×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Canadian DMCA' Copyright Bill Dead Again

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the three-strikes-and-you're-out dept.

Canada 307

An anonymous reader writes "Like some kind of B-movie horror series, the latest attempt to revise Canada's copyright law and introduce DMCA-like provisions, Bill C-32, has again died on the order table as Canada's minority government has fallen after a non-confidence vote. This makes it the third copyright revision bill since 2005 to have died. Although this version was regarded as better than previous ones, it still contained awkward anti-circumvention provisions. We can be confident that some kind of DMCA-style copyright bill will be resurrected, but it will have to wait for the next government sequel."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

307 comments

Ugh.. (-1, Troll)

teknifix (1654213) | about 3 years ago | (#35623014)

While I think it's good the bill died.. as a canadian I'm a little pissed that we're having another expensive election. All of the parties suck. The conservatives (currently in power) are probably the best of the bunch, and that's not saying a lot.

Re:Ugh.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623036)

When did choosing politicians become just about their bad qualities?

Re:Ugh.. (5, Insightful)

margeman2k3 (1933034) | about 3 years ago | (#35623208)

When did choosing politicians become just about their bad qualities?

When they stopped having any good qualities.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623250)

When we started electing them?

When corporations were born?

Re:Ugh.. (2)

teknifix (1654213) | about 3 years ago | (#35623260)

All of the parties have more bad qualities than good ones. So, there's more to base your voting decision on.

Re:Ugh.. (2)

vintagepc (1388833) | about 3 years ago | (#35623604)

I suspect that if the new Pirate party had enough people to have a chance federally, they'd get quite a few votes from all the people sick of the same old crap from each of the current parties. I'll echo what's been said below - WE NEED FRESH BLOOD!

Re:Ugh.. (5, Interesting)

multipartmixed (163409) | about 3 years ago | (#35623072)

Actually, I think the Bloq are probably the best of the bunch. Except for that part about wanting to tear the country apart. I live in Ontario and would vote for the Bloq if they ran a candidate in my riding.

The conservatives are nothing more than a bunch of freedom-loathing ass hats. Remember, this is NOT the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's the Reform Party, with a new name specifically designed to confuse voters.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

MachDelta (704883) | about 3 years ago | (#35623664)

Yeah, Hitler had some great ideas on how to run a country too. Except for that whole "kill the jews" bit.

The day the Bloq forms a federal government is the day I either leave the country for good, or die trying to take parliament hill by force.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

yanos (633109) | about 3 years ago | (#35624012)

Ever heard of Godwin's law? :) Dude, chill out. The Bloq has no intention of running the canadian goverment. They're just there to defend Quebec's opinions at the federal level. You might disagree with their separatist view, but that's just the reality of living in a free country.

Re:Ugh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623696)

You are aware that the bloc is always jockeying to get the best for Quebec at all times and nothing else. Some people just vote for the bloc that aren't seperatist just to have there province interest put first in front of the whole of Canada since they're self-centered. In my opinion the best party is NDP.

I'm happy the bill died on the table once again.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#35623774)

The conservatives are nothing more than a bunch of freedom-loathing ass hats.

Hard to argue with that.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Bloq is the "best of the bunch" but it does seem like it's time to put the brakes on this conservative "resurgence" up there before you end up in the soup like the people of the US.

Re:Ugh.. (4, Informative)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 3 years ago | (#35623846)

Actually, I think the Bloq are probably the best of the bunch.

I think you should be aware that the Bloc says that the "3 copyright infringement claims and you're off the internet" is too lenient, they think 2 complaints should be enough to have someone cut off. They think that schools shouldn't get a rebate when using copyrighted work for educational purposes, and they think that money should be taken from all sales of devices capable of storing music and given to the industry.

The bloc's position on copyright is: Whatever the industry want, we give.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

flyonthewall (584734) | about 3 years ago | (#35623890)

Remember, this is NOT the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's the Reform Party, with a new name specifically designed to confuse voters.

AKA Tea party north for those unsure what the reform party stood for before it's coalition with the progressive conservative.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 years ago | (#35624186)

So that would make democrats the hound holders of the KKK? Makes about as much sense, if you're a partisan hack.

Re:Ugh.. (0)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 years ago | (#35623892)

The only reason why the bloc holds the power that it does is because Quebec is hyper nationalistic and xenophobic. Besides that, if Quebec actually signed the charter we wouldn't have this problem(Alberta and BC would have picked up the seats). But we can thank Trudeau and the knight of long knives for that one.

Sadly despite you being a partisan hack with the 'freedom loathing ass hats' bit, you've gained more freedoms in Canada in the last 5 years, than you lost in the 13yrs the liberals were in power. And it's both parties, we voted for the merger. That's why there aren't two conservative bloc's. Unlike the 4 left wing ones(liberals, NDP, Green, and bloc).

Re:Ugh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623104)

True, I don't think much of them all either but I really, really want to see Harper and his flunkies (not the whole Conservative party) GONE!

He was the one who started the last election early (and I recall him promising NOT to do that) just to get a majority so should we really be surprised that the opposition will be reluctant to do the same thing he did first?! Then there's the whole CRTC and UBB mess that they pretty much ensured would happen by sheer inactivity alone until the public, fed up with the overpriced internet and cell phone charges of which this was the straw that broke many camel's backs, shouted loud enough that they got scared of their positions. And then there is C-32 and ACTA which mostly bowed to corporations, mostly American media (that is also screwing America).

