Blog: Articles filed under government

This Monday, May 2, Canada had its 41st federal election, resulting in a Conservative majority government led by Stephen Harper. The results are somewhat surprising: though a Conservative government was likely, a majority was by no means a certainty. Perhaps the most interesting result of this election, however, is the effect it had on our other political parties. The NDP are now, for the first time ever, the Official Opposition Party in the House of Commons. They pretty much dominated Quebec, and they won 102 seats in the House. The Liberals were decimated, dropping from 77 seats to 34 (close to the same number the NDP had in the previous Parliament). Similarly, the Bloc Québécois went from 47 seats to 4. And for the first time ever, a Green Party candidate was elected—none other than the leader, Elizabeth May herself.

So our election is filled with many historical firsts for Canadian politics, and our political landscape has changed dramatically. For a graphical idea of how much changed in this election, just take a look at these two maps of Canada depicting the results by riding: 2008 election and 2011 election. (These are from the respective Wikipedia articles on the election.) CBC also has a great interactive map up on their Canada Votes 2011 site. Stephen Harper finally has a majority government after five years, which means he no longer has to court votes from across the floor to pass all that fun legislation he’s been drafting. However, the NDP are going to bring a whole new dynamic to the Official Opposition: not only are they quite strong in terms of number of seats as an opposition party, but they have all these new members from ridings in Quebec that have traditionally voted Bloc. In that sense, not only has the party risen in power, but it is not the same NDP any more. Similarly, with the Liberals devastated and Ignatieff’s resignation, we will see new potential leaders emerge and watch the Liberal party attempt, once again, to recover and regroup.

We’re in for interesting times ahead.

This post, incidentally, is not so much political analysis as it is political reaction. It’s a letter to my future self, a way of recording my thoughts following this election so, in five years or a decade, I will know how I felt and what I said. If you are looking for political analysis, there are much better places to find it.

Democracy in Shambles

I am disappointed that we elected a Conservative majority government. I am extremely disappointed that Stephen Harper remains Prime Minister. I am saddened and dismayed that we re-elected the man whose previous government was found in contempt of Parliament for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth.

“Contempt of Parliament” sounds very fancy, and it might be tempting to dismiss it as political brinksmanship on the part of the opposition parties. Who cares that the Conservative government was found in contempt? This was Harper’s line throughout the election; he consistently repeated that “Canadians don’t want an election.” Elections are apparently too expensive (that money would be better spent on fighter jets!). And after all, why should we bother Canadians with the expense and effort of an election? Democracy would work fine without them, right?

Look, I‘m willing to admit that elections are expensive and that plenty of Canadians will tell you they didn’t want one. (And I know plenty did. These kinds of binaries are tiresome.) It does not matter, because elections are essential to the functioning of our democracy. It is ironic yet egregious that Harper is condemning elections in our country while congratulating those countries attempting to hold their own for the first times in decades, or ever. We are not special. We do not get a “get out of elections free” card because we are older or smarter or better than those countries. If we want to stay a democracy, we have to vote.

The past decade has been somewhat atypical, as I understand, when it comes to elections and governments, and this has led to a somewhat skewed view of our parliamentary system. I won’t touch on the issues of proroguing Parliament or forming a coalition government (both of which are completely legitimate, incidentally). We’ve had three minority governments (one Liberal, two Conservative) in succession. The first minority government emerged after the 2004 federal election, which the Governor General called at the request of Prime Minister Paul Martin. It fell in late 2005 to a motion of no confidence and caused a winter election, which the Conservatives won. In 2008, Stephen Harper bypassed his own fixed-date election law and asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, resulting in another federal election and another Conservative minority. Finally, in March of this year, the government fell to another motion of no confidence.

So in the past ten years, we have had four elections, which might seem excessive. Two of them were triggered by motions of no confidence. Yet in Canadian Parliamentary history, the government has only fallen to a motion of no confidence only six times (including this most recent incident). Hence, these elections are not just a product of opposition parties attempting to get into power by repeatedly triggering elections. When the government falls owing to a motion of no confidence, we should pay attention, and we should not balk at the resulting election.

