Blog: Articles filed under Canada

My New Year’s Eve was pretty good. As I am not much of a party-goer I did not plan on doing anything special. My two friends Cassie and Carly had extended a casual invitation to perhaps do something. Eventually they decided to watch the hockey game, and having no interest in hockey, I did not go over to their house. But I asked them to “alert me in the event of an impromptu snowball fight”. Sure enough, around quarter after eleven, I received a pushy text message explaining that they were coming over to my house! This was followed by one that advised me to have my coat on—at that point, I knew the game was afoot, and I prepared to ambush their ambush. A snowball fight ensued, followed by the more constructive act of creating a snowman. Later we went inside and played a card game, Dominion, that their other friend had brought. It was intense and interesting, and it was a good evening.

New Year’s Day is always better than New Year’s Eve. Always. Because New Year’s Day is Public Domain Day. Every year, children and adults alike gather round to give thanks and feast, to celebrate the creations of authors who died 51 (or 71, if you live in Europe or the US) calendar years ago. We drink to the remembrance of these luminaries, whose legacies leave us with a lasting, inviolable cultural heritage.

Or at least we should.

Here is a short list of authors whose published works are now in the public domain in Canada. This includes Ernest Hemingway, and for those of you who like physics, Erwin Schrödinger. In Canada, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 50 calendar years after their death (hence New Year’s Day as Public Domain Day, when the work ticks over into the public domain). This is the “standard” term of copyright agreed upon internationally, but certain jurisdictions have chosen to extend that copyright term to the life of the author plus 70 calendar years (or “life+70”). Europe and the United States are among these countries. They are welcoming Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, and Frederick Banting, among others, into the public domain.

The public domain is amazing and vital to our society and our cultural heritage. Meera Nair has a succinct explanation of why this is over at her blog, Fair Duty, including the perspective of Project Gutenberg Canada founder Mark Akrigg. (That’s right, we have a Project Gutenberg Canada, because there are some works in the public domain in Canada that aren’t available in places like the United States.) Essentially, what the argument reduces to is one of cultural versus economic incentives. Copyright began as a limited monopoly on intellectual property to encourage creators to keep on creating by ensuring they would receive compensation for what the government deemed an appropriate amount of time. This appropriate amount—the copyright term—has continually been revised and extended over the past century. That’s not good.

Imagine if Shakespeare were not in the public domain today, but instead you had to pay someone’s estate for the right to adapt one of his plays? It might sound like an extreme example, owing to the Bard’s death 400 years ago, but hopefully this puts the public domain into perspective: it is a cultural treasury that keeps culture alive. It provides creators and consumers alike with a repository of material of cultural worth, and it offers a starting point for new, valuable works. Copyright is a good thing. The public domain is a good thing too.

The public domain in Canada is under attack. Go to the Project Gutenberg Canada website right now, if you did not click the link above already. At the time of this post they have the following statement on their homepage, in massive print:

It seems that Europe wants copyrights in Canada to last longer, and they want to take away 20 YEARS of OUR (not their) public domain! They call that “free trade”? We call it European colonialism! In Canada, we don’t let foreign governments write our laws!

Hyperbole? Perhaps a little bit, but the point stands: firstly, by signing this agreement our government unilaterally makes a significant commitment to change Canada’s intellectual property laws; secondly, the implications for those changes are, in my opinion, undesirable. The statement links to a blog post by Michael Geist, in which Geist elaborates on the implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement for copyright. This agreement would require its signatories to extend their copyright terms to life+70. Geist has a follow-up post that lists some notable Canadian authors whose works would be delayed from entering the public domain because of this extension. What I found most chilling, however, is this statement:

The extension in the term of copyright would mean no new works would enter the public domain in those countries until at least 2033 (assuming an agreement takes effect in 2013).

For twenty years, not one single work by any dead person would enter the public domain in Canada. That’s an entire generation of children growing up without being able to celebrate Public Domain Day.

If the Canadian government signs the TPP as it stands and extends the term of copyright to life+70 years, they will be sending an unequivocal signal that they do not think the public domain is of value. Worse, they will be dooming the Canadian public domain to stagnation, and endangering the cultural heritage of all Canadians. An entire generation of Canadians will grow up thinking that this gross distortion and abuse of copyright is legitimate.

But there is a thin, tiny sliver of hope. It’s not much. It’s not like copyright consultations ever got us anywhere in the past. But we have to act on it. You can write the department responsible for this and voice your opinion. Please do it. You have until February 14, 2012—that’s an entire month to compose one short and sweet email to consultations@international.gc.ca. See Professor Geist’s post for the snail-mail equivalents if you want them.

The public domain is a treasure. Don’t let the government shut it away in the closet for twenty years for the sake of international trade.

Last summer, the government of Canada held an open consultation on the issue of copyright reform. The result: over 8,300 submissions, over 6,000 of which expressed opposition to another copyright reform bill similar to Bill C-61. You can read my submission here.

It turns out that I and anyone else who submitted to the consultation, wrote a letter to his or her MP, showed up for a meeting or rally, or participated in the Facebook groups or online discourse, have done this all for nothing. We’ve been wasting our time. Because we‘re about to do this all over again.

What’s sad is that it didn’t have to be this way. Tony Clement is the Industry Minister now, and his attitude toward copyright reform is more sensible than Jim Prentice’s. Apparently he was open to a different approach than the one Bill C-61 took—and considering how unacceptable Bill C-61 was, I’ll take that. Alas, it looks like Mr. Clement and his fellow cabinet minister, James Moore have differing opinions. So Grandfather Harper intervened.

The result will apparently be a “Canadian DMCA” that is, as Cory Doctorow puts it, a “goddamned disaster.” While I don’t know if the new bill will truly live up to such rhetoric, I’m certain that a repeat of Bill C-61 is something Canadians neither want nor need. Not only does it mean that the copyright consultation was a huge waste of government time and taxpayer money, but it means the government refuses to listen to the people who elected it. Again.

I don’t know about you, but I’m starting to see a trend: proguing Parliament, denying access to the Afghan detainee documents, ignoring the results of a national copyright consultation … time and again, the Harper government had demonstrated that it is unwilling to listen to the public and prefers secrecy over transparency.

Michael Geist calls on us to “write a paper letter to your Member of Parliament” to express our dissatisfaction with this turn of events. I might have done that last year, but now my idealism is beginning to crack and peel. My MP is a member of the NDP! What change will he be able to effect? Even if the NDP hadn’t expressed support for fair copyright reform, they’d probably oppose the Conservatives out of political need anyway. But as long as the Harper government remains in power, the opposition parties will always be on the defensive.

Despite their sabre-rattling, do any of our opposition leaders really want an election? I don’t blame them for wanting to wait and see—none of our leaders impress me right now; my strategy at this point is pretty much, “don’t vote Conservative.” It’s not that I’m gung ho to see another Liberal regime … we just don’t really have many other options. Michael Ignatieff was in Thunder Bay yesterday to announce universal broadband access to all Canadians—especially rural Canadians—as part of the Liberal platform. Don’t get me wrong; I think it’s a wonderful idea and fully support it—but it’s just an idea right now. They’ve been talking about improving broadband access for years. I’ll believe it when I see it happen.

What I do believe is that a “Canadian DMCA” of any kind is a bad idea. However, it looks like as long as Harper is in the driver’s seat—with Moore riding shotgun—that will be the only option on the table. And to that I say: I‘m done.

You win, Mr. Harper. Please, do continue to prorogue Parliament and bully your MPs. Please, do continue to flout the democratic principles upon which our country was founded and reshape Canada into your perfect little principality. I will meekly go back to my books, stick my head in the sand, and exude the level of apathy stereotypical of my demographic.

Wake me up when there’s an election.

A week ago Thursday, I went to see The Vinyl Cafe live at our auditorium. But because I’ve been busy doing other things—i.e., homework—I haven’t bothered blogging about it until now.

I love The Vinyl Cafe, and nothing beats going to see it live. I went the last time the show was in Thunder Bay, two years ago, and I’ll go when it comes back in two years. Until then, I’ll continue listening to the show in podcast form and nurse my lovely swag, which this year consists of Secrets from the Vinyl Cafe and the Planet Boy CD, both of which I got signed by Stuart!

The musical guests accompanying The Vinyl Cafe were The Good Lovelies. I love how The Vinyl Cafe gives play to Canadian artists, especially new or relatively unknown artists—I’ve some songs I really like from listening to the show.

Why do I so love The Vinyl Cafe? We often define Canadian identity by negation (for example, Canadians are “not American”). Yet if I had to name something quintessentially Canadian, I would choose The Vinyl Cafe. Say what you will about what sort of programming the CBC is producing these days: the seats in that auditorium were packed on March 19, filled with people old and young.

As Stuart likes to do at these shows, he picked out the youngest and oldest people in the audience and gave them some prizes. Morgan, a 12-year-old girl, was not the youngest, but Stuart invited her on stage to showcase the prizes (albums from The Vinyl Cafe and associated musical acts). Upon learning that Morgan plays the piano, Stuart invited her to play something for us—and she did.

The oldest people in the audience were 93 and 95 years old (Stuart ended up giving them both prizes—he tends to be generous that way). The youngest person in the audience was an absolutely forthright and precocious 7-year-old named Connor. He was sitting in the balcony, and when Stuart had identified him as the youngest and asked, “How should I get your prize to you?” Connor’s response was, “Can I come down there?” Only it was in the loud, auditorium-quality voice only a 7-year-old has. So Connor came down on stage and did some very interesting dance moves. After Stuart presented a cake to one of the musicians, because it was her birthday, Connor also asked for a piece of cake, as 7-year-olds on stage are wont to do. Schenanigans such as these prompted Stuart, upon returning from intermission, to joke that they were “losing control of the show … we’ll look back and say, ’Remember that time in Thunder Bay when we lost control of the show?’”