Basically, I think they've mishandled the entire Internet industry in Canada very, very badly and it's rapidly becoming a very important necessity in the global economy. There are obviously other important issues but that's the best example of how inept the government has been acting. At the very least, the change in government parties might wake up the parties, shake out the political interia, actually LISTEN to the public in GENERAL and not special interest groups, and get some freakin' leaders in power not people like Harper's goons. Right now almost anything would be better than keeping them in but my vote's in for the NDP. Of the bunch, I think their attitude, NOT promises, is the best atm.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

teknifix (1654213) | about 3 years ago | (#35623242)

Every time I think of the NDP I think of what Bob Rae did to Ontario all those years back. Sure, we had great health care, but we couldn't afford it. It put Mike Harris in an awful place.. he had to cut a lot of the stuff the NDP had done, to negative reviews from the public of course, to get us out of our huge debt. An example, my grandfather knows Mike Harris, and he found out that the NDP had a secretary pool of 125 secretaries making around $60,000 a year, and their job was to sit in a building for 8 hours a day, doing nothing but waiting for a call if a secretary somewhere didn't show up for work or quit. That's $7.5 million tax dollars a year and it was one of the first things to go when Mike got in. I do keep an eye on what the parties say.. and to be honest I just don't like any of our parties. There isn't a single party with more advantages than disadvantages. Canada suffered some during the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin liberal years. It suffered during the Brian Mulroney(sp) years.. it's suffering now and it will in the future. I don't agree with a lot of what Harper has done.. but I don't like Ignatieff or Layton, and I really didn't like the whole coalition thing. What Canada needs is an election where more than 52% of the eligible voters actually vote and we can see what the majority says.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

armer (533337) | about 3 years ago | (#35623268)

Funny thing is, 2 of the 3 parties who forced this election still haven't paid off the last one. The only party who can afford an election is the Conservatives. I am unsure of the Block's money situation though. Even funnier is that only the Block will remain about the same as for seats one. According to polls (if you actually believe them) the NDP and Liberals are going to have their collective asses handed to them after they have been severely kicked first. As for the UBB and CRTC, isn't it great that a government actually listened to the people it is supposed to take care of? I think Industry Minister Clement actually told the CRTC to change its ruling on UBB or it would be changed for them. Most of the federal bodies and their "leaders" are leftovers from the Martin/Chretien days, who were not exactly the cleanest leaders ever. But alas, it matters not, for they all follow the politicians mantra: I'll lie to get in power, I'll lie to stay in power, they will lie to get me out of power.

Re:Ugh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623222)

Yes Democracy is so expensive and inconvenient we shouldn't bother with elections. Maybe we need a Canadian dictator, then we don't have to worry about that stuff anymore.

Or perhaps we can just continue voting in minority governments until the politicians learn to work with each other like most Canadians would want and like we teach our children.

Use your brain. (5, Insightful)

neiras (723124) | about 3 years ago | (#35623232)

While I think it's good the bill died.. as a canadian I'm a little pissed that we're having another expensive election.

Expensive election? Give me a break. I'm hearing numbers like 200 million dollars to run an election for the whole country.

In 2008 [elections.ca] there were 23,677,639 registered voters in Canada. If the number of registered voters remained the same (hint: it has likely increased!), that puts the cost per registered voter at about $8.50.

I don't know about you, but I would pay $8.50 to have a say in my democracy any day.

The media in Canada has gone into "nobody wants an election, waaaah waaah" mode for each of the past four elections. I'm a Canadian, and just about everyone I know wants an election. Everywhere I turn online though, someone is bitching about how nobody wants one.

I know that the media is largely run by conservative businesspeople, but this broad-based attempt at reducing the duties of citizenship to an inconvenience is sickening.

Stop complaining and vote responsibly. It's all we have. We've had lots of elections in the past 7 years, and that's because the government is weak and Canadians are divided. It's a good thing we keep getting to weigh in.

Re:Use your brain. (1)

teknifix (1654213) | about 3 years ago | (#35623340)

I've voted in every election since I've been old enough to vote. I'll vote in every election until I die. That's not the problem. The last two elections had the same result.. a conservative minority government. But as it always is, the parties can't work together because they all want to be the ones on top. I'd put money on this coming election having the same result. Especially if we see another low voter turn out. Even if the liberals or the NDP win, it'll still likely be a minority and nothing will get done. The parties have such a disparity in their goals that they just can't agree on what's best for Canada.

Re:Use your brain. (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 3 years ago | (#35623400)

I agree. As I said else where, the current governement can't work together. So collapsing the government and putting in a new one is entirely appropriate.

The problem is we are going to elect the same government we have now. There ought to be some laws in place that prevent the people who failed to work together from being the people who have to work together again.

Harper shouldn't be allowed to run for PM. Period. We need new blood.

Re:Use your brain. (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | about 3 years ago | (#35623344)

Stop complaining and vote

Right on, the about 55% participation rate is pathetic !