Furthermore, this recent motion of no confidence was the first of its kind ever passed. Stephen Harper has the dubious distinction of entering the history books as the first Prime Minister of Canada whose government was found in contempt of Parliament. What does that mean? In this case, it means the government did not disclose documents requested by Parliament and did not, in the opinion of the committee that investigated, provide a satisfactory reason for that failure. It is a dramatic example of why I dislike Harper and why I dislike the Harper government: they do not respect our Parlimentary system; they do not respect democracy; and therefore, they do not respect Canada or Canadians.

If you‘re wondering why I am getting so technical here, I will confide a secret: I am not a political junkie, I’m a Parliamentary junkie. I love the technical, constitutional nitty-gritty of what makes our democracy tick, and I find our Parliamentary system fascinating and far more interesting than other democratic systems, such as the congressional one in the United States. I don’t expect everyone to share my love for learning more about how Parliament functions, but I do think it’s important for everyone to know a little bit about it. What I‘m trying to say is this: we should not make light of what happened in March, and we should not regard this recent election as unnecessary, regardless of the fact that it resulted in an even stronger government for Harper.

So What’s With that Majority Anyway?

Despite being found in contempt of Parliament, the Conservatives managed to gain enough seats to form a majority. Go figure. We could blame those who didn’t vote, or those who voted NDP instead of Liberal (or vice versa) and thus “split the vote” among the opposition parties, but those avenues are both red herrings.

Voting is important, as it is one of the strongest forms of participation in our democracy, and I am saddened if you were eligible to vote but did not. You still have a right to complain (though perhaps not quite so loud), but I hope next time you consider exercising your right, a right most people in the world do not have.

Nor do I blame those who “split the vote.” Both Ignatieff and Layton enjoyed claiming that the choice in the election was a binary one: Conservatives or their own respective party. I dislike that rhetoric, and I refuse to embrace it, though I am not surprised by it. The sudden and surprising surge in NDP support only demonstrates that it is possible to campaign as “third option” and suddenly become the option. Even if every Liberal seat suddenly became NDP orange, it still would not be enough—such are the mathematics of majority.

So no, I do not blame those who abstained or those who voted red instead of orange or orange instead of red. I blame those who voted blue. I realize some of you have your reasons—maybe all your other candidates sucked, maybe you truly believe the Conservatives are our One True Hope for the economy or jobs or the state of our national bubblegum reserve. Ultimately, however, you who voted Conservatives are accountable for what the Conservative government does over the next four years. I hope they do you proud.

Let’s Just Fix the System, Shall We?

Twitter was full of sage advice on election night, and a great many people were shouting for electoral reform. It’s probably not surprising that the people in the losing camps want to blame the system and call it broken. And when the governing party garners only 40 per cent of the popular vote, the hue and cry gets even louder. Yet I am not going to jump on the bandwagon of proportional representation or any other electoral reform just yet.

After all, the Conservatives did not gain a majority of the popular vote, but they did gain a plurality, and under proportional representation, we would likely just get another Conservative minority government. I am intrigued by proportional representation, but I do not know enough about it yet to promulgate an informed opinion. And that’s really a topic for a separate post.

Electoral reform is definitely worth the discussion, even if I don’t think it’s likely to happen any time soon. However, it is not a magical panacea for our Parliamentary woes. What would really help is if we got some new leaders. I am not sorry to see Ignatieff go, and I will be happy the day Harper steps down (except, perhaps, if he gets replaced by someone like Jason Kenney or, heaven forfend, John Baird!).

But What Do I Really Think?

On Monday night, I was tweeting about the election results, and one of my tweets read, “We are. So screwed. That is all.” This was hyperbole, a product of election-night fervour, and while my feelings about the newer, stronger Harper government are not optimistic, I don’t think we’ve quite entered “apocalyptic hellscape mode” yet.