But as he went on to explain, that tended to happen whenever The Vinyl Cafe performed live. The shows always “teeter” on the brink of losing control. Stuart always gets the audience involved with everything, turning his performance into dialogue rather than monologue—frequently commenting, for example, when we laugh in anticipation of something about to happen in a Dave and Morley story. We tend to get ahead of him.

The Vinyl Cafe is all about story, not just as a form of entertainment but as a way of bringing people together. The audience that night, listening to Stuart’s stories, to the musical performances, and to the forward requests of 7-year-olds, couldn’t help but feel more intimate with each other. And in that sort of atmosphere, we can relax, and then we can laugh at ourselves and at each other. We laugh at Dave and Morley because we do the same things, get in the same sort of situations, and so we’re laughing at ourselves. The same goes for the stories Stuart shares from other listeners through the Vinyl Cafe Story Exchange segments. Through music and story, The Vinyl Cafe lets friends and strangers alike share a common experience.

Thus, The Vinyl Cafe is quintessentially Canadian because it captures that quixotic Canadian oxymoron of self-deprecating pride in our country. By sharing stories, and sharing our stories, Stuart and his crew let us make fun of each other and of ourselves, even as we take pride in the things closest to us, like small towns, cherished shops, talented musicians, and lucky children. Sitting in the auditorium in that warm and charged atmosphere, I understood what pathos was. The Vinyl Cafe is all about expressing moments, and what it achieves is always beautiful, and very Canadian.

The war drums are sounding once again, and another election looms. The Liberals, led by the accomplished but detached Michael Ignatieff, are channelling Twisted Sister and are calling Prime Minister Harper out. But Harper says that Canadians don’t want an election.

So what?

I don’t want to take yucky-tasting medicine, but I do it anyway so I get better. I don’t want to pay more than $1 per litre of gas, but I do it anyway so my car will run. I don’t want an election, but we should have one anyway so Parliament will actually do something. The whining electorate complaining about our frequent elections miss one important fact: we’re part of the problem. We may not want another election, but at this point, we need one.

Do Not Pass Go; Do Not Collect $200

Much of the resistance to another election is purely about timing: there’s a sentiment that we just had an election, and it’s “too soon” for another. At first glance, this reasoning seems sound: the parties have not changed much in a year, and aside from one new leader—who, let’s face it, really isn’t that different from the old leader so far—it’s the same old faces and names. Why would an election this fall have a very different result from last fall? We’d just waste more time and money only to end up in the exact some spot.

The apparent futility of an election does not negate the necessity for one. Parliament will dissolve when it shows it has lost confidence in the government. Elections are a mechanism whereby Canadians voice their confidence in those parties; as the past few years have shown, confidence about all the major parties is low. Only 59.1% of the electorate voted; coupled with their shaky minority government, this barely gives the Conservatives a mandate to govern. The repetitive generation of a minority government doesn’t mean we should give up on holding elections—that’s absurd. It means that the political parties have to change the way they campaign and govern. If Harper wants to stop going to the polls every year, he has to either win a majority or govern well enough to keep the confidence of Parliament. The onus is on him to perform well.

Post and Propter, Meet Ergo and Hoc

Minister of Transport and Infrastructure John Baird says that “Ignatieff is just asking for an election for reasons of political opportunism,” and that’s probably true. It’s also beside the point.

What Baird’s misdirection obscures is the simple fact that this election has been coming ever since the Governor General prorogued Parliament last December deflated the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition juggernaught. The Liberal party has always intended to topple the current government, even before Ignatieff became the leader. As much as Ignatieff may want power for himself, he’s carrying out a party strategy that’s a year or more in the making. None of this is news.

What I do find interesting are the actions of NDP leader Jack Layton, who has announced his willingness to prostitute his party to Harper. This is the same Jack Layton who said he was going to work with the Liberals last year in a coalition government, the same Jack Layton who likes to give speeches about how the Conservatives have failed Canadians and we need a “third option.” And now, even as Ignatieff switches from sabre-rattling to sabre-sharpening, Layton’s trying to the brakes on this election and give Harper one more chance. That’s political opportunism. Despite any misgivings about Ignatieff’s suitability as a leader, at least he’s firm in his resolve to put an end to our playground Parliament.

You Are Our Only Hope

Yes, you, the eligible Canadian voter. Last year we went to the polls—well, 59 per cent of us did—and collectively decided to elect a minority Conservative government. Again. Yes, if we do have a fall election, it means that the Conservatives have failed twice to promote a working Parliament—regardless of their lofty goals or attempts to stabilize the economy.

This is our chance to change that. And if you don’t want to be back here in October 2010, once again trying to decide among Mikey, Jackie, Stevie, or even Lizzie, then you have a responsibility to yourself and to Canada to actually do something.

I‘m not telling you for whom to vote. As my attitude suggests, I won’t be voting for my Conservative candidate, and it wouldn’t be my first choice for the rest of you. But at this point, even a Conservative majority would be give our Parliament a chance to actually pass legislation and make policy for awhile. It may not be the legislation and policy that I want, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take—that’s the compromise of living in a democracy. Nevertheless, it is important that you do vote, that you cast off your apathy this once. Regardless of whether you vote or not, if you pay taxes, you pay for these elections and you pay the salaries of our MPs. Isn’t it about time they actually earn their keep?

We got us into this mess. And let’s face it: our politicians aren’t doing much in the way of getting us out of it, so it’s up to us to put a working government in power.

I woke up this morning to the following headline in my RSS feeds, courtesy of CBC News: N.B. school silences O Canada. It already had 249 comments then; it’s up to 658 comments as I’m writing this. CBC News has since updated the article to expand its content and provide a more detailed story; the original article was less informative, which didn’t stop people from commenting on it.

In case I haven’t been clear in the past, let me first establish that I don’t believe in being “politically correct”. What’s the point in living in a free country if you have to walk on eggshells just to avoid offending anyone? To that end, it’s Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays. You can say BCE or BC; I don’t care—it’s still inherently based on Christianity, so it isn’t “politically correct”—just annoying.

But I digress.

My initial reaction to the article was, “Well, this is stupid.” This was just another example of the politically correct movement going too far! There’s nothing wrong with singing the national anthem! Back in my day (I can’t believe it’s been two years already), I sang the national anthem aloud every morning at school—and I can’t sing, so I can only imagine what torture it was for my classmates. I still sing at baseball games. To me, singing the national anthem is appropriate at school and at sporting events. After all, I had been singing it ever since I was a ki—

That’s the point where, after reading the comments on the CBC article from people on both sides of the issues, I recognized that I was running up against a barrier of my own indoctrination. It’s true: I sing the national anthem because that’s what I was taught to do.

And if there’s anything I dislike more than the politically correct movement, it’s nationalism. Ick. Although I recognize that in some circumstances, nationalism is useful, it mostly just leads to trouble. We’ve all learned about the first two World Wars, correct? Good. I rest my case. Before I go on, however, I’ll mention that I consider nationalism and national pride to be two different but closely related concepts. Nationalism is national pride taken to the extreme; it’s socially-enforced national pride. I have no problem with people being proud of Canada; I’m mostly proud of Canada.¹ It’s when that pride motivates Acts of Stupidity that we need to take a step back and ask if what we’re doing makes sense.

Suddenly an issue like singing the national anthem in school no longer seems so simple. I can see arguments for both sides. On one hand, it’s stupid to remove this activity because a few students don’t want to participate. No one’s forcing students to sing the anthem. On the other hand, what does singing the anthem mean? Is it really required in school, or is it an unnecessary component of the indoctrination of children into Canadian society?

It’s hard to cast off the shackles of one’s own indoctrination. Not everyone succeeds.² Breaking free of indoctrination doesn’t mean rejecting indoctrinated values, although many see it that way. Instead, it means one has to examine one’s beliefs critically and look at alternative points of view to decide if those make more sense.

You Can’t Define With a Negative

It’s impossible to do justice to the subject of Canadian identity in this blog post. Better scholars than I have written books on this subject, so I won’t even pretend to be adequate at defining what’s Canadian. Nevertheless, we need a definition, something mildly more substantial than “not American”.

One commenter on the CBC article, jtbrown, said:

I think that people are missing the point that Canada is exactly the kind of country where it is okay to have this kind of opinion…. In Canada we are free to question the actions of government, to voice dissenting opinions, to stand up for the rights of minorities and to think and speak freely without the fear of reprisals, except, that is, from some outraged,blindly patriotic bloggers.

So rather than defining “Canadian” as who we are, let’s define it as what we can do—is not action better than mere existence? Thus, to be Canadian is to have the freedom to express one’s own opinions, as well as the ability to choose to respect the opinions of others, without being fettered by social or religious mores.

I Can Haz Anthemz Now???

Canada has always been ambivalent about nationalism, to the point of having multiple dates one could celebrate as Canada’s independence—1867, 1931, 1982. We didn’t have a our maple leaf flag until 1965. And as Americans are quick to remind us (to be fair, we‘re quick to remind them, with perhaps even more smugness), we didn’t fight for our independence—we asked nicely.³

Our national anthem, O Canada, became official in 1980. There’s actually two sets of lyrics—one English, and one French, in keeping with our bilingual society. The English lyrics have come under fire from secularists (for including the word “God”) and feminists (for the word “sons”). I’m not sure if the French lyrics have ever been criticized. They seem less controversial, although I could see “forefathers” upsetting the feminists, I suppose, and that whole thing about wielding a sword might anger pacifists⁴

For the record, I don’t believe in any particular God, but I don’t mind that our anthem has “God” in it. It’s not a big deal for me.

I like this comment by “middle Perspective”:

Learning and practicing our National Anthem keeps Canadian’s bound together on a national level. Our communities are all very different, and if we derived what we are from them (like you said), we certainly would not all be Canadian (e.g. Quebec, Newfoundland, Alberta). But with a national anthem, its a tool in which we all know what we mean to other communities and united on an international stage.

