need to be worried about this. The Conservatives won't be getting my vote next week specifically because of DMCA 2.0 (and the Internet snooping and censoring that is certain to follow).

But it was the Conservative MPs putting the brakes on, and the Liberal side saying "no problem".

Do you honestly think that somehow an NDP government would magic away all concerns? Even today, some NDP voicebox said that rights should focus on the artist before everyone else. It seems to me that nirvana is further away than people think.

Re:Beware still

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately there is no PP candidate in my riding (no, I wouldn't have the time); the NDP is the most consumer-friendly.

The best way is to e-mail your candidates and ask them about their opinion of the Public Domain. Ask them if they are in favour of expanding the public domain to include more recent works. Ask them if the public are awarded certain rights through the front door (personal copy), what they would do if certain parties were trying to revoke those rights through the back door (digital "lock" which they know doesn't actually work, but with added legislation that makes tampering with this lock illegal).

Re:Beware still

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on the short debate between candidates last night it seems the NDP and Liberals are looking for something worse from the consumer perspective. They specifically said that the consumer shouldn't be consulted on the matter and that it would primarily consult copyright holders on the new law.

Re:Beware still

[gfreeman]

The NDP are quite clear that this is one of their platform issues. I sincerely doubt that PM Jack Layton would push through CDMCA.

Re:Beware still

[green1]

not really, they opposed it because the government proposed it, not because they disagreed with the content, the only changes they brought up were cosmetic changes (the big media war was over who gets the increased money to be squeezed out of every consumer, not whether they should be squeezing us more at all). Every major party in Canada has copyright reform in their platform, and none of those reforms include increasing fair use provisions or decreasing copyright term...

Re:Beware still

[green1]

Yes, they are quite clear that they FAVOUR changes to Canadian copyright law... and those changes are NOT changes that increase fair use.
Every major party wants to make Canadian copyright worse. They are all fighting the same side, nobody is voting against this law, it only died because parliament fell for unrelated reasons, it ran out of time, it didn't loose a vote.

Re:Beware still

[green1]

The ONLY parties not in favour of further fair use restrictions and longer copyright terms are the Pirate Party and the Libertarians, And considering their status, I can basically guarantee none of them will get any seats.

This bill WILL pass, the only question is in what form and how long it takes.

Minority Government...

[Korveck]

...actually works out fine for Canada in the last couple years. Conservatives are concerned about losing votes and decide not to bring most controversial issues to the table (e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage), knowing that the oppositions can bring down the government at any time they like. On the other hand, oppositions do not obstruct legislation or stop the government from getting things done because they are also concerned about the votes. With a majority, the Canadian DMCA would have passed with ease.

Re:Minority Government...

[mirix]

This is less to do with it being a minority, and more to do with it not being a conservative majority.

God help us if they ever get one. The social conservative reform freakshow will really come out if they do.

NZ Govt is more efficent

[BiggerIsBetter]

They just pass it under urgency in the evening with about one day of notice to the public.

Surely what WikiLeaks is really saying is something we all know: The governments of the world no longer act for the people of their countries.

Re:NZ Govt is more efficent

[Anonymous Coward]

something we all know: The governments of the world no longer act for the people of their countries.

Unfortunately, the state of most countries suggests that the majority of the citizens in those countries neither know nor care that this is the case.

And changing that would be an enormous task.

Re:NZ Govt is more efficent

[Jedi Alec]

By which you are implying that there has ever been a time where they did?

Human beings are selfish short-sighted hypocritical little sons of bitches. Our politicians do a damn fine job representing us. And it's going to stay that way until we get to the point where there's Minds that are too complicated for meatbags to tamper with to run the show ;-)

Re:NZ Govt is more efficent

[Wowsers]

Damn, you just beat the UK way of introducing it's so called "Digital Economy Act". The proposed law was rambling through parliament, then a general election was called (last possible moment it could have been called).

In a process called "wash up", all the proposed laws that were still going though parliament were rammed through in 2 days flat with next to no discussion, because they HAD to be rammed through. And so the UK is lumped with it's own version of the bastard DMCA, with no scrutiny of it whatsoever.

As a result of that election, the UK elected a coalition government, which is not as strong as straightforward one party win. However, the coalition love the Digital Economy Act so much, they refused to repeal it.

That's your answer to siding with consumers, brown envelopes talk for governments / politicians. The person that originally sponsored the bill was spotted multiple times schmoozing in the Mediterraniean on VERY expensive yachts, with Hollywood executives - that's how you get laws made in the UK.

Re:NZ Govt is more efficent

[green1]

In a process called "wash up", all the proposed laws that were still going though parliament were rammed through in 2 days flat with next to no discussion, because they HAD to be rammed through.

Wow, I knew our Canadian system was based on the UK one, but I never realized we'd actually improved on it! In the Canadian system all proposed laws that haven't passed by election time are simply dropped. The idea being that if they were important they would have been brought earlier.
And that is exactly how this bill died... And this is important to note, many posters on here seem to think that in a vote this bill was defeated, or that it wouldn't have passed due to the minority status of government. Make no mistake, ALL the parties support this bill. It ran out of time, not out of political will. Changing to a Liberal, or NDP government will NOT protect you from this legislation.