(Yet.)

It is good to have a majority government again. I actually rather like minorities, because they force parties to work together—except when they don’t. And our parties have all been rather dysfunctional of late, both within and with each other. Minority governments might be cool products of parliamentary politics, but they can also be frustrating when it comes to passing legislation, which is, at the end of the day, what our government has to do to govern our country.

So it is good to have a majority government after five years and three minority ones. It sucks that it is a Conservative majority; I would have much preferred and NDP or Liberal government, to be sure, though I do not particularly favour either of those parties. We have to work with what we’ve got, though.

Copyright is one of my interests, and our existing legislation is old and obsolete. Two copyright bills have died as a result of the last two elections. The most recent, Bill C-32, was actually not that bad. It had some worrying attitudes toward digital locks, but it was a big improvement over Bill C-61, and I was hopeful it could be improved further. We need to update our copyright legislation; entire formats have risen and fallen in the time since we last did so!

So any government passing copyright law might be a good thing, even a Conservative one. Both Michael Geist and Peter Nowak have written good, thoughtful posts on what the future might hold for Canadian tech and telecommunications now that the Conservatives have a majority. It’s a pretty mixed bag.

Still, that is just the tip of the majority iceberg. Even if Harper magically mirrors all my positions on copyright, I can’t forgive him for:

• being found in contempt;
• trashing the long-form census (which still bewilders me);
• failing not only to reform the Senate (a goal I support, though I understand the difficulty he faces) but going ahead and appointing more than 30 senators, which is not cheap;
• being anti-science;
• claiming an “abortion debate” is “not a priority of the people” but not disavowing a rabidly anti-choice Conservative candidate, Brad Trost (who won his seat), when Trost told some of his supporters that abortion was the reason the government had cut funding to Planned Parenthood;
• and, in fact, treating women and women’s advocacy groups rather poorly in general;
• not to mention his neglect of First Nations people and communitites (because, you know, access to clean water is a privilege!),
• his abandonment of Africa;
• did I mention his government was found in contempt of Parliament?

I do not respect Stephen Harper. I will not vote for the Conservative party while he is its leader. And I am worried about our country as long as he is Prime Minister. I am glad he chose to rebrand the “government of Canada” to the “Harper government.” It just emphasizes his association with the mis-steps and mis-deeds of his governments and his MPs. It attests to his ego and his preference for power and privilege over the goals he professes, like the economy and “working” Canadians.

I do not know if I will look back at this in five or ten years with pride or with haughty derision and regret. (If it is the latter, then you are a jerk, future-me.) That’s why I wrote this, so that even if my attitudes and ideology may change over time, I will know where I stood in May 2011. Somehow, I doubt I will be much changed when it comes to these topics. For the next four years, the government of Canada—sorry, the Harper government—will only continue to alienate me and those like me, those who find that none of the current mainstream parties particularly suit them. All I can hope is that, by 2015, Canada’s shifting political landscape will produce a niche for me.

The next election is, by Harper’s law, four years away. Yet those of us unhappy with Monday night’s results must not be silent. We cannot afford to lapse into apathy or defeat now, of all times, even with a Conservative majority strong and secure. Now, more than ever, we must be watchful. We must write, and speak, and protest when necessary. We must make our voices heard, so that the media, the opposition parties, and the rest of the country remembers that a majority might rule in Parliament, but the rights of minorities are still important, and democracy is something that must be preserved and practised, not taken for granted.

Today is the last day that the House of Commons legislative committee on Bill C-32 is accepting submissions regarding possible amends to Bill C-32, our latest attempt to amend the Copyright Act. What follows is my submission to them. It is definitely not very formal and contains no real proposed amendments—many more knowledgeable people have already made such submissions, and I defer to them in that area of expertise. Nevertheless, I felt that it was important to have my voice heard.

Dear Legislative Committee on Bill C-32,

I am not a pirate.