Most of us would agree that the anthem serves as a tool for promoting nationalism; that much is obvious. But if being Canadian involves respecting the diversity of others, even if they don’t agree with you, how does this affect the purpose of our national anthem?

“RrrPla” has a very specific idea about the role of the anthem:

Our national anthem is as intrinsic to our citizenship as is our right to vote, our freedom of conscience and right to live in peace. Canadian loyalty is not optional. It is mandatory, and symbols of our country such as the flag and anthem are not negotiable.

I‘m glad I don’t live in the same Canada as RrrPla. The idea of “mandatory nationalism” sounds vaguely like “militaristic nationalism” or even “national socialism”, and we all know how well that turned out.

Finally, Aaron A says:

There is nothing more Canadian in this country than its anthem, not playing it in schools is no different than refusing to fly the flag, and is tantamount treason. How this principal could side with a few unpatriotic parents over his country is appauling. If they don’t like the anthem, then they should live somewhere else!!!

I will agree that refusing to sing the anthem is unpatriotic, sure. But Aaron seems to equate being unpatriotic with treason, and that’s a rather large jump. Some people refuse to sing the national anthem due to their religious or personal beliefs—some religions forbid their followers from espousing loyalty to any other authority, and maybe a more ardent anti-nationalist than myself would refuse to sing the anthem due to its nationalistic purpose. These actions are unpatriotic, but that doesn’t make them wrong, bad, or treasonous. Furthermore, people who refuse to sing the national anthem can be patriotic or show national pride in other ways.

Our national anthem, then, evokes national pride and is a tool for promoting nationalism when Canadians need it most. It doesn’t seek to assimiliate the diversity of Canada’s cultures and force everyone to think or believe the same thing. It does encourage Canadians—all Canadians—to feel proud of the entire country.

Please, Think of the Children!

Yes or no: should all public schools in Canada play the national anthem at the beginning of each day, during which time students may sing if it pleases them, although singing is not required?

There is a difference between just playing the national anthem and singing it. Honestly, how many kids actually sing the anthem? When I was in high school, we didn’t sing the national anthem.⁵ It played out over the intercom, often in this bizarre technobeat that was a travesty of anthem. We would stand at attention, have a brief moment of silence afterward, then sit down and start chatting with each other. We‘d have to talk very loudly, of course, because there were announcements playing out of the intercom that threatened to drown out our important conversations.

But I digress.

Listening to someone play the national anthem is a more passive activity than singing it. It’s very hard not to listen, since you’d have to block your ears.⁶ Singing, on the other hand, implies you want to celebrate the national anthem.

With that in mind, my answer to the opening question for this section would be “Yes.” Public schools are supposed to educate children about Canada, and that includes the anthem. There’s nothing wrong with playing that anthem.

But what about having kids sing it? Here’s a few more comments I selected from the CBC article.

“Pinpatch” thinks we should all love one another but wants you to get “flack” if you don’t sing the national anthem:

I think it is so sad that there are so many people on here who think it is OK NOT to sing the national anthem. Part of living in this country is singing your anthem, and everyone should not only know how to sing it, but BE PROUD OF IT! I dont know what is wrong with our country,,,,, The US is very patriotic, and its a shame that we are not like that, no one seens to give a damn about our country anymore, when we have so much to be thankful and grateful for here. Stand on guard for your country, support our country, support our troops… love one another . freedom…. Thats what our anthem represents.

Rick Thibodeau’s particularly vocal in this discussion. As a local, he managed to put provide some perspective for the commenters who were blaming immigrants for this issue:

I think you guys are missing a big point; many of you believe it’s some immigration issue…last time I was in Belleisle, specifically around Hatfield point, Kars, Wickam, Norton, I didn’t see many immigrants, if ANY at all, waving their own flags around inciting some speech to reform school systems to include them. If anything, most of the population that exists there are pentecost and baptist…so WHO exactly are the ones taking down the anthem? Certainly not a dozen people…

Lastly, “Western Opinion” has a sardonic observation of a trend he or she has espied:

Yet another accommodation so as to not offend the very few.

Next on the list…..banning the use of red ink and x’s when evaluating student’s work or emphasizing the use of handwriting by the teacher because 1 student in the class can’t or refuses to learn how to read it.

This country is going in the toilet.

Thus I Take Refuge in Apathy

This article has certainly attracted discussion and comments from people on both side of the issue. At first I agreed with those who thought this all a bunch of politically correct nonsense. Then I agreed with those who thought this all a ploy by nationalists to further indoctrinate our children. Then I realized I had no clue what to think, and that I’m very, very confused.

So sing the anthem, don’t sing the anthem—ça m’est égal.⁷ We have better things to do in this country than debate about whether or not it’s good to recite a bunch of epideitic words at the beginning of each day. We still have no good leadership, a budget that will either fix all our worries or damn our economy once and for all, and Sarah Palin is gearing up her election machine for 2012!!⁸

Ideally I’d preserve the status quo—keep public schools playing the anthem, don’t force kids to sing it unless they want to sing. Offer some of those nifty noise-cancellation headphones for the kids whose parents don’t want them listening to it.

Oh, and for all those people who left comments on that CBC article to the effect of “if you don’t want to sing our anthem, you should get out of Canada”, shame on you. Such an opinion is not Canadian, and while I respect your right to voice it, I don’t agree with it, and it doesn’t improve my estimation of you. In this country, we‘re allowed to disagree with each other, but we should be civil about it. Just because our Members of Parliament fling insults at each other doesn’t mean we should. We are better than that.

In conclusion, Carthage must be destroyed.

---

• [ 1 ] Except for the parts currently occupied by Stephen Harper
• [ 2 ] Those who fail go on to lead successful lives at Fox News.
• [ 3 ] It helped that, by that time, Britain was pretty sick of us and was happy to dump us for India.
• [ 4 ] Which would result in a very sternly worded letter, I’m sure.
• [ 5 ] Except, as previously noted, I did, much to the regret of my classmates.
• [ 6 ] So if an anthem plays in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, is it still patriotic?
• [ 7 ] No, I’m not telling you what it means. Google it.
• [ 8 ] Breathe, Ben. It’s four years away. Plenty could happen before then. Her daughter could have another unexpected teenage pregnancy. We can only hope.

Now that everyone in Ottawa has some breathing room, what exactly is the state of Canada as a democracy and as a nation?

With the decision to prorogue government, constitutional expert Errol Mendes believes that Governor General Michaëlle Jean has set a dangerous precedent. In the future, prime ministers who face confidence motions in the House of Commons may also request prorogation of Parliament. Mendes does suggest that Parliament itself could “pass legislation to prevent abuse of the prorogation in the future,” so that’s good news—except that our Parliament doesn’t seem too eager to pass any legislation so far.

Democracy Isn’t Dead, Just Violated

The good news is that democracy isn’t dead: long live democracy. In fact, contrary to the spin being spun by both sides, the past few days have had nothing to do with democracy. Yes, it was a political crisis and an economic crisis; it was not a crisis of democracy. It’s not business as usual, but everything that has happened has happened within the bounds of a parliamentary democracy.

But that doesn’t mean everything is fine.

As mentioned above, the Governor General’s decision does set precedent that will affect the operation of our democracy in the future. Harper’s move is the most cowardly one he could take. Oh, he cites some good reasons: he wants Parliament to cool down and start working together; he wants the opposition parties to vote on a full budget and not just the small update that Flaherty delivered last week. That’s all well and good, Mr. Harper, but the fact remains that Parliament is suspended. We aren’t getting any legislation passed. So while Mr. Harper has not killed democracy (yet), he has raped it.

How To Break Parliament

So thanks to Harper’s inept handling of this situation, this is how it went down:

1. Last Wednesday, the Conservatives deliver their Speech from the Throne. No one cares.
2. On Friday, the Conservatives deliver their economic update, which plans to address the economic crisis.
3. The opposition parties announce that they do not support this update, which differs from what Harper had initially promised, and say, “screw this government, we’ll go build our own—with blackjack, and hookers.” Or something to that effect. On Monday, they sign a formal agreement to make the coalition official, including the support of the Bloc (who would not be a part of the coalition per se).
4. Harper, after unplugging himself from his wall charging unit, says, “I‘m afraid you can’t do that, Dion.” He accuses the opposition parties of being undemocratic, un-Canadian, and power-hungry. This turns the economic crisis into a political crisis.
5. The spin gets out of control during question period on Monday and Tuesday, deafening the Speaker. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians are beginning to wake up from their post-election coma and realize that something interesting is happening in politics.
6. In an attempt to sway public opinion, or perhaps just campaigning early for another election, Harper turns the economic-turned-political crisis into one of national unity as accuses the coalition of being a separatist/socialist sham.
7. When it becomes clear that only the intervention of the Governor General will resolve this situation, the economic-turned-political-turned-national unity crisis becomes a constitutional crisis as experts and laypeople alike speculate what sort of precedent the Governor General will set for future generations of aspiring power-hungry dictators.
8. This Wednesday, Harper meets with the Governor General behind closed, then open, then closed, then open doors at Government House. CBC Newsworld has nothing better to do, so it teaches aspiring reporters how to report when one is waiting for a story to break.
9. Governor General prorogues Parliament on advice from Prime Minister Harper. This makes a lot of people very angry/happy and is widely considered a bad/good move.

To summarize: a problem that began in the economy became a political one that became a question of national unity that turned into a constitutional matter that is now back to politics. Oh, and we haven’t fixed the economy yet.

Quebec Cage Match Still Set for Quarter-Past Never

The Conservatives made quite a fuss over the Bloc Québécois’ involvement in the Liberal-NDP coalition, going so far as to call the coalition “separatist” (or if they were talking in French, “sovereigntist”). Unfortunately, this tactic has resonated with many Canadians outside of Quebec who do not support the coalition. There are plenty of valid reasons to be against this coalition, but because it’s a “separatist” coalition that plans to break up our country is not one of them.