Re:Use your brain. (1)

smokeyJames (1963954) | about 3 years ago | (#35623416)

If everyone who whined thought hard about the choices in front of us and voted... Nah, nevermind, that's my dream world I'm thinking of...

Re:Use your brain. (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 3 years ago | (#35624042)

about the only thing that would work is

1 after you vote you get a 2 part chit with
A some sort of machine readable code block that records your vote
B a serial number (which is generated semi randomly to prevent it from being reversed to the votes)
2 you then separate the 2 parts and then dispose of the votes part
3 come tax time somewhere in the deductions section of the form you then write your serial number(s) in and you get an extra deduction for each valid serial
(a single person gets 1 serial for each election and a married couple gets 2 for each election)

Or simply throw out the results if a quorum of votes has not been reached (since not voting is in effect voting for none of the above)

Re:Use your brain. (1)

adonoman (624929) | about 3 years ago | (#35623502)

Yup - Given that we were willing to spend $1.3 billion on that boondoggle of a G8/G20 mess, I don't think spending 1/6th of that on an election is that much of a hardship.

Speak for yourself... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35624018)

Speak for yourself... I wasn't willing to flush billions down the toilet over the G-mess.

Re:Use your brain. (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 3 years ago | (#35623594)

I don't know for others, but personally I loathe federal elections because I don't know who to vote for. THEY ALL SUCK.

I'd rather shoot myself in the face with a shotgun than vote Conservatives, they embody the very thing I want to run away from. Harper scares me shitless and if he goes full in this time, it's going to be the new dark age for Canada.

Liberals are weak, Ignatieff has no spine just like Dion previously. He's unlikeable, I still can't understand where the hell he wants to go and he's managing to get disliked by everyone even more than Dion, which I didn't think was possible. I wouldn't be surprised to see Liberals lose even more seats with him at the top.

NDP, as much as I'd like for them to be worthwhile, are really just too small. Many of their politics seem hazy and not fledged out properly. They go left and right and most of the time appear to be hugging whichever party is most aligned with them at the time. I would vote for them, but it feels like a throwaway vote. I know that people constantly say "if everybody like you voted for them, they'd get elected". Well yeah, IF. I'm well aware that won't be the case, so I'd rather support a party with more chances to stop the Conservatives.

This leaves me with the Bloc. I'll probably be leaning this way, since I'm in Quebec, but honestly it's in good part because I don't see NDP making much gains here and I don't find Liberals attractive in the slightest. Plus, I'm pretty sure the Bloc will steamroll the opposition here as it has always done. This guarantees one more seat against the Conservatives, which is better than nothing.

In an ideal world, the Liberals and Bloc (and maybe NDP) would form an alliance and get enough seats for at least a minority government this way. Of course, I'm most likely dreaming there.

But yeah, in short, this is why a lot of people are moaning about elections, at least from my point of view. If the political landscape was dynamic and interesting, there might be more reasons to be eager about elections, but right now I think it'll either be the status quo or (please no!) a Conservative majority. Neither are all that pleasing.

Re:Use your brain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623820)

You should vote for the party you'd like to see succeed. Every vote helps them, at least through funding and other rights that come with surpassing certain thresholds in voter support.

That's why I'm voting Green. Their environmental platform is a given, but they're also in favour of a more civilised government and representation by population.

Re:Use your brain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623902)

"but right now I think it'll either be the status quo or (please no!) a Conservative majority. Neither are all that pleasing."

Are you kidding? Please, no. The LAST thing we want to give either the Conservatives or any of the other parties in opposition is a majority government. This bunch of reprobates hasn't demonstrated either while in power or while in opposition that they're ready for the power that they'll have as a majority government. They should be sent back to Ottawa with the clear message to do their jobs: talk over their differences and work it out.

I'll take any kind of minority government (yes, again) over a majority where the government can ram through whatever they want. This is definitely a choice between a greater and lesser evil.

Re:Use your brain. (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 3 years ago | (#35623912)

I would vote for them, but it feels like a throwaway vote.

I will vote for them because the only way to throw away my vote would be to vote for someone I don't want to win.

I want the NDP to have more seats because they seem focused on citizens, not on money.

Re:Use your brain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623996)

I want the NDP to have more seats because they seem focused on citizens, not on money.

Unfortunately, they're focused on citizens to the exclusion of any consideration of money. They have no credible plan to pay for all of the programs they'd like to enact.

Trading crap for crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623878)

It's not that we don't want it... it's just that we spend millions on replacing one turd with another turd, and in the end are no better off, just short a few million. *sigh*

Re:Use your brain. (1)

BergZ (1680594) | about 3 years ago | (#35624202)

I'm looking forward to the up coming election because I have a grudge against Harper for hypocritically using the Senate (an institution which he has frequently ridiculed as 'undemocratic') to kill the Climate Change bill (C-311) which had already passed the House.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | about 3 years ago | (#35623262)

The conservative were proven to lie in Parliament and you consider them to be the best choice. WTF !!!???
You have the choice between a corrupt party lead by a failed economist and a corrupt party lead by a successful academics. As an academic (both as faculty and as student) I think that I should vote for the corrupt party lead by the academic.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 years ago | (#35623526)

You have the choice between a corrupt party lead by a failed economist and a corrupt party lead by a successful academics.