Help me out here, I have a problem understanding

[Opportunist]

So there's an issue that is sufficiently unpopular that they even fear they'd lose an election over it if they implemented it before the election? Hell, not even tax hikes have that effect! To some degree, most people understand that taxes have a reason to exist, some even welcome them, while most accept them as a necessary evil.

But a DMCA would have been an issue that would have cost them the election. Well, clue me in then: If nobody that should matter to a politician (i.e. the people possibly electing him) wants it, who does he actually represent? The people? Obviously, he does not.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people welcome them on other people (not just donks -- I wish everyone would pay the 20% that I do). When I was poor(er) and qualified for all kinds of credits that pushed my effective tax rate down to single digits, I thought they were reasonable. I'm sure the 47% of people that pay no income tax (especially if they get a refund) welcome them.

May 2nd

[zanian]

Nice to get this before we go to the Polls!

Re:May 2nd

[Anonymous Coward]

well said

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[Mia'cova]

It's a bit more complicated. I believe the pressure to do something is coming mostly from the US, citing treaties canada has signed on copyright-enforcement alliances. So right now, Canada isn't living up to its treaty obligations. Unfortunately, I don't know much about those obligations. So hell, I could be wrong on that actually. I'm all for avoiding DMCA-like law. I'm just saying the politicians may be in a bit of a tough spot trying to satisfy both the people and the existing treaty obligations. Often stuff like this is held hostage before other agreements can be made. So it could cost Canada in terms of completely unrelated trade issues.

We forgot something important about this

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the previous Slashdot articles which talked about how it was all just a ploy to brown nose the Americans. I don't have the links on hand, but when talking about it with Stephen Harper, (the Prime Minister), the only instructions the minister received was to make the US happy.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people welcome them on other people (not just donks -- I wish everyone would pay the 20% that I do). When I was poor(er) and qualified for all kinds of credits that pushed my effective tax rate down to single digits, I thought they were reasonable. I'm sure the 47% of people that pay no income tax (especially if they get a refund) welcome them.

When I was a college student, I used to get refunds, and that made sense, I had no extra money. Now I'm at a high bracket, and I'm happy with paying my taxes. If I'm well-off enough to be in a higher bracket, that means that I can't complain...I have a lot more spending money than I did in college, and actually have savings for retirement! Obviously taxes are not ruining my life.

That said, although I'm all for contributing to needed services, I don't want my money wasted on pork. So I very much support government transparency and decreased spending. If the decreased spending leads to lower taxes, yay. Lower taxes leading to cuts in needed programs, that's not so good.

And yes, the problem is that nobody can agree on which programs are the ones we need and which ones are the ones that are pork. There is no perfect solution.

who's running the government?

[Anonymous Coward]

All these comments about majority or minority governments, who's the better or worse person to lead the government, the question I'd ask from this Wikileaks document is why is the minister reporting to the U.S. Ambassador about the difficulty of getting such a piece of legislation passed? Why are we reporting to the U.S. Ambassador about our internal matters at all.

If they have that much control over our Parliament then why the hell don't we just cede Canada to the U.S. and let them work out what to do with Quebec?

Re:who's running the government?

[shutdown -p now]

Why don't you just cede Quebec to them? Then US will have enough trouble on their hands that they'll forget about this whole little copyright problem. ~

Re:who's running the government?

[Nyeerrmm]

Because making sure copyright laws are in sync is an international issue.

Not that I support either version of the DMCA and am glad to see some resistance to it, but in general, international cooperation on copyright matters is appropriate and necessary.

Re:who's running the government?

[green1]

Don't laugh too hard on that one... that was one of the solutions that the Parti Quebecois was pushing for a few years back!

Re:who's running the government?

[EdgeCreeper]

Why?

I hope people get the message...

[caitsith01]

...which is that if you do actually take an interest and make enough noise, you CAN scare politicians enough to actually do their jobs, which is representing you rather than representing large corporations.

This information should galvanize further actions against DMCA style laws (and all bad laws, for that matter).

Re:I hope people get the message...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, you missed the point, and content of the message; what is says is that when a politian (or party) is on the fence they can't shove this shit down our throats since a strong opposition will use it as an excuse to bring the government down. However, if the government has a majority; then they can do whatever they want (this is the way Canada's government basically works) and thus the opposition would bark, but could not really do anything... and then 5 years later no one remembers or has just dealt with it and thus doesn't affect the party. The message itself has stated it was only a "delay"; and you can bet that ANY party that gets a majority will be bringing these laws, and quite a few other draconian ones, in within the first year of being in office... then they lay low for 3-4 years and then make some nice gestures to the public in their last year so they get voted in again. Rinse, lather, repeat... unless we have a minority; then the government has to actually work and balance things since anything too onerous will force the opposition to kick them out of power and we're back to another election. Personally, I would gladly take elections every 2-3 years and have nothing but minority governments versus having any of the parties, as they are right now, have a Majority.

Re:I hope people get the message...

[Anonymous Coward]

+++ to this.

About a year or two ago, an MP in my country was going to front up legislation on an issue very dear to my heart and I felt that I had to speak up. So I wrote a carefully worded, succinct and eloquent e-mail to his government listed e-mail address explaining exactly why and how this was generally bad and more specifically, how this was bad for him. There was no response, and I assumed he had a team of flunkies filtering e-mail on his behalf. Surprisingly, a few months later there was a response .. a hastily looking drawn up 'formal'esque form-style letter with a PDF explanation document attached. The legislation eventually didn't pass .. and it kind of 'disappeared' off the table. Almost certainly for a bevy of reasons (and not specifically my e-mail) but the e-mail had been attentively read.