It’s a good thing that no one in this country is bilingual, or else someone would realize the Conservatives’ duplicity on this front. And I pity the Conservative candidates in Quebec come next election….

Null Output: Try Again? y/n

In the end, you’ll notice that we haven’t actually gotten anywhere as far as governance is concerned.

It remains to be seen if the coalition can survive until the Parliament reconvenes on January 26. While most of the Liberal and NDP MPs insist that the coalition can remain intact, some such as Jim Karygiannis, suggest that the coalition will not survive, especially if Dion remains leader.

The House of Commons sat for so short a time before Parliament prorogued that they managed to pass no legislation nor do anything for our economic crisis—the very crisis that started this whole mess. We have to wait until January for new laws and a new budget.

So yeah … lots of stuff to look forward to in January. More Chuck, more Battlestar Galactica, more Parliament.

I will be the first to say that the Governor General’s decision to prorogue Parliament is the worst of the possible outcomes we could have seen today. It is not a solution to the crisis. Rather, it is a stall tactic that delays a confidence vote—a vote Harper’s Conservatives will likely lose. Moreover, how is this helping our economic situation, which is supposedly so dire that it needs immediate action? If Harper really thought the economy mattered more than his ego and desire for power, he’d seek a better solution—not necessarily yielding to a coalition, sure, but definitely not suspending our legislative assembly!

That said, I‘m glad that we now have a concrete decision, even if it’s an ambiguous concrete decision!

I respect that in our parliamentary democracy, the Governor General’s role is to make a decision like this, and I do not envy her this responsibility. No matter what she decided today, she would have upset some Canadians and set a precedent for future governments. I disagree with her decision, but respect it as a democratic one.

This is why I prefer parliamentary democracy to any other system, such as the American one. We have this check on the power of the Prime Minister’s office. Notice that the politicians are not blaming the Governor General; they blame Harper. Not only is this a smart move (since Harper is publicly elected; the Governor General is not), but it is symbolic of our democracy: it’s Harper’s fault that the situation has degenerated to such a degree as to require prorogation. The Governor General weighed the options and decided that this would be the best for Canadians.

In answering reporters‘ questions outside of Government House, Harper implied that the opposition parties are required to work with him to produce a budget that will help Canada’s economy. Well, the opposition parties are already working with each other, and they outnumber the Conservatives—Harper should work with them. Perhaps a coalition isn’t a good idea right now; maybe it would be unstable. But that does not mean that the Conservatives can rule like a majority government.

Don’t blame the Governor General if you’re upset with her decision. It isn’t her fault that our politicians are self-serving and shortsighted. We have a dearth of great leadership in our country right now. I am not disappointed in Canada as a democracy. I am disappointed in Canada’s political leaders for squabbling like children instead of running our country.

At this point in the game, I feel sorry for small C conservatives. Part of the problem for liberal voters in the last election was that we had a choice for whom we could vote. Aside from abstaining, voting for a conservative independent, or voting for someone who is probably more left of centre than one’s ideology would like, conservative Canadians are stuck with Harper. And that sucks.

Stephen Harper has wrought considerable damage to the Conservative Party of Canada. He has tarnished its reputation and diminished its influence. The Conservatives had a real opportunity in the past years after the fall of the Liberals and the adscam; Stephen Harper squandered that opportunity. The result? There may be another election in a couple of months!

In Question Period today, rather than try to address tangible disadvantages to a Liberal-NDP coalition—and there are such disadvantages, for sure—Harper led the Conservatives on a spurious, ad hominem attack round against the opposition parties. He accused the leaders of being un-Canadian because they refused to sign their coalition agreement in front of a Canadian flag—this accusation is also false, incidently. Of course, accusing one’s opponent of being unpatriotic is the last defence of a desperate politician; we saw similar tactics in use during the American presidential election.

Similarly, the Conservative party line regarding the coalition is that it is a “separatist coalition”, a coalition in which “a separatist party would have veto power.” These phrases came up over and over during Question Period, and Jim Prentice repeated them during his interview on CBC Newsworld. The Conservatives insult the intelligence of Canadian voters by promoting such nonsense. Yes, the Bloc Québécois supports the coalition. But they don’t get veto power—on the contrary, the agreement binds them to support the government on confidence motions until June 30, 2010. Recall that the Conservatives currently have a minority government, and the Liberals and NDP don’t feel too amenable right now. If the Conservatives hope to pass any legislation, they need another party to support them—by alienating all the opposition parties, they are essentially guaranteeing an election or a coalition government.

Mr. Harper does Canadians a disservice by engaging in such slander and rhetoric. In order for Canada to be a strong democracy, we need dissenting points of view: liberal and conservative. So my heart goes out to you, Canadian conservatives, for what you are enduring right now, what amounts to the mockery of a once proud founding party of this country. We can only hope that whatever the outcome of the current situation, it will result in improvements to the leadership of the Conservative party.

And that pigs will fly.

Let’s talk now about those possible outcomes. There are essentially three scenarios, and it rests largely on the shoulders of our Governor General. Firstly, Harper could ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. Should the opposition parties defeat the government, the second and third options, respectively, would be to call an election or invite the opposition parties to form their proposed coalition.

Proro-what?

Many politically savvy Canadians, myself included, were not familiar with the term proroguement until this week. When parliament is prorogued, the current session ends and all bills die, but Parliament is not dissolved and we do not have an election. Harper could request the Governor General to prorogue parliament in order to avoid losing a confidence motion.

To me, this seems like the least democratic of the three options. Essentially it’s Harper requesting a do-over of the past two months. Since we do we give politicians do-overs? The promise that Harper made was that his stronger minority government would work with the entire parliament to actually govern. Harper has failed to deliver. Now instead of changing his tact, he’s just going to delay governing more.

Plus, I fail to see how this will solve anything. It seems like it will delay the inevitable: barring a major dispute, I doubt the opposition parties will abandon their coalition plans in the course of a couple of months. So they will just defeat the government at the first opportunity in the next session of parliament. Harper can’t stall forever. I suppose he could wait until the economic crisis grows dire enough that the parties have to support whatever economic plan he proposes, simply to take action to help the country. But since when has holding the country hostage been democratic and in the best interests of Canada?

It Was So Fun the First Time

Some of the rhetoric today in Question Period leads me to believe that Harper has already geared up his campaign machine again. Let’s just go back to the polls—October’s election was too ambiguous; let’s do it again. Because it was so much fun the first time around. Let’s see: same leaders, same platforms, essentially the same (if not worse) economic situation. How is the outcome going to change significantly? Moreover, last election saw the lowest voter turnout in history. Somehow I suspect that an election so soon on its heels would break that record.

Let’s Work Together

By now it’s obvious that I’m incredibly biased in favour of a coalition. Let me quickly point out why that is so before I take a moment to critique such a coalition.

Aside from the reasons I mentioned yesterday, a coalition carries with it the implication that we will get things done. Many Canadians expressed anger at our last election because it meant several more weeks without any effective governance from … well, from our government. Similarly, many Canadians now are angry at all our parties for playing games with our political system. And rightly so.

But as I pointed out above, prorogument and an election both result in further delay. A coalition has no such delay: together the three opposition parties can pass legislation whether the Tories like it or not.

It’s true, however, that a coalition is not without its disadvantages. There is the uncertainty surrounding leadership: Dion lost the confidence of the Liberal party, but under the current plan he would become prime minister (at least until the Liberals choose a replacement in May). Will a synthesis of Liberal and NDP economic plans successfully help see our economy through these difficult times?

I can see why some people just want the Governor General to call an election—they don’t necessarily want an election, but since one of the above three scenarios has to happen, an election is, to them, the least of the three evils. I’m still in favour of a coalition. It’s the most interesting of the three options, and I like interesting.

And hey, at least the three opposition leaders are trying something innovative! All Harper has been doing is whining. It’s getting very tiresome.

I love this country, and I love our politics.

Canadian politics are often not as exciting as American politics. And that’s true—due to the two-party system in America, the political landscape is a vast minefield of polarized partisanship. In Canada, while we do have two major parties, we have two other parties who exert a strong influence in Parliament.

But this is why I love Canadian politics: it may not be as exciting as American politics in general, but it can get exciting at any time. Due to our parliamentary system, the government can be defeated on any motion considered a “confidence motion”. So in America while the President is elected independently of the legislature every four years, and is generally stuck in office for four years, our leader changes as the government does, and our leader can potentially change at any time.

Last Friday, Canadian politics got exciting again. The three opposition parties announced that they were in talks to form a coalition government. That means that rather than any one party forming the government, two or more parties would work together to form the government and pass legislation. In order for this to happen, the opposition parties would first have to defeat the government. Their first opportunity to do this was supposed to be today, but in response to this coalition talk, Harper pushed the vote back a week.

At this point, I’ll digress for a moment to talk about how monumentally poorly Harper has managed this situation. While it’s true that the election gave him a stronger minority than before, that’s no reason he should be able to govern like a majority government. The opposition parties have timed this move in response to the lacklustre economic plan that the Tories introduced last week; accusations that this is a “backroom deal” that’s been in the works for months are irrelevant—who cares? The opposition parties have many other legitimate grievances other than the Tories’ economic policies; they would have found a reason to defeat the government eventually.

Harper went on to accuse this coalition proposal of being an undemocratic attempt to seize power with a clear mandate from the people. I‘m wondering in what book a minority government comprises a clear mandate from the people. I’m also wondering how this situation has changed from when Harper was a signatory to a letter to the Governor General proposing a possible coalition if Paul Martin’s government were defeated. Lastly, Harper accuses the opposition parties of being undemocratic, yet he is the one who is delaying this confidence motion and who may even prorogue Parliament to prevent his government’s defeat. Yes, because not assembling the democratic assembly is so very democratic.