Wrong. This is Canada. We do not have a two party system here. We have a wide variety of corrupt party leaders to choose from.

Re:Ugh.. (2)

JonySuede (1908576) | about 3 years ago | (#35623682)

I excluded the ndp since the candidate in my riding is kinda delusional. I excluded the green since they still a fringe party and I don't like their social conservativeness. The bloc want to separate from the rest of the Canada so I excluded them to. I also excluded the communist party of Canada since they are composed of lunatics that plan for a revolution. I can't vote for the pirate party since they have no candidate in my riding so to me it feels like a two party system

Re:Ugh.. (1)

belmolis (702863) | about 3 years ago | (#35623938)

You may not like the NDP's policies or chances of forming a government, but I've never seen any serious allegations that Jack Layton is corrupt.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 3 years ago | (#35623982)

For most ridings it is a 2 party system. Just the two parties varies from riding to riding.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 years ago | (#35623916)

What? And you'd rather have the liberals back in power? You remember how ol Jean tromped over public rights, freedoms, and how he and his party used the country for their own personal play pen, while siphoning money off? Talk about systemic corruption. Still looking for that $1-2B that they 'loaned' to businesses, while shoveling someone off into a diplomatic post so they couldn't be called to account?

Re:Ugh.. (1)

plalonde2 (527372) | about 3 years ago | (#35624190)

Ask any oh the G20 protesters which government was tromping on rights. Ask Harper about his inability to balance a budget, or even put all the expenses down in it! Ask harper about his 6billion dollar gift to corporations (those are "businesses", no?). The liberal misdemeanors are now 7 years past, and the team has changed. Unless you're the kind of person who is guilty for your parents' sims, you need to let go and see who is corrupt today, not most of a decade ago.

Re:Ugh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623284)

While I think it's good the bill died.. as a canadian I'm a little pissed that we're having another expensive election. All of the parties suck. The conservatives (currently in power) are probably the best of the bunch, and that's not saying a lot.

Then vote for the conservatives. I'm certain they will get the copyright bill passed as they wanted it (ie. DMCA-super) next time!!

Re:Ugh.. (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | about 3 years ago | (#35623364)

I hate to say it; but it's bad enough when you find a thirty year old piece of British punk that happens to set the tone for the election quite well. Kick Out the Tories by the Newtown Neurotics.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 3 years ago | (#35623366)

I'm a little pissed that we're having another expensive election.

Meh, that's Harpers fault. When you have such a precarious minority you have to work with the other parties to get things done. Harper doesn't. The other parties have no recourse but to either do what he wants, or collapse the government, and Harper keeps counting on them to do what he wants because no one wants an election. Its complete bullshit, but I don't blame the other parties for getting sick of him and calling his bluff.

Sad thing is we're going to likely elect virtually exactly the same government we have now. Perhaps when a government falls to a vote of non-confidence there should be a law to prevent the same leader from running for the defeated party, term limits would help too. Canada has got a government that simply won't work together, and our only recourse is to have an election to get a new government. That part of the system works. The problem is we keep electing the same people into government. We need new blood. But there is no way to get it, because we elect the party not the person. And as long as Harper runs, there are enough conservatives to give the conservatives another minority and put him back into power.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

adonoman (624929) | about 3 years ago | (#35623480)

If Harper gets another minority, I'd make the bet that the next election will have 4 new party leaders in place (maybe 3 if Duceppe decides he's up for it). Harper's had enough chances that his party is going to be looking for someone less divisive to take his place. Ignatieff is on thin ice, and if he doesn't do something amazing this election you can be the liberals will be dumping him to the curb. Layton just doesn't have the health to keep fighting losing elections.

Now if there's a Conservative majority, or any kind of Liberal government, we'll be stuck with one of the two for a while longer.

Contempt of parliament (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623676)

Meh, that's Harpers fault. When you have such a precarious minority you have to work with the other parties to get things done. Harper doesn't.

Harper's government has been found in contempt of parliament because he would not disclose certain information about decisions that were made.

I have no problem with conservative governments, if they are indeed conservative. But Harper's government is the antithesis of everything he has ever said he stood for. It's not a conservative party anymore - it's a King Harper party, where MPs can't even stand up for their own constituents. And I'm even ignoring the criminals that have plagued his caucus...

Remember when Liberals were hounded by the conservatives because of some ads for Quebec referendum to keep the country together? That was few million. The G8/G20 was well over a thousand million - the party (Harper, the King) is as conservative as Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic.

Sadly, the last fiscal conservative we've had in Ottawa was named Paul Martin - a Liberal. The one that balanced the books, but was awful politician (the guy wanted to be too honest and people got confused!). But in the last 20 years, all the conservatives have been racking up Canada's debt at record pace and Harper beat records once more with 56 billion deficit ..... *sigh*

Re:Contempt of parliament (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 3 years ago | (#35624022)

Sadly, the last fiscal conservative we've had in Ottawa was named Paul Martin - a Liberal. The one that balanced the books, but was awful politician (the guy wanted to be too honest and people got confused!). But in the last 20 years, all the conservatives have been racking up Canada's debt at record pace and Harper beat records once more with 56 billion deficit ..... *sigh*

This is the problem. People vote conservative because they claim to be fiscally responsible whereas they have a long record of boosting the debt. This government has squandered a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit, spending money irresponsibly. Unluckily people do not look at their actions, just listen to their lies.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

Redlazer (786403) | about 3 years ago | (#35623634)

I'm a Canadian, but I don't keep up on Canadian politics much.