So I've continued. Whenever legislation in my realm of expertise pops up, I contact the relevant politicians with similarly detailed letters explaining a perspective probably mostly alien to these lobbyist pecked public servants. Perhaps co-incidentally, several plans by public servants in my country have headed in the right direction, rather than ending up falling off a high cliff without a parachute.

I've come to realize that there are many politicians fishing in the dark with a cloistered perspective of the subject matter on which they are working. These politicians are human, and if the only opinions they understand are from lobbyists then that's the basis upon which the legislation will be drawn up. Providing a well reasoned dissertation for a different perspective can really assist your politicians in understanding the issues at stake.

Stop being apathetic and get involved. Don't want to get involved? Then quit complaining.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[arthurpaliden]

"So it could cost Canada in terms of completely unrelated trade issues."
Actually we don't really care as only Saudi Arabia has more oil that we do.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[wierd_w]

Politicians, like all power figures, are innately tied to the influences of power. In this case, a powerful nation to the south, which has powerful incentive to push intellectual poison on the rest of the world to prop itself up. [yes, I am a citizen of that powerful country, but I can see the handwriting on the wall. The US has no real manufacturing infrastructure. Our agribiz infrastructure is no longer first rate in the world market, and our last strongholds for world relevency are intellectual property and military might. Without IP, I believe we would crumble like the former soviet union, due to the shortsighted practices of our corporations who have no sense of national loyalty, only loyalty to money-- and our politicians who are loyal to those corporations, and not the voting public. As such, the US is a sinking ship, with bandaids over huge holes of economic policy, and bilge pumps of government bailouts running 24/7. It is NOT sustainable.]

This whole issue with "Worldwide DMCA" would dissolve rapidly if [when] the USA finally tanks. Without the US to make a fuss over it, the corporations would be unable to leverage such global policy positions on the rest of the world, and the effort would suffer huge spirals of inefficiency as every little government everywhere suddenly had the 300lb gorilla with the billy club removed from the parlament floor, and politicians had golden parachute cords cut.

As suicidal as it seems, what is best for the WORLD right now is for my country to suffer the consequences of its own complacency, and to deminish-- in profound and spectacular fashion.

Props to the people of Canada for telling my government to shove it. I love you guys.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[failedlogic]

Yeah, there's something I'm not following with this logic either. I'm going to exaggerate here but does the conservative government honestly think that:

If all of the following is acceptable behavior and will still have them elected
- Increase all taxes
- Decrease health care
- Increase politician salary and vacation time
- Reduce job creation programs
- Increase corruption

Yet, the following WILL cost them the election
-Introduce DMCA

At least they're honest about it (indirectly): they alter their policies to get themselves elected and let everything go to hell afterwards. Not like it matters by that point .... they have the job! There's probably a lot of parties that won't acknowledge holding stuff back until an election.

That said, this has me worried about the Conservatives (I have voted for them in the past I'm not a 1 party person). About the crap they are really holding back. The DMCA is no where near the monster they haven't yet let surface.

Random Complaint

[Fractal Dice]

Wikileaks: the election has been running for a month now. Waiting until four days before the election to start to release a tidal wave of revelant documents (and only the unclassified documents with mostly common sense stuff) feels like a bit of an ambush. We're a rational democracy (more or less), we'd like same time to digest and debate issues rather than being forced to assimilate everything in a weekend.

Re:Random Complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

I think social memory is very short during elections. I think giving this to us now might mean the voters will remember it come election day

Re:Random Complaint

[blahplusplus]

"we'd like same time to digest and debate issues rather than being forced to assimilate everything in a weekend."

Problem is people don't think like that at all, science shows that people will clearly come to the wrong conclusions even when told the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

I wish, I wish, I wish...

[Col Bat Guano]

...that people would stop calling it copyright "reform". It makes it sound as though it's broken, and this will fix it, making it all rainbow and sunshine.
I'd agree on the first part, but not the second.

Vote NDP!

[headkase]

You obviously want to vote NDP this election but just don't know it yet. One of the things on Jack Layton's platform is election reform, specifically proportional representation which is exactly what you want. With proportional representation, issues won't be "rounded-out" by arbitrary dividing areas up into ridings. National issues say with about 10% interest will get 10% power in Parliament. Not swept under the rug as-is now because the member you want to vote for is half-way across the country and there isn't enough interest in your area to have someone on your ballot. Vote the NDP in, get the election system fixed and then vote as you will. Layton has a PhD in Political Science if you read that article by the way so he knows where the rough spots are.

Of course, voting in the NDP to fix the election system takes foresight to see that you can vote in the next election for whoever you want with a better system. Most voters don't want/can't see beyond one election so it's a difficult proposition to push.

Re:Vote NDP!

[theshowmecanuck]

You missed my point. What I am concerned about is NOT proportional representation. That is the least of our worries. I want representational democracy. I want my MP to be able to vote his/her own mind, not be told by the party leader how to vote . Once our representatives can actually represent us, and not their party leader back at us, then we can worry about improving how we get them there.