Hard to believe, I know. The current draft of Bill C-32 seems to imply that piracy is rampant in Canada, and in particular among the demographic to which I belong, that of the 18–34-year-old university student. Curiously enough, this perspective corresponds to the one advanced by the industries who distribute music, movies, and media, the very industries who are now complaining that Internet piracy is destroying their business model. While I expect such heated, anti-consumer rhetoric from those industries, who after all are obligated by their shareholders to demonize and portray consumers as immoral beings who will only partake in legally-provided media if they have no other option, I expected better of the Canadian government. My grade 10 Civics class taught me that the government is supposed to recognize the will of the people, not the will of the special interests lobby.

But this is not about the inaccuracy of information in our education systems. This is about Bill C-32, a long-needed overhaul of our outdated Copyright Act. I commend the government for taking on this daunting task. Finding a balance between the interests of consumers and creators is not easy, but it is balance we need. So, I am pleased that you have asked for input from Canadian citizens regarding the current draft of this bill. Were you aware that your esteemed colleagues at Industry Canada consulted Canadians in the summer of 2009 on the previous proposed amendment, Bill C-61? That consultation received over 8000 submissions, 6000 of which were opposed to Bill C-61 and to digital rights management (DRM) locks in general. So, forgive me if I feel like I‘m repeating myself, but I’ve already been through this once.

I am not a pirate. I’m not even a so-called “radical extremist.” I have no desire to eliminate copyright altogether—as a creator myself, I too enjoy the protections that copyright law provides for me. Nevertheless, unlike certain representatives of special interest groups, such as SOCAN and CRIA, I am not naive enough to think that we can blithely continue to the reality of copyright in a digital age. The Internet is a fundamentally new media when it comes to distributing information. The cost of distribution is now effectively zero. Copyright can no longer be about “who has the right to distribute,” because this going to happen anyway. There is no DRM lock that cannot be picked. There is no technological protection measure (TPM) that cannot be circumvented. And so, if you enshrine Bill C-32 as “the digital lock law” and attempt to protect Canadian creators by locking down their creations, you will fail.

You will fail, because I am not a pirate, but other people are. And this bill will not stop them. It won’t even slow them down, not for a minute. Law-abiding citizens like myself will respect it, of course, and we will be stuck in the slow lane of the Internet, waiting for American television shows to come across the border, waiting for a new single to come out on iTunes, waiting for that Brand! New! Movie! with that Hot! Young! Actress! (you know the one I’m talking about) to come out on DVD. We, the law-abiding public, will be waiting, while the pirates will be busy downloading media, not paying for it, and chortling over the incompetence of the Canadian government.

Stopping piracy is a laudable goal, but let us be realistic. You cannot legislate piracy out of existence—by definition, it exists as a reaction against the legal avenues of doing business. And as long as you persist in making Bill C-32 about stopping piracy, about protecting the distributors and, to some extent, the creators, about expressing a fundamental distrust in the electorate of this nation, then you will fail. You will fail, because I am not a pirate, but under the new legislation, I might have to become one. I try my very best, every day, not to pirate media. I do not download songs; I buy them on iTunes. I do not download movies; I record them on my DVR (is that even legal?) when they come on cable television. I do not download books, though I am an avid reader, but instead I visit the library, or I purchase them new as a show of support for the author. I try so very hard, and you are not making it any easier.

I am not a pirate, nor do I want to be. So why not make it easier? Instead of focusing on all of these negative aspects of digital distribution, why not create proactive legislation that encourages the innovation of business models at a digital level? Make it easier for companies like Netflix and Pandora to open their doors in Canada. Make it easier for Canadians to download and stream music, movies, etc., legitimately. Because if you do that, then most Canadians will act in good faith. Most Canadians won‘t pirate but instead pay, because contrary to the opinions expressed by the special interests groups and the lobbyists for the industry, we are not all immoral.