All I know about the Conservatives in Canada so far is:

They don't support Net Neutrality
They don't support Abortion rights. They don't want to ban it, but they want to defund it.
They oppose same-sex marriage, but not same-sex unions. Bullshit political posturing.

So I submit to you that they are not the best.

They may be second best though: although the NDP is less crazy lately, they make even the Liberals seem trustworthy.

Also, Harper seems to be a huge douche, and I don't think represents our country well at all. If only I had known, I would have moved back home sooner!

Re:Ugh.. (1)

Redlazer (786403) | about 3 years ago | (#35623662)

Ah yes, and I meant to say:

You're totally right that they all suck. At least the Americans get interesting, representative people.

I want someone from the West to do it.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

TheRealGrogan (1660825) | about 3 years ago | (#35623852)

Fuck that... Harper needs to go. I don't care if I have to vote for Bozo The Clown and we have to fix it later.

Harper is a danger to our way of life and freedom. His answer is more unfriendly laws and more jails to put all the unhappy, destitute, disaffected people in while his corporatocracy walks all over us.

But yes, the timing is bad.

Re:Ugh.. (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about 3 years ago | (#35624026)

So... you think that the party which has a record for lying in parliament and falsifying public records is the best option?
You think that the party that's run by an autocrat with a penchant for firing anybody that speaks out against him is the best option?
You think that the party which fired a top scientist at the AECL for having the gall to say that the Chalk River plant needed to be shut down for repairs... 3 months before an emergency shutdown forced it offline for over 6 months causing a global medical isotope shortage that we're just now recovering from... would be the best option?
You think that the party which brought in a lawyer who had previously been disbarred for fraud to write their "transparency" and "accountability" legislation would be the best choice? (said lawyer is now under investigation by the RCMP for influence peddling and illegal lobbying... that's illegal under the terms of the accountability legislation that he wrote)
You think that the party which told the country a project that would actually cost close to $100 billion would come in with a price tag of about 1/5 that when trying to get it passed would be the best option?
You think that the party which twice suspended parliament to avoid prior non-confidence votes would be the best option?
You think the party that's taking credit for our economic situation is the best choice, even though the first thing they tried doing after taking office was to remove the laws that had been established by the previous government, and which are actually responsible for our banking sector not collapsing (and thus, our continued economic stability)? (in other words, had they gotten their way when they took office, our economy *would* have planted just as badly as the US economy did)

What the hell rock have you been living under?

Credit (2)

Joe Jordan (453607) | about 3 years ago | (#35623042)

Gotta credit Canadian politicians for not selling out wholesale like they do in the US.

Re:Credit (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#35623088)

Any of the parties would, but there have been minority governments for the last seven years, so this bill, which perpetually gets stalled before third reading, keeps dying on the order paper. Get a majority government, regardless of which party forms it, and the legislation will pass.

Re:Credit (1)

fishermen7777 (2026898) | about 3 years ago | (#35623468)

Any of the parties would, but there have been minority governments for the last seven years, so this bill, which perpetually gets stalled before third reading, keeps dying on the order paper. Get a majority government, regardless of which party forms it, and the legislation will pass.

Credits and avto [samsebeyurist.ru]

Re:Credit (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 years ago | (#35623614)

Get a majority government, regardless of which party forms it, and the legislation will pass.

Not necessarily. There's no requirement for MPs to follow party lines. They could vote against it.

Re:Credit (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about 3 years ago | (#35623840)

That's not strictly true. If the PM decides a bill is a confidence bill, then government side will have to vote the party line, at least. Most bills are confidence bills.

Re:Credit (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 3 years ago | (#35624058)

Usually only money bills are confidence bills, but you're right, the PM can declare any bill a confidence bill.

Re:Credit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35624200)

Most bills are confidence bills.

Actually, that determination is largely up to the Prime Minister. As I understood it, Stephen Harper said that for his government only budget votes (and non-confidence votes, of course) would be considered to be confidence votes. Realistically, it's the only workable approach in a minority government. The reason that budget-related votes must be matters of confidence, of course, is that a government without money to spend on anything is dead in the water.

Re:Credit (3, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about 3 years ago | (#35623094)

we were just discussing how the USA could benefit from some of the design of canadian law, and it was decided that canada has safeties built into the system so that in the event that the government does something "batshit insane", that it can be dissolved almost instantly. And that's what has happened in Canada. Lie to parliament and refuse to disclose information, BAM you're outa here. Their parliament is a bit like our congress, but our congress neither has the balls nor the power to pull it off.

Re:Credit (3, Informative)

c6gunner (950153) | about 3 years ago | (#35623348)

And that's what has happened in Canada. Lie to parliament and refuse to disclose information, BAM you're outa here.

Not really, no. The financial figures were a red herring - you don't dissolve a government over something so minor. I started receiving election fliers and phone-calls about two weeks earlier, so that tells you how big a surprise this was. All the parties wanted an election; the claims about the financial figures are a convenient excuse.

