na85

If our current government is what passes for responsible and professional these days, I weep for the future.

I'm surprised that +30% of people are choosing Harper in this poll. What exactly has he done that's been "great"? To my mind, his accomplishments include: -being found in contempt of parliament -defeating a series of weak Liberal opponents -ending the long gun registry ????

Trudeau apologized, non-issue.

Gee, an anti-Liberal editorial from the National Post? Excuse me while I write down this historic occasion.

An interesting yet not entirely unobvious conclusion. What's the alternative though? Communism?

They aren't fiscal conservatives. This is the Canadian Alliance party in most respects, under the guise of fiscal responsibility. It's up to the Senate now, and something tells me we won't see a rejection by the upper house.

Are you implying that there will ever be an absence of people to shoot the guns?

Not sure about municipal elections, but federally and provincially it's one person, one vote.

I'll be sure to come back to this thread in 3 years and do an "I told you so" post. The Western provinces won't elect an NDP government, with the possible exception of some ridings in BC. I would also expect Liberal numbers to rise somewhat when they field a more palatable candidate, further splitting votes on the Left.

The NDP will not be winning the next federal election. Without a charismatic leader like Jack Layton we're going to see a big drop in support, particularly outside Quebec.

Vitriol aside, this is surprisingly relevant. We see reports in the media almost daily, regarding flagrant civil rights abuses by agents of US law enforcement. This is particularly evident in the handling of the formerly peaceful Occupy movements. Why would anyone valuing personal freedom allow these thugs to have jurisdiction here in Canada?

Quite frankly, with the way civil liberties are going in the United States I'm not sure that a restrictive border is a bad thing.I'm certainly against US police officials enforcing US laws on Canadian soil - we are a sovereign nation and have our own laws. If I wanted to be subject to the laws of a shattered republic quickly becoming a police state I'd move to California where at least it's warm and sunny all year round.

I'm not really sure what Burqas have to do with cross-border policing.

Expect 3 more years of this garbage.

Okay so let's say the Conservatives don't do their jobs and instead of fixing the economy the spend time trying to smash the Liberals, and then when the next "report card" comes around in a few months, it gets voted down. The GG has the choice whether or not to ask the opposition to form a government or to call an election, but it's likely she'd call an election since so much time has passed?

Okay, so forgive my ignorance but I thought I understood the rules regarding confidence votes until recently, and now I see I do not. When a confidence vote fails, what are the criteria regarding dissolution of Parliament? I.e. when will the GG call an election, and when will she hand power over to the opposition without an election?

This got a little OT, but basically my point is that the CRTC does not act in the interests of Canadians. Anybody agree? Disagree?

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/11/20/tech-bell.html The recent decision by the CRTC to allow ISPs to continue their practice of throttling certain types of internet traffic greatly disturbs me. In case anyone isn't fully up to speed on the situation, here is some background: The term "Net Neutrality" refers to the principle that obligates network operators to preserve the integrity of data that flows through their networks. Similar to the principle whereby postal services do not prioritize communications of a certain type, or with certain recipients/senders, an ISP must not block, suppress, or otherwise prioritize specific applications, services, content or protocols based on ownership, source, or destination. A few years ago a new technology emerged called Deep Packet Inspection. DPI has a variety of uses, but one of those uses is by ISPs who can now inspect data as it flows in real-time, allowing providers to slow down certain types of traffic, to the benefit of others. This is of course against the principle of Net Neutrality. A non-neutral network hampers the consumer's right to choose, and affords too much power to the network operator (in this case the ISP). While it is true that a consumer may choose between more than one ISP in Canada, it is also true that the large incumbent networks already own much of the infrastructure, and therefore even if I choose to pay (for example) Rogers for my internet access, my traffic might very well go through the Bell and Shaw networks before it reaches its destination. As a result, the incumbent networks now have the ability to degrade the service of their competitors (although they may not be doing so at present). For a good example, see the case of Western Union around the turn of the 20th century. Network operators cannot be trusted to act in good faith. A neutral network fosters growth and innovation. A neutral network affords its users the ability to innovate without permission. It is this concept that allowed Tim Berners-Lee to introduce his radical concept to the Internet without consulting ISPs and network operators beforehand. Subsequently, Berners-Lee's invention has grown and spread to a position of ubiquity in today's society. We use it daily and many of us take it for granted. His invention is called the World Wide Web, and could not have become what it is today had it not been for the principle of Net Neutrality. A similar case could be made for Google, another startup that benefited from the level playing field and rose from obscurity to ubiquity. The Canada Telecommunications Act states: Also relevant is: Many applications use the Bit Torrent protocol to communicate over the internet, including peer-to-peer filesharing, internet radio, internet television, etc. This means that a streaming broadcast of, say, a university football game is rendered completely unwatchable after being throttled. The audio stutters and the video skips, often the two are not in synch. Section 27 of the Telecommunications Act stipulates that disadvantaging a user is permissible if it is reasonable. We've already shown that the disadvantage exists, and is specific to a certain set of users. The question remains, then, is it reasonable? Bell and other ISPs maintain that traffic throttling (they prefer the term "shaping" because it has fewer negative connotations ) is necessary because their networks are so congested with traffic that their hardware can't keep up. Somehow though, Bell managed to find enough bandwidth to launch www.bellvideostore.ca, a streaming-video site that allows users to "rent or buy thousands of dvd-quality videos" at the click of the mouse. Is this what the operator of a badly-congested network should be doing? Should they be investing capital to start up a bandwidth-consuming streaming video service? Or should they instead be investing in new network hardware and infrastructure so that they can actually deliver the speeds that they advertise? Part of the problem is that the Telecommunications Act has not been revised since 1993, a time when broadband connectivity was still in its infancy, and rich content on the internet was nigh unheard-of. Canadian law is not adequately equipped to deal with this issue. If the case cannot be made that the actions of Bell and other ISPs engaged in bandwidth-throttling constitutes an unreasonable or undue disadvantage as prohibited in s. 27 (2), then the Telecommunications Act needs to be modernized and the current situation taken into account. Obviously nothing can be done in the short term, since Parliament has been prorogued, but when the Government reconvenes this needs to be brought to light. This is an issue that transcends the petty, childish arguing going on in the House of Commons right now and deserves serious consideration, as it affects all Canadians, regardless of political affiliation. The CRTC's slogan, proudly displayed in bold across their website reads "Communications in the public interest." Public interest my ass. I consider myself to be a member of the public, but my interests are not being served by the CRTC siding with big business, to the detriment of myself and my fellow consumers. Something needs to be done.

I just spit orange juice EVERYWHERE Reminds me of Robin Williams' standup routine. "Once they pull that thing out of your ass, you. are. an. EVINRUDE!" http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...eoid=2015366890

Well I can't speak for English Canada as a whole, but I know a number of people, myself included, who feel that French Canada gets too much emphasis placed on it come election time.

I voted Green. I used to be a staunch Liberal suppporter but I just can't in good conscience vote for the current Liberal party, with a man like Stephane Dion at the helm.

Correct. And since the industry here was cut off at the knees, and was growing stronger in the US due to the space race, there are still more high-tech jobs in the states than there are here in Canada. I didn't say Dief the Chief's actions were the SOLE cause.

Ahh, but that would offend my partisan sensibilities

Many claim that the Arrow debacle is what started the so-called Brain Drain, whose effects we're still feeling today.

Please post updates re: McGuinty's response (if any). I'd like to know how this turns out.