We are not pirates. Most of us don’t even have a Vitamin C deficiency. We are people, and we want our media, and we want it now. Because the Internet is all about instantaneous access to information, and maybe that has spoiled us. Nevertheless, it is reality. The new reality. And passing legislation that ignores this new reality in favour of a rose-coloured glasses version painted by the industry is silly. Copyright can no longer be about “who has the right to distribute,” because our ability to restrict that is gone forever. Instead, copyright needs to be about “who has the right to reuse.” Who has the right to remix, to modify, to make a profit off this material? These are the questions that you, through Bill C-32, have a chance to answer. I am not so convinced you have answered them to anyone’s satisfaction.

Look, it’s not all bad. The expanded fair dealing sounds really good. And I am pleased that Bill C-32, if not perfect, is not quite as insistent upon digital locks as its predecessor was. Whereas Bill C-61 was untenable, something I could not abide, this one is much more workable. In its present form, it is not ideal, but I definitely think that, with a few amendments, you could produce a copyright bill that strikes the right balance. Canada could be an example for the rest of the world of a modern country with modern copyright legislation that takes into account reality, that protects consumers, that protects creators, that encourages digital innovation. Or, you could follow the USA, make a “Canadian DMCA,” and watch piracy continue unabated.

It’s your call, really. I have done my part—twice over, once in the summer of 2009, and now in the winter of 2011. I have worn my fair copyright T-shirt; I have encouraged my fellow citizens to speak out on this issue. But you are the ones who have to listen to us. Listen to us, and hear our concerns. We aren’t asking for anything unreasonable. We aren’t asking that you let us copy entire textbooks for whole classes of students, or that we get to go into a Blockbuster and rip movies from DVDs onto our computers. All we are asking for is fair, balanced copyright legislation that works for us, here and now. So think about it.

Originally I was just going to tweet a link to this CBC news article and leave it at that. The more I thought about it, however, the more outraged I became. I‘m not sure why. Maybe it’s out of some need to feel vicariously oppressed, on account of the fact that I am a tall white male and thus systemically unoppressed. Maybe it’s because, although I am not a professional web designer, I am familiar enough with the field to weep over the attitude displayed here by the government. It is 2011. Last December, the Web turned twenty years old. And we still can’t support blind users? Seriously?

That is what the federal government says. Apparently, rather than spend taxpayer money to pay web designers to update its websites, it would rather spend that money paying lawyers to appeal this court decision. Rather than offer equal services to blind users, it would rather go to court and spend our tax dollars to ensure it can continue discriminating. The government is making us accomplices to discrimination. And here I thought I lived in Canada, not the United States.

I am taking a Philosophy of the Internet course this term, online of course. I’m so excited for it, because the Internet excites me in general. I look around and see all the change that the Internet makes possible; we are living through exciting times, and the world is never going to be the same thanks to the Internet. Not all of this change will be for the better, but when is it ever?

So it pains me that, twenty years after the inception of the Web, there is still a deeply-entrenched attitude among corporations and governments that somehow the Web is not essential and that not everyone need have access to the Web. Increasingly, however, we are seeing more services move to an online platform. If the Web is not essential now, it soon will be. But you know what? According to the government, if you can’t see, then tough luck:

Government lawyers had argued there was no discrimination because those same services are provided in other formats, such as on the phone, in person or by mail.

That’s right: the Web is for sighted people only. That seems to be the stance implicit in this argument, that “other formats” will be available for those people who happen to be visually-impaired. No, no, don’t bother asking the government to make its websites accessible. People with disabilities don’t matter.

There is a word for this behaviour: disgusting.

As an amateur web developer, I pride myself in being aware of Web standards and striving to implement them as faithfully as possible. Fortunately, because I do not get paid by corporate clients to build them websites to which millions of users will flock, because I do not provide any great service to the public, if I happen to make a mistake and render my website inaccessible to blind people, it isn’t a big deal. (And if you are blind and trying to read this and your screen reader is rebelling against you, please let me know so I can try to fix it.)