Re:Credit (1)

ksrage (229189) | about 3 years ago | (#35623668)

So lying to parliament to get legislation passed is minor in your opinion? Why bother having parliament if they don't need to know the full costs and details of the legislation they are supposed to support. Should they just say "Yes sir we'll rubber stamp that legislation right quick for you sir!" I thought the previous Liberal governments were scum but Harper has taken every dirty trick they came up with and gone one step farther. He has complete and utter contempt for the system and everyone that refuses to tow his line. Anyone gets caught doing his dirty work they get thrown under the bus with a scream of "its really the Liberal's fault."

And yes every party, with the exception of maybe the Bloc, were itching for an election. It was all a matter of how they could do so while being able to blame their primary target.

Oh and Harper has been running election ads since 2008. Well its really a smear campaign but that's really semantics.

Re:Credit (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 3 years ago | (#35624100)

The conservatives have been running ads around here for months telling us about all the free money available to us. I hate to think of how much money has been wasted on the ad campaign by these assholes who claim to be financially conservative yet pissed away a surplus by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Taxes should have been slowly cut as the national debt was decreased without massive spending increases.

Re:Credit (2)

alexandre (53) | about 3 years ago | (#35623428)

Though that only worked because of the minority status of the current "government".

Re:Credit (2)

mevets (322601) | about 3 years ago | (#35624124)

Its a bit trickier than that. In a majority government, there is little to be gained by lying and being miscreants. Shy of a mutiny within your majority party, your legislation won't be defeated, so why risk your neck lying or abusing your privilege.

In a minority, it is really the same situation, only more-so. It is difficult to make one-sided legislation into law; so in theory your legislation should be better balanced, with more facts and figures.

That is where the last government fell down so badly. They had cabinet ministers (representatives with super powers) fraudulently altering official documents to make partisan hackery look like business as usual. They were hiding the costs of legislation, and bullshitting (correct term here: promoting something you know not to be the truth; as opposed to lying: misrepresenting something you know not to be true as true) about it both in a sweeping crime legislation and a bunch of war toys.

Lest you think it some sort of paradise - it took over a year to get the fraud out in front, and 8-9 months over the financial shenanigans. An election was inevitable, as there are five or six other abuses ready to enter the same pipe.

Also, this is the first time any commonwealth government has ever been found in contempt (we are number 1 - woo hoo)! So, yes, the safe guards against blatant abuse are there, but they are seldom used, and very slow to deploy.

Re:Credit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623836)

Lie to parliament and refuse to disclose information, BAM you're outa here.

No, "BAM" and then we spend a few million dollars to rubber-stamp them back into power, plus or minus a few seats. Hopefully not enough to give them a majority this time.

Its time to move to canada? (1)

slushslash5 (2026878) | about 3 years ago | (#35623052)

So I could hack PS3, jalbreak iphone, download pirate files [blog.com] All of above is legal in canada. Yay!

Re:Its time to move to canada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623120)

Breaking DRM is illegal, but it should be making DRM that is.

Re:Its time to move to canada? (1)

Creepy (93888) | about 3 years ago | (#35623650)

Also copyright law is only 50 years, so IMSLP [imslp.org] has numerous scores that are only legally download-able in Canada.

The best thing RMS ever did (IMO) was help them not get shut down by big publishers of scores - in fact, rental prices are significantly down in the past few years, and I believe mostly because of them.

What's with minority governments recently? (1, Interesting)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 3 years ago | (#35623074)

Seriously. Canada, Australia and the UK all currently have minority governments/hung parliaments. In Australia and the UK particularly, this is a very rare occurrence (at the national/Federal level). From what I've heard, it's a bit more common in Canada though.

Anyway I totally agree with the 'all as bad as each other' sentiment. In the Federal election last year here (Australia) I honestly found myself completely disliking EVERY candidate for one reason or another ... first election I've ever felt that way. Apparently many in the UK and Canada feel the same.

Re:What's with minority governments recently? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#35623096)

Maybe there have been one or two more minorities in Canada than in the UK over the last hundred odd years, but in general, because both countries have FPTP electoral systems and both have similar parties covering similar areas of the party spectrum, you usually get similar results.

Re:What's with minority governments recently? (1)

Ciggy (692030) | about 3 years ago | (#35623230)

Having PR is not guaranteed to be much better - see, for example, the Alabama paradox [wikipedia.org] - than FPTP. There are further problems with some PR methods (for example STV) whereby if a candidate had won a seat, if their popularity had been larger they would not have won the seat! (A couple of chapters in "Archimedes' Revenge" by Paul Hoffman explain the paradoxes).

Re:What's with minority governments recently? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623154)

I for one was greatly offended when a British MP (Member of Parliament) when asked about forming a coalition government in the UK, was worried that it could become a 'Bear Pit' much like the Canadian House of Commons had become. Like I said, I was greatly offended by this 'Bear Pit' comment.... I've been in the woods. When I was a kid, I went on a school trip for a week, (canoe trip), and was with one other kid in a canoe, when a bear came into the lake not far from where we were paddling. We turned around and paddled away (fast) from the bear, so I have seen bears up close in the wild, and I can tell you, no self respecting bear would dare set a paw in the Canadian House of Commons. If they did, in short order he would go down like Knute (a very sad and terrible thing), from shock and disgust! And the politicians wouldn't help the poor creature, they would just continue bickering. I remember a reporter asked an elementary school teacher what she thought of parliament, having visited on a field trip. The teacher was shocked and embarrassed by what she saw, and told the kids not to behave like that, and told the reporter that she would not tolerate that kind of behavior in the classroom. Petty partisan politicking, attack ads on tv, unsolicited phone calls with political science understudies trying to solicit votes, another federal election, the fourth in seven years. yay!