If Layton said he would introduce a constitutional amendment that all votes in Parliament (house and senate) were to be truly free votes, then I would vote for him. Proportional representation is not the same as representative democracy. They may be related, but they are not the same. Don't get me wrong, the Instant Run Off Voting is OK, and I would agree to it. IROV is the version of Single Transferable Vote system that we would use in Canadian elections; since we only have one winner for each riding election.

Re:Vote NDP!

[kevinmenzel]

Thank goodness there are people on the internet I DON'T know that want instant runoff in Canada. I was starting to think that the only people who wanted that were a small group of people in my small circle of friends. Also - I totally agree on free votes, I happen to be (hopefully) represented yet again this election by an MP that has voted against his party (Liberal) quite a few times when it was called for, but I think it should happen a heck of a lot more often.

Re:Vote NDP!

[seyyah]

I'm not sure about every issue, but I do know that NDP members voted freely on laws such as the long-gun registry.

Re:Vote NDP!

[RedACE7500]

It's up to the party leaders to allow their members to vote freely or not. It's tradition for the leaders of the parties to allow free voting on bills introduced by private members, but this is not always the case (for example, the Liberals voted the party line on the long-gun registry). The reason party leaders can so tightly control their members votes is because the party leaders decide who gets to be in their party. We don't have primary elections like in the US where anyone can run in the Democrat or Republican primary to get their name on the ballot in the general. The party leaders decide who gets to run for them. As far as I know, this system is the choice of EACH PARTY. If the NDP wanted to hold primaries to determine who would run under the NDP name in each riding, I don't think there's anything stopping them... but they don't do this, because it would mean they couldn't control their members' votes.

Re:Vote NDP!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

That won't get rid of Party Whips though. I'm from Ireland, and though the country has PR voting, it also has one of the most iron fisted whips systems in the world (The whip system was actually invented in Ireland).

Re:Vote NDP!

[tbannist]

What I think you want is "Preferential Balloting", which is the generalized term that includes Instant Run Off Voting and other methods like Condorcet Voting. Condorcet is more complicated but seems to have fewer failings than IRV does.

And I'm for preferential balloting as well, plus I'd also like to see a binding "None-of-the-above" option. If none of the above wins, then a by-election should be at the earliest opportunity and all of the losers from the previous election should be barred from running in the by-election. That way we can guarantee our elected representatives are better than nothing.

Re:Vote NDP!

[afxgrin]

But we have exactly that. Any MP, no matter what party they're with, can vote to his/her liking... they just might not be part of that party soon after.

It's a risk politicians have to take. After Garth Turner crossed the floor and joined the Liberals, he lost his riding the following election. Obviously people in that riding (I lived in that riding for most of my life) wanted a Conservative, and one who would vote along party lines. Knowing the demographic, its not all that surprising either.

Re:Vote NDP!

[Flea of Pain]

Ok, I know I may be missing something bigger picture here, and I certainly don't have a political science degree, but with today's levels of technology how is it not feasible to simply poll all of Canada electronically in a secure way?

If you set a system like that up (I am sure the costs would be fairly substantial for security, ensuring one vote each only, etc.) could you not then have a true democracy? You could just have billboards up across each city showing what issues were being voted on that day, and if it was something you cared one way or the other you just logged in and cast your vote. Leave the voting open for a few days on each issue, and get a real consensus about people who care about the issue.

I do realize the one draw back of this is that the general public is making decisions about their own futures... :D

Re:Vote NDP!

[Anonymous Coward]

or a none of the above option that chooses a person randomly from the populace.

Re:Vote NDP!

[jheath314]

That's a good system if you don't value long-term planning, subject-matter expertise, or doing anything that involves any degree of effort or sacrifice.

California has a system pretty close to what you describe with their proposition system. Their finances are a mess because the voters love propositions which increase spending, but reject the necessary tax-increases to pay for it all. The problem is compounded by the fact that it is usually the most radical fringes who bother to vote on each proposition, so policy tends to get shaped by the most committed lunatics.

Finally, who would set the agenda? Who would write the questions that go on the bill-boards to be voted on? Any smart politician would be sure to pick the most divisive issues to excite their base and drive a wedge through the opposition. Why do you think the Republicans put gay marriage on the ballot in so many States in 2004?

Thanks but no thanks... as bad as the politicians are, the real source of the problems in our democracy is low-information voters.

Re:Vote NDP!

[bioster]

I had a discussion about this with a coworker just a few hours ago.

The problem is that forming blocks of votes is too strong. People are going to naturally form parties and vote in blocks regardless of whether you allow it or make it official. Here, let me illustrate:

Let's say we have a small three person group, and we regularly vote on things. You and I agree to vote as a block on issues that we don't strongly disagree on. So if I feel strongly about something and you don't really care, you vote with me. Likewise the opposite. I'm sure you can see how this would promote our agendas at the expense of the third person.

Even if you outright ban them, these kinds of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deals will happen, and the "blocks" will tend to get larger and larger.

I'd absolutely adore it if we were able to just vote in a rep and he'd vote how to represent us. Honestly I'd love it if we got some sort of proportional representation system too. I don't expect either though.

Even if the NDP (which is the only party who wants proportional representation, that I know of) gets elected, there's no chance of a majority government. And let's face it, this is a pretty major change that a lot of people just won't understand. So getting it through would be... painful. I just don't see it happening until the election after this one.

Re:Vote NDP!

[Samalie]

I seriously thought I was the only guy in Canada that wants a binding "None of the Above" option :)

Re:Vote NDP!