I don’t think we should let the government just shrug like I can and say, “No big deal, go use the telephone.” Making websites accessible to the blind is not, for the most part, difficult. It requires effort, and depending on what type of data you want to communicate, some creativity. Somehow, I think the ultimate cost of adding that accessibility to its websites would be less than the court costs involved in appealing Justice Kelen’s ruling. More importantly, the government has an obligation to serve its citizens—all of its citizens—and I reject on moral grounds its argument that alternative formats are an excuse for having inaccessible websites.

This is just another incident that underscores our government’s inability to keep pace with the development of life in a digital age. Canadians still have woefully inadequate broadband penetration, something the Conservatives have done little to rectify—and while the Liberals promise more, I don’t believe they would do a much better job. All of our parties are mired in pre-digital perspectives. They are too afraid or too corrupt to take on the telecommunications companies that dominate our Internet and mobile services and squeeze out competition at the price of innovation so that they can make more profit.

In the end, it isn’t just blind people who lose. It isn’t just web designers. It’s everyone. The rest of the world moves forward, and Canada will be left behind in the digital dust. Because our government doesn’t care.

In 1633, Galileo was found “vehemently suspect” of heresy. His heretical opinion: holding and defending the belief that the Copernican, heliocentric model of the solar system was true in contravention to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Galileo was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life and forced to recant, verbally and in writing, any belief in the Copernican model. His book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was banned. All because the Copernican model contradicts Biblical scripture. Well, mostly that. The conflict between Galileo and the Church was as much political as scientific or religious. Galileo had made some powerful enemies, people who also opposed Pope Urban VIII, accusing him of being too soft on heretics. So Galileo was in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Nearly five centuries later, the entire affair is one of the most stark examples of the conflict between science and religion.

It was an unfortunate conflict, an unnecessary conflict. Whether science and religion are irreconciliable or incompatible is a much larger debate than I can discuss here, but in this case the conflict seems minor. Galileo was not a villain attempting to derail the Church; he was a good Catholic, earnest in his belief that the pursuit of truth through empirical study and mathematics was a form of devotion to God and appreciation for God’s handiwork. The Copernican view may have seemed threatening at the time, but only a century elapsed before the Church removed most pro-Copernican books from its list of banned texts. What happened to Galileo did not have to happen, but it did, a conjunction of personalities and politics clashing to form the zeitgeist of 17th-century Italian science and culture. It is a sad episode in history, for both science and religion, and now we try to move forward.

Or not. Watching today’s session of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science, and Technology reminded me of Galileo’s trial. There was something eerily familiar about watching the committee grill Munir Sheikh, the former head of Statistics Canada who resigned over how the media represented StatsCan’s role in this matter; Ivan Fellegi, former Chief Statistican for Statistics Canada; Don McLeish, president of the Statistical Society of Canada; and many other experts. In both situations, you have an institution in power ignoring facts in the name of political and ideological expediency. While Sheikh et al. aren’t quite being forced to recant, there is a comparable intensity and pressure coming from some of the committee members (mostly from the Conservative MPs, but not completely).

It was disturbing to watch David Anderson try to force Sheikh and Fellegi to comment on the content of long-form census questions. As these two tried to make clear, Statistics Canada is not responsible for choosing the questions, only for administering the census. If the government is concerned about the privacy implications for the long-form census questions, maybe it should do something about the questions.

Sheikh, Fellegi, and the other statisticans all agreed that a voluntary census would be biased. The notable exception seemed to be David Tanny, a mathematics professor from York University, who mentioned that the mandatory census has its problems (negative bias associated with the “mandatory” part). That may be true—but it does not make the voluntary census any more accurate a priori. So that’s why the compromise favoured by many of the committee’s witnesses, including Don McLeish, makes sense: do both. Run the mandatory long-form census and a voluntary replacement, then compare the data sets to see if this alternative is viable. The statisticians are doubtful, but that’s what statistics is all about: gather and then report.