Re:What's with minority governments recently? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623286)

Canada has a unique situation. It's hard to form a majority here because the second most populous province tends to vote for their provincial separatist party. Truly federal parties need to win more of the rest of the seats to get over 50%. (One can also analyze an urban/rural/suburban divide on issues, coupled with unequal riding sizes.)

Voter apathy is a growing problem in Canada too.

Re:What's with minority governments recently? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623370)

Actually, the Canadian PM was just found to be in contempt, and consequently his Conservative (or corrupt as we say in Canada) government was overthrown. So we're heading into our 4th federal election in 6 years or something.

Re:What's with minority governments recently? (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 3 years ago | (#35623386)

In the USA, the house is held by one party, the senate by the other. Isn't that essentially a minority government? It certainly functions like one - a single party cannot force a bill to pass, all legislation needs approval by at least some members of two or more different parties.

Re:What's with minority governments recently? (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 3 years ago | (#35624168)

One difference is that in a parliamentary system, if the budget (or any money bill) doesn't pass the government falls and the people usually get to vote.

Re:What's with minority governments recently? (2)

kent_eh (543303) | about 3 years ago | (#35623430)

Probably because none of the parties seem to be able to come up with a platform, or slate of candidates that appeals to the majority of voters.
That said, I still want to see continued minority governments, until someone demonstrates that they can co-operate with the other parties for the common good of the nation.
Perhaps a more narrow minority, though. One where any opposition party can hold the balance on any day.

Coalition isn't a dirty word, It implies being able to put aside your differences and play nice with others in a mature pragmatic way.
That's not something I have seen in Canadian politics for a long time. Certainly not in anything that involves Harper. He doesn't seem to even be able to be anything less than dictatorial within his own caucus.

The bad thing about bad bills (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623100)

They can fail a thousand times, they only need to pass once. They will probably try again in a year and keep trying till people get tired of hearing it or they are distracted by something else until it gets passed and then the government will just refuse to repeal it or drag it out till people forget about the old ways.

What they need to hurry up and pass is a bill that makes it a law that ALL bills made past that point must have an expiration date where it must come up for review at least once every 10 years and if they miss the review or deny it, it is automatically taken off the books and will put a 10 year time table for all the current laws on the books so they must review each and every law passed and renew/revoke them as needed and check them again every 10 years and make sure they votes are on public record on every issue.

It would really cut down on the bad, useless and redundant laws already there and force politicians to reevaluate their laws every 10 years under the public scrutiny and their vote will be public knowledge.

Re:The bad thing about bad bills (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623162)

Unfortunately a law like that would be killed quickly by people dragging it out in the media crying how much money the law auditing is costing YOU, the tax payer and how the next income tax increase will be entirely to cover for the auditing process. And you'll see people immediately want that silly safeguard removed.

Re:The bad thing about bad bills (2)

margeman2k3 (1933034) | about 3 years ago | (#35623204)

That's not what happened though.
The bill was never voted on. It was on the table, but because parliament is being dissolved this week, they need to wait until after the election before they can vote on it.
Not only that though, because it's a new session of parliament, they would need to introduce the bill again and start the whole process again.
An article was published a while ago here [nationalpost.com] about this problem.

I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around. (3, Informative)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | about 3 years ago | (#35623168)

Their stance on copyright and open government is universes better than what Harper shoves down our throats every few years. So as long as they're the same or better than him on the other issues (I fail to see how they could be worse at this point) they're an improvement.

http://www.pirateparty.ca/ [pirateparty.ca]

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around. (1)

Rinnon (1474161) | about 3 years ago | (#35623220)

I plan to do the same. I think I'm even fortunate enough to have someone running in my riding, so they'll definitely get my vote. They'll never get elected, but I don't know if that's the point. If they can get enough votes that the other parties look at them and say "Hey, what are they doing to get all those votes? Maybe if we did what they do, we could take those votes back." And naturally, if suddenly the Liberal Party had the same policies as Pirate Party regarding Copyright, they'd have won my vote.

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around. (2)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | about 3 years ago | (#35623534)

I plan to do the same. I think I'm even fortunate enough to have someone running in my riding, so they'll definitely get my vote.

Yeah, turns out the party leader's in my riding (Edmonton Centre) and they're having some sort of everyone-welcome planning meeting this weekend. I think I'll go and see how it is.

Anyway, their candidates: https://www.pirateparty.ca/about/candidates [pirateparty.ca]
Which has a link to a handy check-what-riding-I'm-in tool: http://www.elections.ca/scripts/pss/FindED.aspx?L=e [elections.ca]

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around. (1)

alexandre (53) | about 3 years ago | (#35623516)

As a member, I wish they'd show up in my riding too, I guess at some point we'll have to do it ourself :P

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623906)

The non-democratic "first past the poll" system used in Canada virtually guarantees no representation for you.