[memojuez]

On April 21, 1996, Nunziata was expelled from the Liberal caucus after he voted against the government's budget in protest over the government breaking a promise to rescind the Goods and Services Tax.

Despite the difficulties of winning a seat as an independent, Nunziata ran and won re-election in the 1997 general election without the support of any party. He defeated Toronto councillor Judy Sgro by 4,431 votes to retain his riding, and so became the only independent member elected to the new parliament.

In the 2000 election, he was defeated by Liberal Alan Tonks.

[SRC]

Sounds to me he wasn't fired from his job as an MP by the wacko Chretien.

On October 18, 2006, the Ontario members of the Conservative caucus voted to suspend Turner for what they claimed were violations of caucus confidentiality as published in his weblog. Within hours, Turner was dismissed from the Conservative Party caucus, and ultimately from the Conservative Party of Canada, by edict of the party's political leadership. The Conservative Party never furnished evidence of Turner's alleged breaches of confidentiality, while Turner argued Prime Minister Stephen Harper could not tolerate an independent-minded MP within his caucus.

[SRC]

Sounds to me like he wasn't fired as an MP by the wacko Harper but just like with Nunziata you Canadians rather vote for someone that is Major Party Affiliate instead of an Independent thinker that truly listens to the voters. So the constituents, i.e. you, fired them both!

It is truly sad that the voters up there are as sheeple as the American Voters down here.

Re:Vote NDP!

[memojuez]

How did this post a level lower than it was intended?....

Re:Vote NDP!

[alexo]

You missed my point. What I am concerned about is NOT proportional representation. That is the least of our worries. I want representational democracy. I want my MP to be able to vote his/her own mind, not be told by the party leader how to vote.

So, what you really want is a mixed member proportional representation (MMP) system, which would allow you to vote for the candidate (regional) to represent your personal interests and for the party (proportional) that aligns with your world view.

That way, you could decouple the two and make individual MPs less beholden to the party leader.

Unfortunately the referendum we had in Ontario resulted in a massive failure since the people could not wrap their minds around the concept.

Incidentally, the NDP and the Greens supported the change, while the Libs and the PC opposed it.

Re:Vote NDP!

[kevinmenzel]

To be fair, I do actually want IRV. I thnk it's a solid enough comprimise between simplicity and representing the preference of the voters [in electing a local representative]. It also has precidence in Canada already, as it is used in, for example, leaership conventions of a few of the parties. I think - at the very least, even if it does turn out not to be satisfactory, it is better than FPP, it gets people adjusted to a preferential ballot where they can have some idea of how that ballot works... it's still going to provide decent election day coverage, which is going to be important if you want the media on board supporting it... and without the media, I honestly don't think it would manage to sway Canadians in a referrendum.

The "None-of-the-above" option could be quite interesting too... It's something I haven't really considered - so far, I haven't felt that none of the candidates represents me, so it's not something I've looked for in the elections (federal, provincial, municipal) that I've voted in.

I WOULD like to see options for electoral reform that are not dependant on each other posed as different questions on an electoral reform ballot, so that one aspect that Canadians aren't ready for doesn't sabatoge movement forward, when that aspect could be introduced at a later date.

Re:Vote NDP!

[DarthVain]

Tho, it should be mentioned that Jack Layton has been criticized by ALL the other parties for actually allowing his MP's a free vote on the Long Gun Registry. The NDP were the only party that didn't whip its members to all vote the same way.

When questioned immediately afterwords why Jack basically admitted that the position within his party is very different from MP to MP (likely because it is one of the few parties that not only is not very regional dependent, but also a mix of rural and urban ridings).

Anyway just sayin' :)

Re:Vote NDP!

[lsatenstein]

Right does not make right. Layton is right to have change, but it just wont happen. Resistance to change and fear would delay it. In effect, by having committees for topics, one does not need a multiparty system, one needs each MP to be voted in on his/her own merits. It would do wonders if this idea could be adopted in the USA. Just think of all the lobbyists who would have to scramble to meet the right reps. And it would not be replublican against democrat. it would be ... Does this law have merit, and will it be affordable, and will it fly with the public.

Re:Vote NDP!

[blahplusplus]

"If Layton said he would introduce a constitutional amendment that all votes in Parliament (house and senate) were to be truly free votes, then I would vote for him"

And that will lead to american style politics. Any change we make will be countered over time by finding ways around it. The only real good solution is citizens having the ability and/or fire those who stop representing their interests IMHO.

Re:Vote NDP!

[Flea of Pain]

Sadly I have to agree. The idea of pure democracy is intriguing...until you look at the guy in the next car over picking his nose while eating a cheeseburger, smoking, and driving. I find myself leaning more and more towards the meritocracy form of government. But again, who decides who has the merit to rule?

*sigh, it seems there is no winning. Time to go colonize mars and rule my own little crater with an iron fist!

Re:Vote NDP!

[theshowmecanuck]

Sure they will generally vote in blocks, but not always. A lot of Canadians like to slam the U.S. (war of 1812 ended a LONG time ago people). But it is only recently that the U.S. government has been so polarized. Quite often, even now, members of one party will vote for the other party's bills. Sometimes legislators of both parties, and sometimes along with independents (like Lieberman) will craft bills/legislation that some members of both sides will vote for, and some against. Right now we don't have that in Canada because of the way the party leaders act like dictators. Their way or the highway. We would have a much more effective and less cantankerous government if we had a similar set of rules allowing all free votes.