Somewhat topically, statistics are what the Conservatives need but do not have. Where are the studies that show this is the best alternative, if an alternative is truly what they desire? Where are the statistics that show Canadians are outraged over the invasion of privacy signified by the mandatory long-form census? The Privacy Commissioner doesn’t have them. Where are the statistics showing that Canadians live in constant fear of incarceration should they fail to complete the long-form census? It is one thing for the Conservatives to propose changing the census—which could be improved, most likely—but it is another thing entirely to make unilateral changes to the census, at practically the last minute prior to the 2011 census, without any research to support the changes.

The government’s arguments for these changes are ultimately inconsistent. After Sheikh’s resignation belied any implication that Statistics Canada recommended the change, the government has fallen back to its original argument: the mandatory long-form census is invasive to Canadians‘ privacy. Additionally, the threat of incarceration for failing to fill out the long-form census is unreasonable. Since there are viable alternatives to a mandatory census, we should make the long-form census voluntary to address these concerns.

As mentioned above, the claim that the census invades Canadians’ private lives is dubious. Even if it does, Canadians do not seem to be very vocal about it. Furthermore, the census provides valuable data well worth the inconvenience of telling the government how many bedrooms one has in one’s house—this is the same government, remember, that asks how much money you make and then takes a cut. But I don’t see the Conservatives abolishing income tax. Some of the alternatives to a long-form census, such as the citizen registries used in Scandinavian countries, are far more intrusive. Fellegi stressed to the committee that the census data is collected anonymously, that the danger of it somehow being identified with the individual who submitted it is insignificantly low. Hence, there is a difference between being intrusive and being dangerous when it comes to privacy concerns.

So what about the assertion that incarceration is an overreaction to non-compliance? I actually agree. I think most people would agree. As an aside, it’s worth mentioning that no one has been jailed for refusing to fill out a long-form census. Fellegi mentioned this during his testimony. Yet the Conservatives insist on creating a false dichotomy around the issue of enforcement: either, they insist, we keep the mandatory long-form census and throw people in jail, or we make the long-form census voluntary. There is, apparently, no middle ground, no alternative.

Since when have jail time or a fine (the other option) been the only punishments for breaking the law? Surely there are methods of enforcing a mandatory long-form census that are more reasonable. It’s not my job to suggest enforcement methods—and it is certainly not the job of Statistics Canada or statisticians, despite attempts by David Anderson to get Fellegi and Sheikh to do just that. No, once again, the onus is on the Conservative government to develop a solution. Too bad they neither want to admit it or address the problem. Rather than a good round of antibiotic, which a more robust form of enforcement would be, the government has just decided to amputate the infected limb.

Privacy and enforcement aside, there are good alternatives to a long-form census, right? Yes and no. Yes, alternatives exist. Other countries use some of them. Some of them have more privacy concerns, but ultimately the major issue comes to one of statistical accuracy and integrity. What works for one country may not work for another, and without proper studies on implementing a change in Canada, we cannot just appropriate a foreign model. That would be irresponsible.

Irresponsible is exactly what the Conservative government is being, and it makes me angry. As a mathematician and as a Canadian citizen, I am saddened and disturbed by the government’s disregard for the opinions of its civil servants and its experts. This is a rejection of science in favour of a political agenda—and agenda that is far from consistent, as I have demonstrated above. The census provides essential data on life in Canada and its population. It is not only a source of that data, but it is the benchmark against which other surveys—including Statistics Canada’s voluntary surveys—are measured. So many groups rely on census data: the government, notably, as well as business groups, religious groups, special interest groups … the list goes on almost ad infinitum. And here we have the Conservative government blatantly ignoring opposition, forging ahead with an ill-conceived notion that they are crusading against violations of privacy.

Yet it moves.

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.

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.

Once upon a time, I expressed a desire to live in Iceland. Unfortunately, these tough economic times have been even tougher on Iceland, what with the government collapsing and all.