Plus, postponing the vote just gives the opposition parties more time to organize. It became pretty clear that the three parties were amenable to a coalition idea and were close to working out the specifics, but the wild card was still who would lead it—since the Liberal leadership isn’t exactly solid right now.

Today, however, marks the end of Mr. Harper’s rosy little minority government. The three opposition leaders appeared in a press conference where they signed a formal coalition agreement that would outline the terms of the proposed government. The Liberals and NDP would form the government with the support of the Bloc, who would agree not to vote against the government on confidence motions until at least June 30, 2010. The coalition agreement between the Liberals and NDP will be effective until at least June 30, 2011. Both of these dates can be extended if so desired. The NDP will receive 25% of the cabinet posts, although the deputy prime minister and finance minister will be Liberals. Stéphane Dion will be prime minister for the interim until the selection of a new Liberal leader on May 2.

It’s almost an underdog story, the stuff out of Disney movies: the little Liberal who could! Here Dion “leads” the Liberals to their most crushing defeat in history, steps down as leader, and now faces the prospect of being prime minister! What a great come back.

The question now is not if the government will be defeated, but when. Once the government is defeated and Parliament dissolves, it will be up to our Governor General, Her Excellency Michaëlle Jean, to decide to call an election or to invite the opposition parties to form a coalition government. Until the parties signed this agreement, I was sceptical that a coalition could come to fruition. But now it looks pretty likely—I doubt many Canadians would want another election so soon after the one this October.

This is history in the making, a nearly unprecedented event in Canadian politics. The proposed coalition government is democratic, no matter what the pundits say, and it is such a Canadian solution to our political problems.

I have discovered how I will get through the next six months. Or year. Or two years. However long it is until Stephen Harper tries to get a majority again. I will watch CBC comedy news shows.

What would I ever do without The Rick Mercer Report or This Hour Has 22 Minutes?!

For my American friends, The Rick Mercer Report is similar to The Colbert Report. Mercer does a lot less in-studio, however, and has more clips where he goes out and meets people, politicians¹, goes to schools, and gets naked.² He has a regular photo challenge on his site where anyone can edit a photo he posts, and he’ll put them up in his gallery.

I don’t know what the American equivalent of This Hour Has 22 Minutes is. You’ve got a cast of news anchors who know no boundaries in “reporting” current events. When I was younger, I grew up on Royal Canadian Air Farce; I didn’t watch This Hour Has 22 Minutes much. However, as Air Farce declined, I started watching 22 Minutes more and more, and now I watch it exclusively. Some of their sketches are quite creative. And they are Canadian, so obviously Canadian. It’s wonderful.

There’s clips (pretty much full episodes broken down by sketch) for both the Mercer Report and 22 Minutes on their respective CBC websites. Not sure if non-Canadians can watch them, but it’s worth a try if you’re interested.

These sort of political commentary shows, in both Canada and America, can do something regular news corporations cannot: they don’t have to impartial! And that makes it so much more fun. Moreover, these comedians can poke and pry into issues that might be too sensitive or not “politically correct” enough for the evening news. Whether or not you agree with these comedians’ perspectives or laugh at their jokes, they do us a great service in a society where freedom of speech is eternally at risk.

---

• [ 1 ] Yes, I am implying what you think I’m implying
• [ 2 ] Really. But I won’t tell you any more than this, because now you’ll waste half an hour searching the Internet to find out. Muwahahahaha!

The polls are closed, and the votes are mostly tallied. Last month, Stephen Harper called an election; this month, he was re-elected with yet anohter minority government—a stronger minority, but still a minority. In the ensuing chaotic coverage, some interesting trends have emerged. The new hot issues are Liberal leadership, government functionality, voting reform, and voter turnout.

The Liberals lost eighteen seats (at the time of this writing), which is a blow for them. Still the official opposition, yet weakened. Additionally, Dion declared in his concession speech that he would be willing to work with the Conservatives on the economic “crisis” that we’re facing. While I commend Dion for extending the olive branch, two questions come to mind: does this mean the Conservatives will have a de facto majority? And will this matter at all in a week or two when the Liberals get a new leader? For indeed, if there was anything the majority of pundits agreed that Dion is done. My opinion of Dion improved during this campaign; however, that still doesn’t mean he’s a strong leader.

The next question is: will this government be functional? Harper’s cited reason for calling the last election was that government no longer worked properly. The Conservatives have made some gains and the Liberals some losses. With a potential new Liberal leadership, will the government work together better? I’m going to be optimistic here. I predict that the government will indeed work well for at least a year, hopefully two (as the CBC panel’s predicting). There’s several reasons for this: firstly, none of the party leaders are eager for another election. I‘m ready for another one, but I don’t think it’s in Canada’s best interest right now. Secondly, although Harper has made gains, his experience with the last government will hopefully temper his attitude when it comes to cooperating. I‘m hoping he’ll play nicer with the Liberals when it comes to the economic issues on which he needs their support.

A lot of the talk on Twitter concerned reforming the electoral system. People were disgruntled with the low voter turnout. Complaints abounded regarding the new ID rules, which some people thought were the primary reason so many didn’t vote. While I don’t know about that, I can understand why the ID rules are a concern. Many are advocating reforms to the system, things like proportional representation, to mitigate the influence of parties like the Bloc Québecois, who have forty-eight seats (at the time of this writing) but only ten per cent of the vote.

As I mentioned above, I spent most of the night glued to Twitter’s search engine following some Canadian election hashtags, and I tweeted quite a bit myself. The Twitter coverage was actually much better than the coverage on television! Real reactions from real people across the entire spectrum. CBC’s TV coverage was unhelpful. Their graphics lacked relevant statistics and were uninformative. Their opinions weren’t very insightful. The CBC website was much more helpful, with an interactive map showing the current disposition of the ridings, plus very detailed statistics for each riding—I commend the CBC’s web team.

I was very disappointed with Susan Ormiston’s Ormiston online coverage of the online reaction. Ormiston displayed a remarkable lack of competence using the technology she had in the nerve centre tonight. In her defence, some of that incompetence may be due to the technology itself. From the looks of things, she wasn’t very well equipped to cull and display particular tweets or emails very nicely. It looked like some sort of hastily-created mashup in a notebook program with a couple special effects.

In addition to the poor presentation, whatever happened to actually covering the Internet reactions? At the beginning of the special coverage, they went to Ormiston, who explained how throughout the night they would refer to her for the reaction of people on Twitter, on blogs, through emails, etc. I think they referred to her a total of about three times. So much for listening to public reaction. Although the Internet is helping people have their voice heard, I don’t think that we‘re quite at the point where social media is becoming the new paradigm for politics. Not yet. Maybe in the next decade, but first we need a generation of newscasters adept at manipulating and participating in the paradigm.

Well, I have class in seven hours, so I should go to bed. To all of those who voted, no matter for whom you voted, I thank you for participating in our democratic system. To those of you who didn’t vote, I’m disappointed.

I shall close by quoting Kevin McCann tweet, which may be the best comment of the night:

U.S. friends, Canadian election is over after just 6 weeks. 60% voted left-of-centre; right-of-centre government gets in.

OpenOffice.org 3.0 is out today, so while I was downloading the torrent, I remembered I had yet to watch Michael Moore’s free film Slacker Uprising chronicling his campaign to get slackers to vote in the 2004 American presidential election.

The film was interesting. Whatever you think of Michael Moore’s position or techniques, he’s certainly passionate about what he’s doing. And democracy may not be the most perfect system of government, but it seems to be the best one we’ve tried so far. Democracy is all about getting the people to vote, and Michael Moore was encouraging people to vote. As Martha Stewart might say, “That’s a good thing.”

Tomorrow is Election Day here in Canada. If you are a Canadian citizen and 18 years of age or older, you can vote. If you aren’t sure how to do this, go to the Elections Canada website. If you can vote, you should vote. Even if you’re going to vote Conservative (I’m not), I want you to go and vote. We live in a democracy; it is your duty as a citizen to participate in the democratic process by voting for your representative in the next government.

You don’t need to be a political junkie to vote. I wish that everyone could be an informed voter, but that isn’t a requirement either. Just go to your polling station tomorrow and vote. There’s still time to research party platforms if you really want to be informed. Otherwise, just mark a name on the ballot.

If you don’t vote, then what right do you have to complain when someone you dislike comes into power? You didn’t do anything to even try to stop it from happening. If you don’t vote, then what right do you have to complain when the government cancels a program from which you benefit or introduces legislation that affects your family? Some people don’t vote because they’re apathetic—I find this particularly true of my peers. Like it or not, however, as long as you live in Canada, the actions of the government are going to have an impact on you. If you don’t vote, you’re sending the message that you don’t care about living in a democracy.

It doesn’t take up your whole day. It doesn’t even take up an hour. If you have already voted, then good job. You’ve done your duty. You can go home, sit on the couch, and watch TV until the next election rolls around—I won’t bother you. If you haven’t voted yet, then tomorrow, go to your polling station with the proper identification, get a ballot, and make your mark. That’s all you have to do.

This morning I went to a debate for the candidates of Thunder Bay-Superior North (my riding). The debate was hosted by LUSU, so naturally most of it was focused on how the candidates can help students. There were plenty of questions about student loans and debts, jobs after graduation, taxes, etc. I used the debate as an opportunity to actually familiarize myself with the candidates, one of whom will represent me in Ottawa by the end of this election.

The four candidates were Brendan Hughes (Green), Bruce Hyer (NDP), Don McArthur (Liberals), and Bev Sarafin (Conservatives). Naturally I‘m biased toward the left, and this presents me with the question: if I think the Green Party or the NDP would do a better job than the Liberals, should I vote for one of those candidates instead of voting for the Liberal candidate, thus splitting the Liberal votes and enabling the Conservative to get elected?