The only question I can see is "so what's it in for the party if they win the most seats?" That's easy: They get to form the government. That is a lot of power in itself. They get to set the agenda. An agenda where each MP will be accountable to their ridings.

You see, if the party leader had no say in how an MP votes, or who each riding association picks to represent them, the people have even more say in how the country is run. If say a conservative member of parliament were elected in a riding, and he/she didn't vote the way the people of the riding liked, the next election the riding could fire the MP and put a new conservative candidate in place for the election.

One thing would be important though, is that I believe laws against lobbying and gifts to MPs would need to be increase on almost a constitutional level so the MPs couldn't change that. Also they would need to change the rules so that not just MP who belong to parties over a certain size would get to speak regularly in the house. Representatives should never be muzzled by stupid procedure.

Re:Vote NDP!

[theshowmecanuck]

That's like saying you can shoot anyone you want, if you are OK with going to prison for the rest of your life. An extreme example I know, but it gets the point across. In both cases it amounts to a rule saying you cannot do something. In one the rule is good (errrrrrrrr.... mostly), and with the other the rule is always bad (firing MPs). Now there are some out there who might advocate that shooting someone is OK as long as they are politician... but that isn't me (errrrrrrrr... mostly). OK, just kidding with that.

And I think an informed electorate would agree that you elect someone from a particular party because they vote along party lines; but they should NOT do it dogmatically at the behest of the party leaders like is done now in Canada. Opposition parties almost always vote along party lines, even when the bill being voted on is a good on. So there are many times things of benefit to Canada are lost because the idea was from someone on the opposite side of the house. What a ridiculous set of rules to allow this to happen. And if there were free votes, party members WOULD likely still vote along party lines, but not always; when they see something of merit created by the other side.

Most of the time the parties vote in blocks not because all the MPs think they should, but because the party leader wants to put on a show about how effective he/she is, and what a good leader he/she is. It has nothing to do with allowing MPs to represent people in their ridings. It is about doing what the party leader says and represent him/her back at the public... the opposite of what should be done.

Re:Vote NDP!

[isopropanol]

Actually, each NDP riding association has a nomination meeting where every member in good standing who shows up gets to vote for who they want to be the candidate.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, I am a citizen of that powerful country

I'm not sure I buy that. One thing that is almost always consistent about Americans is that they are ridiculously Nationalist, even the ones who openly hate both Democrats and Republicans still tend to claim that the country is the greatest place on Earth in spite of a crappy political situation. What exactly makes it so great is usually left completely nebulous, or is laughably naive, but that's beside the point. The point is that unless you have expatriated, your attitude is uncommon from what I've seen so I suspect misrepresentation.

Also, using self-deprecation to admit you aren't as great as you pretend to be is one thing (and helpful for keeping your feet on the ground) but actively wishing to be worse off then you currently are isn't so much self-deprecation as depression.

Is it just me?

[scumfuker]

Does it seem with the wording of the cable that Canada is expected to fall into line with whatever the US would like?
There also seems to be a minor tone of irritation when 'the public' and 'Michael Geist' is mentioned.

Damn you pesky citizens of a sovereign nation, getting in the way of our plans for your country...


Seeing it explicitly laid out like that is just, well, disturbing.

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, sure...Blame Canada....:D

Re:Is it just me?

[blahplusplus]

"Damn you pesky citizens of a sovereign nation, getting in the way of our plans for your country..."

Mulroney sold us out a long time ago, NAFTA gives corporations special rights and all parties since the 1980's have been furthering the american corporate-state agenda.

Turner vs. Mulroney debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyYjRmM7RDY

The only thing they didn't plan on was the emergence of the internet to increase public investment and awareness of these issues.

LEt this inform the politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

The future is with the nerds. Fuck with us and god save you.

(Neat to see the battle rooms playing on slashdot today. )

Not really about listening, Minority Government.

[guidryp]

At least they listened for once.

The only reason it couldn't be passed was we have always had minority governments when they tried to introduce it multiple times.

Monday could bring a Majority Conservative government and whatever DMCA industry lobbyist ask for in short order. :(

copyright fascism is not copyright reform

[Dan667]

they should at least start calling it what it is.

Really wasn't responsive, still intro'd it twice

[guidryp]

C-32 was still introduced in 2008:

C-61 was another attempt in 2010:

Both of these died with the Minority government.

You can bet we will quickly get a new one from the new government next week.

If it is a Majority Government, I expect we go whole hog US style copyright, so the lawsuits will start destroying the lives of Canadians for file sharing...

If it is a Minority Government, the bill will need to have significant concessions for Canadian citizens to get passed by the Opposition parties.

Fingers crossed for a Minority.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[ljgshkg]

Well, there're lots more issues/trade relations between Canada and USA than just oil. We have all those lumbering businesses and many more. And most of our exports goes to USA. They're in some way holding our throat. If they act against us in other DMCA-unrelated issues, that can affect a huge number of people. Canada has a very small population, our current economy relies on USA a lot more than what many people might think.

Talking about oil, you do notice we ship our oil to US to process, and then get the final product back from them at a much higher cost eh. We have the oil, but ironically, we're the real "oil importer", and they're the actual "oil exporter".