Our government came close to dissolving. It looks like that won’t happen, however, now that the Liberal party has a new leader who’s decided he’ll support the Conservative budget. Many people are upset with this about-face by Michael Ignatieff.¹ Since I don’t understand economics and don’t know how to manage money, the best I can do is shrug and hope that our government isn’t planning to do anything silly.²

Meanwhile, I plan to switch back to the barter system. Think about how much the barter system benefits from the digital world! I don’t have to trade chickens; I can just trade electrons with you. It is, by definition, electronic currency. If you prefer a rarer commodity as a currency, you may also trade positrons. Be careful with those, however, as they are liable to annihilate electrons—so I‘d keep my bank accounts separate, if I were you.

Now that we are indubitably living in the End Times, we should kick back and relax. The world’s ending, so it’s not like there’s much of a tomorrow to worry about, now is there? Regarding the afterlife, the majority of the world’s going to be wrong in any event. So pick a religion (or a non-religion) and stick with it; it’s not going to matter much in the end.

And since you won’t be around, this is a great time to take out more of those credit cards the banks eagerly thrust into your hands. You might be saying, “Wait, isn’t that how we got into this mess in the first place?” That’s true, but we’ve dug the hole so deep there’s no getting out of it, and when that happens, you might as well keep digging.

You can then use the credit cards to buy every one of those products advertised on TV. You know the ones I’m talking about: infomercial products, the kind with the toll-free number at the end and the fast-talking voice that informs you about doubling your offer for free (plus expensive shipping and handling fees). If you‘re like me, you’ve often wished your job consisted of ordering those products just to see if they really work as well as advertised. Well, thanks to your fraudulent credit cards, you can!

This massive buying spree using fake credit will keep the delivery companies going for the next ten or fifteen years until the evil army of robots rises up and destroys us. Survivors will be utterly and mercilessly destroyed, since robots aren’t evil overlords and don’t make the same mistakes.

So thanks a lot, Iceland.

---

• [ 1 ] Especially Jack Layton: “Blast! My evil plans foiled again! Nyaaah!”
• [ 2 ] Read: We are. So screwed.

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.

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.

…but if I did, I‘d make it as entertaining as possible.

I do not believe that any human being is justified in taking the life of another human being. The death penalty does not make sense if you’re an atheist, and it doesn’t make sense if you’re a theist. If you are an atheist, then you probably don’t believe in an afterlife. In that case, you are depriving the murderer of existence without inflicting any form of punishment. Since all humans do eventually die, the murderer will die of natural causes eventually. Why not inflict as much punishment before then? Execution robs you of that. If you are a theist, then you probably do believe in an afterlife, which means a “hell” in which the wicked experience divine retribution. However, once again, if you execute a murderer, then he or she will go straight to Hell. And if you do happen to be wrong about the whole “God” thing, you‘ve let that murderer off the hook. Now, since there is a zero per cent chance of the murderer living forever, then it makes sense to inflict as much temporal punishment as possible, then let the murderer experience eternal damnation upon his or her death.

So that’s my position on the death penalty. I wonder though, why is the modern form of execution (i.e., lethal injection) so humane? If the person being executed is truly terrible enough to warrant death, why be nice and quick about it? Moreover, he or she has inflicted so much psychological damage to society, and he or she won’t be paying taxes anymore, so we might as well milk him or her for as much as he or she is worth before executing this person.

To that end, if I were in favour of the death penalty, I’d like it to be as fun to watch as possible. Maybe we should do it the way the Romans did, and feed people to lions. Think about it. In our capitalist society, there‘d be a new niche market for lion tamers to train lions to eat people on command. There’s the entertainment value of watching someone being eaten by a lion—hey, the government could even charge admission and recoup some of the losses from killing one of its citizens. The families of the victims could receive complimentary videos of the execution—fun for the entire family!

A humane death penalty is hypocritical.

And yes, if I were a lion tamer, I would like a nice big hat that says “Lion tamer” in bright neon flashing letters. And now for something completely different.

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.