Watching the candidates speak, I was able to get a sense of how they’d do in the House of Commons, as well as their stance on the issues. All were articulate; all tried to emphasize their personal connection to the region and their commitment to being our voice in Ottawa. Great. But what good is a voice unless it says what I want it to say on my behalf?

After opening statements and two prepared questions, the moderator (Doug West, a professor of political science at LU) opened the floor to questions. I asked the third question:

Copyright reform has received much attention since the introduction of Bill C-61. Critics of the bill point out that there has been a lack of open, public consultation and that the bill may be unenforceable without raising privacy concerns. The bill’s emphasis on technological protection measures has wide-ranging implications. For students and teachers, it may interfere with access to materials for assignments and lessons. What can you do to provide fair and balanced copyright reform?

Each candidate had two minutes to respond to the question. I was unimpressed with the responses. For the most part, I think that my question was unanticipated, especially coming from a student-focused debate. But that’s good: these people should be able to improvise on the spot. Otherwise, they’ll be eaten alive during Question Period.

• Bev Sarafin essentially said that if she gets elected, then she’ll be willing to discuss which parts of the bill (she called it “Jim Prentice’s bill”) I find dissatisfactory. Apparently she missed the day in school where we learned that you tell people how you‘re going to fix things first, then you get their vote. Not the other way around.
• Brendan Hughes was the second to respond, confessing a lack of knowledge on the bill but expressing a desire to learn more about the issue. I applaud his willingness to learn and understand that not everyone can be intimately familiar with every single issue, but it does seem like he was unprepared to answer my question.
• Don McArthur actually addressed the question, calling for provisions that enshrine fair use in law. He specifically cited that Canadians should be able to copy music from a computer or CD to an iPod (a practise that, right now, isn’t actually legal). For a two-minute response, I suppose it was fair.
• Bruce Hyer was the only one who seemed to have a prefabricated response at the ready. I’m not surprised, since the NDP has been on the ball with copyright from the beginning. However, since it was a prefabricated response, it was heavy on the NDP and light on the Hyer. He denounced Bill C-61 and praised fellow NDP member Charlie Angus, telling us to refer to his website. While it’s good that he was prepared, I would have liked to hear more than a party line.

I’m still not certain for whom I shall vote. I liked Brendan Hughes; he spoke well when it came to clarifying that the Green Party isn’t a one-issue party. They simply take the environment into account in all their policies, not just as a separate issue. I thought that was a good point. However, I don’t know if I like Elizabeth May. The more I think about it, the more Stéphane Dion seems like the best of the current choices for prime minister.

Maybe the English-language debate tonight will help me decide. Election Day is October 14. We shall see.

CBC radio show Spark wants to know what Canada needs to do today to become a major innovator tomorrow. This is an important issue with the election looming. In addition to interviewing technology experts, the Spark blog has asked listeners to submit their own “Digital Wish Lists”. Here’s mine:

1. Establishment of a Minister of Technology. I agree with Mitch Kapoor. We have a Minister of Health, a Minister of Industry—why not someone in charge of the country’s technological infrastructure?
2. Better copyright reform. Bill C-61 has demonstrated that many Canadians care about copyright reform. Even if one is in favour of the copyright protection measures outlined in Bill C-61 (I am not), critics have pointed out numerous flaws that make Bill C-61 a poor piece of legislation. I want our government to have open consultation with the public to craft viable, enforceable copyright legislation that balances intellectual property ownership with the need for access to information.
3. More competition in the telecommunications sector. I am not a capitalist, but a lack of competition does mean that consumers have less choice. Here in Thunder Bay, we have one choice for cable TV service: Shaw. Until recently, only local TBayTel provided home phone service; now Shaw does too. Only TBayTel and Rogers provide cell phone service. That doesn’t leave the consumer much choice when it comes to negotiating contracts. On a national level, a lack of competition stifles innovation and growth.
4. Nation-wide improvement to technological infrastructure. Broadband penetration. We need it. Not just fibre-optics right to homes (which would be nice), but also coverage in rural areas. Bring Canada into the 21st century.
5. Access to government databases. Putting publicly-available data online should be a priority. People need to be informed; an online presence is virtually a requirement for any organization. The government has already made good progress, but it can still go further and think bigger.
6. Government adoption of open alternatives to proprietary formats. The Quebec government was recently sued for buying proprietary software. While I don’t know if I’d go that far, the government should explore alternatives to proprietary software. Otherwise, businesses like Microsoft and Apple have unnecessary leverage.

Technology advances too quickly for a mechanism like government to legislate in real time. Like any social fad, once a technology becomes mainstream, it pretty much stays until rendered obsolete by newer technology. Rather than trying to create legislation about specific technology, the government needs to establish a framework that encourages the development of technology along certain trajectories.

Part of my comment on that entry was included in this week’s episode of Spark. It’s also got an interesting tale from Bill Parry, an intriguing new service from Nathan Eagle, and a discussion on the French-English digital divide.

It’s official. Prime Minister Harper met with Governor General Michaëlle Jean today, and she dissolved Parliament, triggering an election. Canadians will vote on October 14.

The American election machine has been rumbling away for the better part of a year now, and we have called and will be finished our federal election before the Americans even get to vote. I love Canada’s electoral system.

What I don’t love is the lack of any charismatic leaders and the lack of any compelling candidates in my riding. The Conservatives have already begun airing these obnoxious ads that consist of Harper sitting in a chair, wearing a vest—very “casual” indeed—and talking about how he enjoys being a father, how he is proud of Canada as a country, and how he wants Canada to have a greater role on the world stage. The tagline of the commercials is: “We’re better off with Harper.” I, for one, find this tagline hilarious.

The CBC has spent most of the day focusing on voters’ response to the election call: are we ready for the election? The response has been mixed. Many people have expressed disapproval, since Harper was a proponent of the fixed election date law that the government passed in 2006. They see this premature election call as a betrayal of his promise for fixed election dates. They also see it as a waste of time, that not many seats will change hands, and the election will result in essentially the same government at great expense to taxpayers. Others, like myself, feel that the election is necessary.

My dad and I listened to CBC’s Cross Country Checkup today, and it seemed like most of the people who phoned in to talk about the election supported the Conservatives! Could it be true? Could we end up with a Conservative majority? Perish the thought. On the CBC website, comments lean more toward the anti-Harper side of things. From a demographic standpoint, this makes sense. To illustrate, I’ve prepared the below Venn diagram. I don’t actually have any statistics, and I’m too lazy to make them up (as most statistics are), so I‘ve decided to just insert some random animal names instead. You can make up numbers if you like.

My riding has three candidates running, one from each of the three major parties. I’ve yet to see if the Green party will be floating a candidate. The incumbent MP, Joe Comuzzi, who ran as a Liberal and is sitting as a Conservative now, is not running again. It’ll be interesting to see who wins my riding, and in turn, if Thunder Bay will benefit from this election, no matter what it holds for Canada in general.

Humans are an insane and suicidal species. This is not a new revelation to most of us, I‘m sure. Nor is it news that the world is crazy. But let’s stop and reflect for a moment on some recent events that underline such insanity, shall we?

First on the block is the situation in Georgia. When this originally happened, I could understand (but did not approve of) Russia’s actions. The area is ethnically diverse and highly conflicted. While South Ossetia may be a part of Georgia, it seems to be more sympathetic to Russia. Unfortunately for them, they’re still part of Georgia, and that doesn’t give Russia much business sending troops in there. Russia claims that their troops are peacekeeping forces, a response to Georgian troops sent into South Ossetia to quell militants. Then, however, Russia sent troops past the border of South Ossetia into other regions of Georgia!

After France finally brokered a ceasefire, Russia agreed to withdraw its troops. So far such withdrawals have been minimal. The Russians are playing the old game of “the truth is what we say it is, not what you see.” The Russian officials insist that they are withdrawing; soldiers continue to fortify their positions in Georgia and some say that they have received no word to leave.

Next up: America (of course!). Let me try and get this one straight: America is a capitalist country, where success (measured in wealth) is a product of individual strength and determination. Yet the two major presidential candidates are engaged in an attempt to make the other one look like an elitist—i.e., a successful, wealthy individual. Obama’s campaign is accusing McCain of owning too many houses; McCain’s campaign gives out free tire gauges to show that Obama’s energy plan is lunacy … it’s a shame American politics are more interesting than Canadians politics right now. I love watching The Colbert Report, but I feel vaguely un-Canadian.

Speaking of Canada, is any one else ready for an election? The sad part is that none of our leaders are particularly charismatic or worthy, in my view, of leading the country. However, Stephen Harper hasn’t done a very good job so far, and now instead of just being dysfunctional, he’s beginning to show signs of adversely affecting the country. I’m concerned about Bill C-61, and you should be too. An election would give us more time to hash out a better set of copyright amendments.

I don’t know that Stephan Dion will be a better Prime Minister, but maybe we can taunt him into doing our bidding by making fun of his passive-aggressive leadership style!

You often hear someone invoke the phrase, “As a __,” in which he or she then goes on to name some sort of position or title that gives him or her the ability to voice an opinion on the subject at hand. “As a world leader…,” “As a scientist…,” “As a schoolteacher…,” “As an evil overlord….” Here’s something on which we should all have an opinion.

As a person, I value access to information. Many people, especially those my age, do not realize how saturated we are with information (or if you do, you may not understand what that means in a historical context). Go back in time about 550 years. There was a new invention on the scene in Europe: the printing press. The printing press allowed people to do something that, until then, was a very laborious task: it enabled the mass transmission of information in a written form. Prior to then, books were copied out by hand—usually by monks—and few people knew how to read. Most knowledge was passed on orally. And most people had access to very little information compared to what an individual knows today.

Fast forward 550 years back to present day. We have the Internet, a new revolutionary tool in communication. Information transmission is now instantaneous around the world. The average individual is exposed to too much information, to so much information that we have to start learning how to filter it out, both technically and socially. We are exposed to so much information that we take this access for granted. We assume we‘re entitled to it, just because we have it right now.