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[whisper_jeff]

If nobody that should matter to a politician (i.e. the people possibly electing him) wants it, who does he actually represent? The people? Obviously, he does not.

There-in lies my biggest issue with the whole thing. Not only are the politicians who are pushing for this garbage selling out Canadians to corporate interests, they can't even be bothered to sell us out to _CANADIAN_ corporations. They're selling us out to corporate America. It's so profoundly disgusting that it boils my blood. These ... people can't even be bothered to be patriotic while the screw us over...

Seriously, if the Conservatives win a majority in this coming election, I think I would cry...

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA is no where near the monster they haven't yet let surface.

This is patently foolish. The same reasons that curtail their (presumed) excesses are the reasons that limit the excesses of any party that want to retain power -- minority or majority. The last time the NDP formed government in BC, they forgot the fact that there is always another election. Consequently, when people next went to vote the NDP were reduced to two seats. Whatever else critics say, no one can call the Conservatives stupid, so even in a majority government they are not going to do anything that would seriously cost them on the next voting day.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[MisterJohnny]

I beg to differ for your comment on the US having no real manufacturing infrastructure - We make damn good airplanes!

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[RazorSharp]

Yeah, he was lying about being American. That makes a whole lot of sense. That's why he wrote in American English, knows about American economics and politics, and has a deep passion for American policy. He was lying because. . .well, who knows? But you know it's true because. . .he didn't fit a stereotype? Sure, there may be more Americans than any other nationality on Slashdot, but it's not exactly where you go to find stereotypical Americans. If you want an American stereotype go to a truck stop or a Wal-Mart.

Part of the whole 'land of the free' thing is that one is free to have their own opinion. Even if it's self-depricating and wishes ill on the country as a whole.

Side note: Almost all Americans want it to get worse. The Republicans want things to get worse so they have an excuse to shrink the government by way of massive cuts (Bush burned all that cash for a reason). That's their goal and the only way to achieve it is for the government to be in a financial crisis. It worked! The Democrats want it to get worse. Quality of life, even for the poorest Americans, is good enough so that most don't complain and don't see the need for a big education or health care overhaul. Until things get worse socialized medicine is a dream. Until it gets worse, no one will see the value of education and therefore no one will want their tax money to fund it. Independents want it to get worse. Until the Democrats and Republicans screw things up much worse than they already have, the old Simpsons line of, "Go ahead, vote independent, throw your vote away!" will ring true.

Everyone wants things to get worse because no one has a solution for our current problems without making it worse. The majority is far too complacent to care and will continue to be so until things get worse. Until the economic problems, the government spending, the piss-poor education and health care, and lobbyist-centric government interfere with the average American's life in a way they understand (the hard part: it's one thing to understand that you can't find a job, understanding why is difficult -- especially with the talking heads on TV all making sensationalist claims and that's where people turn for their 'information'), then nothing will change.

The foundation isn't solid. The house has to be taken down to repair it. But it will never happen as long as 'socialist' is a dirty word in this country.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[ThatCanadianGuy]

and you seriously think the Liberals or NDP would be any better? Iggy has an american citizenship and his wife is all american. You really think he doesnt have friends in the states that want their back scratched? I'd rather know how i'm going to be screwed than be assraped by some dumbass who claims to have the best interests of our country in mind. No offence to americans, but Ignatieff is a blight on both our countries.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[wierd_w]

I work in Aerospace myself!

Sadly, The US does not refine any of the raw materials used to make airplanes, with exception to the petrochemical side. The US has maybe 2 functional steel mills, and a handful of aluminum plants... Nearly all of our raw materials are sourced overseas. We dont produce nearly enough raw material for the combined consumption needs of our populace.

If the US Dollar tanked severely, we would be unable to acquire the raw materials to produce anything, and the factories we DO have would sit empty. Those that somehow stay open would have to charge absurd prices.

That is why we prop up the US dollar with intellectual properties licensing, and with military might.

Incidentally, it is also why we are becoming more and more like a police state.

We do object.

[hebertrich]

If our government has ANY ears or eyes reading Slashdot :
Steven .. you ain't Bush and this ain't the USA.
You're about to loose the election because you try to make Canada
like the USA .We aren't the USA we already have a working copyright system.
If you like them so much :GO HOME to the USA and dont f******* bother us with their laws.
We have no desire of becoming a society like the Americans..
To all ./ readers in Canada. Get the vote out monday and talk to everyone.
We need the vote out to just get rid of him. ABC Anything But the Conservatives.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[realityimpaired]

And Harper is a corrupt autocrat with a penchant for saying "screw you guys, I'm going home" whenever he doesn't get his way. He is the single most dangerous prime minister that this country has ever known, and I would rather Ignatieff over Harper any day of the week. Neither of them is my first choice, but between them, I think that Ignatieff is significantly less frightening.