For non-North Americans: federal elections are basically summations of a large number of localized elections (you vote not for a national list but a guy-around-the-corner); the first one to win that local election ("riding") takes with him/her 100% of the votes there. You only have to win, not get a majority. If this person has 40% of the votes, the other 60% is thrown out as if they were never there.

This means that smaller parties like the Pirate Party that raise valid issues will be silenced in parliament.

Superfluous (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | about 3 years ago | (#35623270)

This law would be superfluous anyway, it's already illegal to distribute and sell anything copyrighted without consent. Trying to pass this bill is wasting taxpayers' money.

And the bill came back (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 3 years ago | (#35623272)

And the bill came back... the very next day.
We thought it was a goner,
but the bill came back...
It just wouldn't stay away. ....

Voting is a waste of effort (3, Interesting)

holophrastic (221104) | about 3 years ago | (#35623406)

I'm one of the very large group -- one might say the majority, by the way -- who refuses to vote. This is another great example of why that's the case.

Certainly each party promisses something different, and has differing priorities and differing desires. But in the end, the actuall end-result difference between one party and another is totally and complete insignificant. A few more dollars in this direction, a few less in that direction.

In the end, at the end of the year, my taxes sumto roughly the same amount plus or minus 5%, the roads have roughly the same number of holes, there's about the same amount of construction, public transit still begs for money that I don't think it should have, the same number of hookers are on the same corners, and the same rocket-powered homeless person manages to get from the theatre performance to the stadium faster than I can.

With no difference of any substance, I care, but don't see any value in voting.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623598)

Voting is the price you pay for being misfortunate enough to be born (or naturalized) into a relatively stable Western nation. Like it or not, being moderately informed and taking a half hour to vote every once in a while is your civic duty.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort (3, Insightful)

holophrastic (221104) | about 3 years ago | (#35623768)

Not when it is ineffective. In the current situation, it's my duty to express the futility of the voting process. That too is a duty to be served. How many minority governments in sequence will in take? We're going to find out.

But seriously, when I skipped a class in high school they suspended me -- telling me to skip an entire day. I spent an amazing amount of time in pool halls. When an election creates a minority government that is ineffective, calling yet another vote among the same parties doesn't make any more sense. Do it enough times and you're certain to get nothing more than a random result.

Democracy's a joke in a world of expert marketing, and a misinformed public. Why would you have an uneducated vote counted equal to an educated vote? This isn't about electing a leader of a village. The world's gotten bigger, as have the issues. "majority" is meaningless -- the majority smoked, the majority did drugs, the majority can't manage a personal budget, the majority can't use their own computers that they use every day.

The majority need to be told "slippery when wet". You name for me ten things that aren't slippery when wet, that people encounter in a year. I've even seen signs that say "may be slippery when wet". Thanks for nothing.

Try the alternative (1)

johncandale (1430587) | about 3 years ago | (#35624106)

The more people lax on it, the more the elected won't Listen. if you keep voting people out, it's bound to get better. Problem is you get voting the same people in. But giving up is just childish. For someone who doesn't like the candidates, how many good alt candidates have you actually gone out of your house and supported? I don't mean to your friends who think like you, I mean actually trying to convince the other sides. But keep complaining because I'm sure if a voted in group is corrupt, a Non-voted in group is going to be sooooo much better. /sarcasm

Re:Voting is a waste of effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35624008)

You have very, very few duties to society but voting is one of them. You don't like what your choices are? Then join a party and take part in the choice of candidate and party platform. You don't want to do that? Then vote for who you consider to be the best alternative candidate. You only take the cowardly approach if you want a totalitarian government to step in. When voter apathy becomes too great, that's what happens next. Elections become pro forma for appearance only. If you honestly think there is no difference at all between parties then you are a fool. We currently have a Science Minister who is a Creationist. If that doesn't upset you then why not kill yourself now, you're already dead between the ears so no one will notice any difference.

People like you make me sick. You're a Quisling turncoat traitor to the Canadians who've gone before. People have died to preserve our democracy but ho hum, they must have just been fools for sacrificing their lives for some no account hipster who's too cool for school. When you see the rifle butt coming down on your face, remember you could have stopped it.

Melodramatic? Maybe, but if you think an election is only about what government can do for your self-centered ass then you're so totally missing the point it's tragic. But hey, with a little luck on your part, maybe the tragedy will descend on someone else, right?

Re:Voting is a waste of effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35624050)

There are people dying in the world right now for the sake of having a choice in their countries. And yet you throw your own choice away and let other people make the decisions.

Yes, it's hard to decide between similar options, but why let other people choose for you? Why not try to change things? Heck, run for office or something. Do you really not care at all about the future of your country and community?

duress (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623556)

Most of the musicians/artists that sign to these labels do so under duress, being compelled and or coerced to sign soley because of their need for money. So, as we all know, its not about the musicians'/artists' rights, but how these companies first illegally obtain these rights and then continuously exploit them to their end, regarding very little about the musician/artist. Its Tom Foolery by a select few over the masses. Someone should have the balls and 'lawful' wherewithall to step up and stop this for good.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...