Well along with the development of information transmission came another neat idea: intellectual property. That is, the ownership of information and ideas. From this sprung several forms of laws that enshrine the rights of intellectual property owners: copyright and trademarks. But with the proliferation of the Internet, copyright is a whole new ball game. And Canada’s copyright legislation is pretty much obsolete. To give you an idea of how outdated our legislation is, here is a fact: recording a TV show on your VCR is illegal. See, that’s called time-shifting, and there is nothing explicitly in the Copyright Act that allows you do to that. Likewise, there’s nothing that lets you copy a CD to your computer or MP3 player, or record a program using PVR (DVR to those of you in the States).

Last week, the government tabled Bill C-61: An Act to amend the Copyright Act, the long-awaited copyright reform bill—or as some pundits prefer to call it, “the Canadian DMCA.” And those pundits have good reason.

Bill C-61 is supposed to update the Copyright Act for the new millennium, spruce it up, and clarify exactly what we can and can’t do with content in an era where copying someone else’s information is as easy as point-and-click. And to be fair, Bill C-61 does some of this. Let’s take a look at the fact sheets. Time shifting and format shifting … good. Oh look, private copying of music. Good. Wait … “digital locks”? What’s that. What? Oh my.

In what is largely regarded as a massive concession to the music, movie, and telecom industries, the amended Act would make it illegal to circumvent a digital lock with a fine up to $20 000. In other words, if you bought a CD with a digital lock on it and then copied it to your computer using a program to circumvent the lock, you could be fined $20 000 in damages. What I really don’t like, however, is the fact that this lends legitimacy to digital locks—it practically encourages corporate content distributors to lock up everything. Broadcasters could place locks on their television content so that you couldn’t record it on your PVR unit—and I don’t know about you, but I enjoy my PVR unit. And this kind of defeats the purpose of having time-shifting and format-shifting in the first place, if everything will just be under lock and key.

It’s depressing, that’s what it is. We are supposed to be moving forward with copyright legislation. We have to embrace the new technology, not fear it. We have come to praise Caesar! Instead, the Conservative government has folded to pressure from the industry and pressure from the U.S. government to create a bill that will turn common Canadians into criminals. You may think I’m overreacting, but I‘m not. It isn’t just the fines. Look at the highly restrictive educational provisions. How are teachers supposed to educate students—future leaders of the country—if they can’t access the content they need to do so?

It is entirely possible to create legislation that protects the rights of content creators—be they individuals, groups, corporations, or sentient potato salads—and protects the rights of consumers and content users. The overwhelming majority of content creators want their content to be used—that’s why it’s out there. Most just want to be compensated for it in some way, whether it is just recognition, or money, or a fancy theme song. And most Canadians, I think, would be happy to give them that theme song. If Bill C-61 passes, people are still going to download music and movies. People may even download more music and movies than ever before, because rather than giving Canadians a legal way to access this content, the amendment leaves us with no other choice but to pursue less legitimate ways of acquiring the content.

Our obsession with intellectual property and ownership of ideas and information is bordering on the precipice of absurdity here. So we need to do something about it.

I don’t know how many Canadians read this blog (probably about 15 people in total, so maybe … 3 Canadians?), but most of my Facebook friends are Canadian, and they might read this in my Facebook notes, so this is me doing my part. I am spreading the word and encouraging my friends to get involved. Write a letter to your Member of Parliament, to Josée Verner, Minister of Heritage, to Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, and to the Prime Minister. You can send an email, but a regular physical letter is harder to ignore—remember, it’s free to send mail to your MP.

Copyright for Canadians has some excellent resources, including a template for the letter that you can automatically send to your MP, Jim Prentice, and Josée Verner. It will take less than 5 minutes, so at the very least, you could do that.

If you‘re interested in learning more about Canadian copyright, read FairCopyright.ca. Michael Geist is keeping track of various developments in the bill, such as reactions from the press and public, and government responses.

We have to send a message to the government that they can’t just ignore the public and table legislation without consulting us, the people who elected this so-called representative democracy. The Conservatives ran on the platform of accountability after the number of Liberal scandals, but now they have broken that core campaign promise and chosen to instead side with the big guys with money instead of the ordinary Canadian citizen. So take ten minutes out of your day, send your MP a letter, and know that even if the bill passes, you at least tried. Those who watch an injustice being perpetrated and do nothing to stop it are just as culpable as those who perpetrate the injustice itself.

I‘m back in Thunder Bay. And although I had an unqualified awesome time with Lauren in Ohio, I am very glad to be back home. In fact, here’s a couple of reasons why:

Driving and driving with my music. Until today, I hadn’t driven in two weeks. It was nice to be chauffeured around everywhere, even as the Americans obsessed over gas prices that are fully a dollar less than they are up here (thank you, Toronto ). I actually got my G licence a couple of days before I went away, so this worked out well, because my new licence arrived in the mail. There is a new design now, one which I dislike compared to the old one. But what can you do?

Yet I digress. I miss driving with my music. Lauren has good taste in music; I‘m just used to plugging my iPod into the tape deck adapter thingy I have (yes, that’s a technical term) and listening to all my different types of music on shuffle. We listened mostly to a local radio station with ’80s and ’90s music, along with a couple of her CDs—some Fallout Boy, to whom I don’t really listen, and some sort of instrumental CD that emulates natural sounds. That one was interesting. I bought several classical music CDs at the Book Loft yesterday—they were only about $3 each. Considering last time I bought classical music CDs they were each $20, that is quite a steal.

What else? Oh, I miss my family and friends, of course. I consider Lauren to be one of my best friends, but I like spending time with my friends back here—especially because many of them have now returned from school away (I‘m losing all my friends to Southern Ontario! With three more months of vacation to go, I must make the best of it.

I miss Canadian money. I don’t care what you Americans say. Canadian money is uber-cool. I can instantly pick out what bills I need based on their distinctive colours. This speeds up transactions, making for happier salespeople and happier customers. With your American money, I have to sort out the bills and actually look at the denomination. I’m sure that those who are more practised at it (like Americans) probably don’t take that long to do this, so in the end there’s little net gain from the coloured money. But it’s still cool.

And yes, I know the Euro bills come in different sizes. Yee-haw.

But you know what I missed the most? Milk bags! Yes, I miss my whacky, strange Canadian bags of milk. I miss the special pitcher in which we place these bags. Those Americans who are ethnocentric enough to think that gallon jugs are the only acceptable form of milk distribution are missing out. Bagged milk is the neatest thing since sliced bread.

Yes, bagged milk is cooler than Miley Cyrus. Get over it.

Canadians flying to the United States now require a passport. We don’t need one to cross the border by land yet, but that is in the works. So earlier this month, after over a year of procrastination, I finally applied for a passport.

The application process wasn’t that hard as far as government applications go. Passport Canada offers an online form that you can fill out and save, so you don’t have to complete it all in one go. Then you have to print off the form and send it in to them—the benefit of using the form, as opposed to simply getting an application and doing it by hand, is that the online form checks to make sure you have properly filled out all the required information.

You must identify yourself, of course, and provide proof of Canadian citizenship—in my case, my birth certificate, driver’s licence, and provincial health card sufficed. Then you need two references—someone who’s known you for at least two years—and a guarantor. A guarantor is basically someone who will co-sign your passport to verify that yes, you are the person you‘ve claimed to be. In my case I got one of my dad’s colleagues to do this. The guarantor signs the passport, puts down his or her own passport number to show that he or she has a valid passport (which is a requirement), and signs the photo to guarantee that it’s an accurate likeness of you.

Having filled out the form and gotten it guaranteed, I had to send it to the government. I could mail it in, or I could go in person to the local passport office and submit the application there. Due to the increased volume of passport applications, I wasn’t too optimistic about how quickly a mailed application would get processed, so I went in person. About fifteen minutes and $87 later, I had a receipt that said my passport would be mailed to me in a couple of weeks.

Sure enough, on January 22, I got a slip in the mailbox that said something along the lines of, “Hi, it’s Canada Post. We have a registered mail package for you, but no one answered the door. Please come pick it up at the post office.” Of course, I went to the wrong post office and ended up having to go all the way back across town to get to the right one. But at the end of my journey, I had a passport!

It’s shiny. It’s all official and lets me travel. I‘m not big on travelling, but I do have plans to travel in May (*crosses fingers*), so this will be useful.

And that’s how one applies for a Canadian passport, in case you have ever laid awake in bed at night, unable to sleep because you wondered How do Canadians apply for passports?. Now you know.

Often the question arises: what is Canadian? How do Canadians identify themselves as Canadians? How do non-Canadians identify Canadians? What represents Canadian culture?

The answer usually boils down to the commonly held view that we are “not American”. And it’s true. We Canadians love to distinguish ourselves from their counterparts south of the border. But that can’t be all we are—call me crazy, but I suspect there are other countries who also see themselves as “not American”. Pretty much the only countries that wouldn’t would be the United States (because they are America) and Tony Blair (because he wants to be). So there has to be more to our identity than that.

The trouble comes from the fact that Canada encourages multiculturalism (or at least, we say we do). This leads to strong cultural diversity across the country—a country which is rather big. Even so, there’s bound to be things in common from coast to coast. The CBC, for one.