We're talking about a prime minister whose first act in office was to try to repeal the controls on the banking sector that are the very reason that Canada has managed to weather the current recession so well (and yet he's still claiming credit for how we managed to not be as fucked as he wanted us to be). We're talking about a prime minister who brought in somebody he knew had been convicted and disbarred for fraud to write his "transparency" legislation. We're talking about a prime minister who has repeatedly tried to repeal civil rights in this country (gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, etc...). We're talking about a prime minister whose skill for diplomacy cost us a seat on the UN Security Council and has made us a laughing stock in international politics. We're talking about a prime minister who spent $1 billion on security for an event, with at least half of that money "disappearing" into ridings that his government controlled with no accountability on how it was actually spent. We're talking about a prime minister who criminalized dissent. We're talking about a prime minister who has a habit of *firing* anybody who disagrees with him. We're talking about a prime minister who refuses to acknowledge that climate change is happening. We're talking about a prime minister who still believes his government was defeated over the budget (hint: the budget passed. he was defeated over the contempt of parliament charges). We're talking about a prime minister who has no problem throwing people to the wolves over unfounded accusations in the name of appearing to be tough on corruption while ignoring the actual corruption going on (Helena Guergis, anybody?).

If you can honestly tell me with a straight face that Harper is good for this country, you need to have your head examined.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[whisper_jeff]

And I'd rather take my chances with someone who _might_ sell me out to American corporate interests than stick with someone who I _KNOW_ will _CONTINUE_ screwing me over to American corporate interests (among the many, many other offenses he's committed during his time as PM).

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[Anonymous Coward]

Then vote for the green or the orange or the block is applicable. Anything but harper, we aren't picky.

Canadian election...

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadians who want to stop a false majority can swap their votes.
www.pairvote.ca
http://apps.facebook.com/voteswapcanada

Re:Not really about listening, Minority Government

[green1]

This failed not because of lack of support from the opposition on this particular bill. You can guarantee that if it ever came to a vote it would pass. It failed because they ran out of time because the government fell for completely unrelated reasons. Don't underestimate the dangers here, EVERY major political party supports this bill. it WILL pass, the only question is how long we can stave it off.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[green1]

That the US buys... Many other countries buy airplanes manufactured elsewhere...

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[Opportunist]

I currently pay about 40% in tax, social security, retirement fonds and whatever else my government thinks is "good for me". Would I like to have that money instead? Hell yeah. Do I need it? Not really. After all is said, done and paid I have about a thousand bucks surplus per month. Personally, I'd be equally well off if I paid another 500 bucks tax.

IF that tax was well spent instead of pumped into banks, I would certainly not mind paying those extra 500. Better schools (ok, I have no kids, but I'd like to see our economy survive even after I retire), more money for research, more policemen on the streets (instead we get those cams... try to convince me that they prevent a single crime, just show me how they keep someone from being robbed), more social programs, it's not like there weren't any good things to spend that dough on. But as long as they keep pumping it into companies "too big to fail", I'll keep my money instead and hand a fiver to the beggar near the subway station when I go to work.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[Opportunist]

I'm not sure I buy that. One thing that is almost always consistent about Americans is that they are ridiculously Nationalist, even the ones who openly hate both Democrats and Republicans still tend to claim that the country is the greatest place on Earth in spite of a crappy political situation.

Quite a few are. Granted. But there are people in the US that prefer to think for themselves. I know them personally. I dare not say all of them, or at least I hope so, but there are people who can see beyond the rim of their border and notice that there are good things outside their country and that others do things differently, and sometimes even better.

You might want to take into consideration that amongst those some 200 million people, some are actually able to think for themselves and accept/admit that there are other ways to live and exist, and that some of those are actually better than the proverbial "American way of life".

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin

[Opportunist]

All those other things can be explained or sufficiently well hidden. Tax increase? Has to happen, we're in a recess... oh, not the bad word, we're in an ... economic downturn and we have to aid the economy because that's what keeps your job existent. See? We have to increase your tax so you have a job, else your job is in jeopardy. And the same applies to healthcare. Sorry, we'll repair it later, but for now, just try to stay alive. Hey, with a bit of luck you won't need it, so no worries, ok?

The rest, just keep it under the rug and buy off newspapers by offering them interviews only if they're not too critical. They want to sell their "news", so make sure they only have interesting ones if they follow "the line". In the meantime, create a diversion, vilify... let's see... smokers, refugees, some minorities without special interest groups, ... we'll find some more later, just bash them for now and create enough hysteria that people won't care about us filling our pockets. Hey, with a hint of luck they'll love us when we enact laws to crack down on those that we vilify.

The DMCA is now something you can't really explain well. Hell, it's not even something you can understand easily and the parts that you can understand aren't really something you can "sell". What's the gain for the average Joe Voter out there? Zip, nada, niente. Instead he gets to watch out what he puts on his beloved YouTube and Facebook, and he can't even copy his movies anymore.

Re:Really wasn't responsive, still intro'd it twic

[mark-t]

You have it backwards, actually. C32 is the more recent bill.

Don't ask me why the lower number is more recent. I have no idea.

Re:Really wasn't responsive, still intro'd it twic

[guidryp]

Yes, I have the numbers flipped, but the point remains otherwise.

Obviously with low numbers they start over numbering for bills with each new parliament. So there is no relation between numbers of bills between different parliaments.

I just have my fingers crossed (and already voted) for another minority government, to hopefully extend the time before file sharing lawsuits come to Canada.

Before you ask how one votes for a minority, you just have to look at polls and vote strategically. In this election that means voting for your local Candidate that has the best chance of toppling the Conservative candidate.

Unfortunately with the surging NDP splitting the left wing vote even more that likely places the Conservatives even closer to a majority...

One of the many strategic voting pages can give you some idea of your riding status:
http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/canada-riding-lookup/province