Yesterday I went to see Stuart McLean and The Vinyl Cafe at our local auditorium. For those of you not familiar with it, The Vinyl Cafe is what Wikipedia calls a “variety show” on CBC radio. It has musical talent from across Canada, other cool things, and my favourite part—stories by Stuart McLean featuring “Dave & Morley” and their family. These stories, and the show itself, are quintessentially Canadian. I could tell by the number of people in the auditorium and their diverse ages. The youngest person was 6 weeks old, and the oldest was 88. And McLean does the show all across Canada, so the turnout must be good no matter where he goes. The Vinyl Cafe is something in which Canadians the country over can share and enjoy. I certainly did (and I fell for their merchandising scheme and bought a book and 2 CD collections of Dave & Morley stories, because I love them so much). Only in Canada…

So anyway, I guess what I‘m trying to say is more of a note to my non-Canadian friends. If you really want to understand what makes Canadians, well, Canadian, you need to really experience Canadian culture. If you catch an episode of The Vinyl Cafe (you have to hear him talk, the books are good for those familiar with the show, but not for first-time viewers) you’ll get a glimpse at one of the facets of Canadiana. Obviously not every Canadian loves The Vinyl Cafe. But the stories and the show give you an idea of what’s going on in our society that makes us the way we are.

After all, I spend way too much time watching exports from the United States. How about some quid pro quo?

Ah, Canada. The wonderful thing about Canadian politics is that it’s been the same thing for the past 139 years. Quebec is still whining about becoming a nation.

The problem comes down, as it usually does, to semantics. That’s probably one of the ugliest words in the English language. Semantics. People debating over the definition of words. I don’t think it’s coincidence that it rhymes with pedantic.

For those asleep, let me wake you up. Our Great and Mighty Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggested that Quebec be recognised as a nation within Canada. As you might expect, this did not go over well with the Bloc. It definitely threw the Liberals through a loop, however—they apparently did not see this one coming.

Now I will admit that my first reaction was this: That’s stupid! Quebec isn’t a nation! Look, either you‘re nation or you’re not, and Quebec isn’t a nation.

But some part of me knew I was wrong, or at least suspected it. So I trundled over to Wikipedia and looked up what a nation actually was, because believe it or not, but I didn’t know—and I doubt many people do know the difference between nation and country. I draw your attention to the ambiguity in usage section.

After reading the article, I’ve changed my opinion. Quebec certainly does fit the definition of a nation; it has a very distinct and rich culture that has existed throughout all of Canada’s history; the Québécois are indeed a people. If more people understood what the definition of a nation was, maybe this wouldn’t be such an issue.

Now as if that wasn’t shocking, I will now make the revelation that I particularly agree with Stephen Harper on this issue! At least, this is what I think: Quebec should be nation, since it fits the definition. It should not, however, be politically independent from Canada. In other words, Quebec is not a sovereign country. I like you, Quebec. Why go?

The issue of Quebec sovereignty, unfortunately, is hard to separate from the issue of Quebec nationalism. Nationalism is a really complicated concept that causes a lot of inconveniences on any side of the debates. I respect that Quebec has a strong culture, but I don’t think that it would benefit either the rest of Canada or Quebec for Quebec to become its own country. Look at Nunavut: the Inuit have their own culture too (well, okay, what’s left of it after we suppressed it for a century or so…), but should they separate? No. Politically, we are stronger as a cohesive body. Canada has always been a country that is supportive of multiculturalism—we are a country of many nations. I’m rather proud of that.

It’s true. A U.S. teacher convicted of sexual abuse has been exiled to Canada as his punishment (post your view here). He lives here already with his wife and kids, but now he just can’t come back to the U.S. for three years. Oh my. Such a terrible punishment. We all know how harsh it is to live in Canada.

Since when did Canada become the America’s prison? “Let’s not waste the taxpayer’s money on storing our criminals in little buildings in America. Let’s just send them to Canada instead.” Ouch. Firstly, what does that say about the U.S. courts‘ view of Canada? Apparently living here is equivocable to living in jail in America? Secondly, and I may be going out on a limb here, what with my radical Canadian liberal views on morality, but shouldn’t a sex offender be, oh, I don’t know, behind bars? What sort of message does this send to other sex offenders, or other criminals in general, in America? Be good and we might let you go to Canada?

It’s astounding at the audacity of politicians sometimes. Just when I think it can’t get any more entertaining, it does.

Friendly fire that killed Canadians was ‘freak accident’.

Is it just me, or does it seem like more Canadians in Afghanistan get killed by “friendly fire” than by the Taliban insurgents? Is anyone sent there even remotely competent?

Stephen Harper has made it no secret that he intends to increase our defence budget, which is all well and good in a way, since our military sucks. I think that there should definitely be a new training program included with this budget; in the program, Canadian soldiers will learn how to put on disguises to make them look like famous historical figures, and thus avoid being shot.

The crew of the aircraft responsible for the friendly fire, of course, claimed that Han shot first.

Yes, Canada Day was yesterday, and I fully intended to post yesterday, but wouldn’t you know…

I spent Canada Day doing one of the best things possible: going to a baseball game with my dad. It was raining, unfortunately, so the 1:05 start turned into a 2:05 start, and for a reason which I have yet to discern, the auctioned Border Cats jerseys were yellow, not red. Way to go with tradition. olleyes: But the game did not disappoint. We won 8-3 with some awesome plays that I don’t remember anymore. It was great.

Afterward we rented Fantastic Four, which was okay but not great, and ordered in Chinese food which I shall warm up in about ten minutes for breakfast. Then it’s time for work, and then more food, and then relaxation before I sleep.

That’s what this week is about. I’m officially off school, and I have this amazing urge still to be productive in other ventures. Maybe I should. But I also think that a lot of my stress comes from the fact that I am too stubborn to ever relax or completely take a break—even when I am “relaxing”, I have to be doing something. So this week might be unproductive, but hopefully in a good way.

Apparently Canada is sending 9000 cans of maple syrup to Norway as a “thank you” for helping out our skier Sara Renner by giving her a new pole mid-race.

Reason why I wub Canada.

I watched the French-language Federal election debates tonight and abruptly lost two hours of my life that I’ll never, ever, ever get back. It was unbearable. The translators did a good job making it look like they weren’t reading from a script, however.

Jack Layton

I must say that he didn’t do as well as he could have. He didn’t speak very much, and I don’t really remember much of what he said. Thus, he did not make an impression, and I don’t think that anybody watching (aka the old lady and her cat) were swayed by his speeches.

Stephen Harper

This guy can’t speak French or English. If there’s anything funnier than watching Harper make a fool of himself in English, it’s watching Harper make a fool of himself in French! He repeated “c’est necessaire” far too many times and evaded nearly every question. In other words, same ol‘, same ol’ Harper.

Paul Martin

Martin too remained true to his character. I call his way of talking “Martinical rhetoric,” because he says nearly nothing useful. The only difference between Martin and Chrétien is that we (unfortunately) can understand what Martin is saying. He did not make a lot of headway in the debate because a lot of the questions addresses issues which his campaign has been trying to hide, mainly ethics and the sponsorship scandal.

Gilles Duceppe

If there were any “winner” to this debate, it would be Duceppe. He was confident and cogent. Ironically, I think that Duceppe is the most coherent of the leaders in French or English! But the fact that the debates were in French helped, since obviously he thinks in French. The other leaders had to translate their thoughts from English to French (and then I had to listen to the translators translate these translated thoughts back to English).

Duceppe also gets mucho bonus points for referencing Yogi bear.

I don’t know if I could stomach the English-language debates after tonight, but I think I’ll watch them anyway, just to compare how the leaders do.

No, really. Gerard Kennedy wants to stop any high school dropout below the age of 18 from getting driver’s licenses. See this shiny CBC News article on the subject.

As much as I value school, the government is once again showing their lack of problem-solving skills. (Maybe they should go back to school. ) Getting kids to stay in school until they are 18 is not to be accomplished via negative incentive. Instead, perhaps the government should offer more positive incentives, such as … oh, I don’t know, expanding school to include different methods of teaching. Not everyone learns the same way, and this can be difficult, especially if one’s aspirations are not to go to post-secondary education.

But of course, that would cost “money.” Darn government… .

So the Liberal minority government has fallen (and not even mightily), thus the polls shall open soon and the election bells will toll alongside the yuletide ones.

It’s not very unexpected, eh. I mean, we’ve known for the past few weeks that a non-confidence motion was going to happen. We’ve known that the Bloc, NDP, and Conservatives would team up to defeat the Liberals. There was very little doubt.

Then it actually happens.

It was kind of cool to watch it; I’ve never actually “watched” a non-confidence motion before. All the MPs stood up and their names were called out, it is all very ritualistic and fascinating. Just not surprising.

Being too young to vote, I can only gripe and rant, but I like to think I do that well. Let’s just say that I’m disappointed with Paul Martin. I liked the Liberals! Or, at least, I liked their ideology! And they have to go off and ruin the government with their poor leadership and management! Leaving responsible, liberal people like myself with an unpalatable choice to make. Do we continue to support the old, corrupt leadership? Or do we support a new, corrupt leadership.

I do not want to have the say the words “Stephen Harper” immediately after the titles “Right Honourable” or “Prime Minister”. I’d rather have Jack Layton as Prime Minister, eh. But really, I say the Liberals need better leaders to … well, lead them. Jean didn’t work out, and now Paul doesn’t look too attractive anymore either.

This is why Mr. Pilot should run for politics. Most of you don’t know who Mr. Pilot is. He taught my history and geography. He’s funny, but more importantly, he is blatantly direct to the point of offensive sometimes. He is not afraid to say something he means, even if it may not be what a person wants to hear. He‘d at least end the ceaseless rhetoric on the Hill.

If it comes down to it though, I would much rather have Paul Martin as Prime Minister than Mr. Harper. But it’s not like I can actually vote or anything.

There are times when I think I need a scale. On the far right end, at about 100 or so, there’s Canadians like Stephen Lewis, who make me proud to be Canadian.

On the far left end, at about -100 or so, there’s Canadians like Andrew Uitvlugt, mayoral candidate for Kelowna, B.C., who wants to offer crack to homeless people who will pick up garbage! His idea being to reward them with crack, hoping that their sense of a job well done will make them need less crack.

I have lost all hope that such people will key into reality.

So um … yeah. If you live in Kelowna, don’t vote for him. Because that just might be insane.