Blog: Articles filed under news

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.

An election looms in my own fine country even as the Americans battle it out for who gets to inherit the Bush legacy. Two and a half years ago, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives inherited the scandal-ridden legacy of over a decade of Liberal government. As usual, getting elected is easier than actually running the country and making effective decisions that improve the lives of its citizens—Harper hasn’t been doing either of these things very well. He blames his inability to perform on his partners in Parliament, our three opposition leaders. They maintain that he refuses to compromise, doesn’t put the toilet seat down, and until he decides to cooperate, they’re moving out and going to live with their mothers.

Er … anyway, now that we have fixed four-year election dates, the next election would theoretically be in October 2009. However, the Prime Minister still has the right to go to the Governor General and ask her to dissolve Parliament if he believes the government can no longer function effectively. Harper has been rattling just that particular sabre lately, and an election looks increasingly likely. He has met with all three opposition leaders now, but I doubt that any of those meetings was very productive.

The Conservatives have been airing an annoyingly obvious campaign ad on television. I mute it every time it comes on. Those of you not in Canada or lacking a TV can see it on YouTube (warning: contains graphic and disturbing endorsements of Stephen Harper). Notice how the Conservative Party has disabled comments and video responses for the video. Alas, this is not a clean jab—admittedly, disabling comments on YouTube is probably a good idea, considering the average level of intellect you’ll see in the other comments.

The ad focuses on how these supposedly “everyday, Main Street Canadians” see Stephen Harper as a leader who is taking Canada in the right direction. I have several problems with this. Firstly, our government should not be about one leader. That’s the U.S. shtick. I’ll vote for a member of Parliament who I believe will best represent my constituency. However, I do admit that I take the leader of the party into account when I’ll vote, and as this entry’s title declares, I will not vote for our Conservative candidate, no matter who he or she is.

It’s at this point that I must admit I’m a hypocrite. I denounce the attack ads aired by all campaigns; I want them to focus on the issues more than painting their opponents as undesirable leaders. Yet here I am, determined to support a party other than the Conservatives because I find its leader undesirable! Yes, I also disagree with most of the stances of that leader. I still feel kind of dirty though. Curse you, Stephen Harper, and your Kobayashi Maru election!

Moving on….

Secondly, that shot of Harper at the end is kind of creepy. Finally, I disagree with the main message of the ad, and I don’t care what these other people say. Unfortunately, I suspect that the Conservative government doesn’t care if they persuade me with their bubblegum campaigning. I suspect they only care about persuading those other “Main Street Canadians” (the four that weren’t included in the ad) who might not otherwise vote for the Conservatives; the party is emphasizing Harper’s pro-citizen reforms: harsher justice, family values, lower taxes, and all that jazz.

Of course, it doesn’t help that our other potential Prime Ministers have the charisma or leadership abilities of a shaved llama. The Green Party still hasn’t had an elected MP—just recently they obtained their first sitting MP by shopping at a discount Liberal MP store. The NDP get closer to pulling it off each time, but they are still a long way away from garnering enough support to form a government. Not living in Quebec, I have trouble understanding the national relevance of the Bloc¹. So we‘re left with the Liberal Party of Canada, just as corrupt as the Conservative Party, but slightly more palatable because it’s not the Conservative Party—just as the Conservatives were slightly more palatable last time because they weren’t the Liberals. It’s how our elections work.

I want an election, if only to kill the horrible copyright bill that’s in Parliament right now. In addition to that, I dislike the cuts that the Conservative government has made to programs designed to promote Canadian culture and Canadian artists abroad. A person more paranoid than me might see these actions as a form of sneaky censorship. It’s a good thing I‘m not paranoid, no sir!

At the very least, if the Liberals form the next government, we can make fun of Dion’s accent. Remember when we used to do that with Chrétien? Good times….

• [ 1 ] Which is not to say that I disrespect the concept of Quebec as a nation or Québécois as a culture. Please don’t throw poutine at my dad’s house.

Roll your dice, ladies and gentlemen. After sixty years of continuous gameplay, I‘m sure you’re eager for it to be over, but there’s still a few cards left to be won.

I’m sure that it came as a big surprise to everyone when Russia announced its intentions to absorb South Ossetia after unilaterally declaring it independent. Now Russia has effectively seized control of the territory. Russia’s actions are irrational and somewhat disturbing, but what else is new? Unfortunately, I’m having trouble forming an opinion.

For those of us too young to have lived through the Cold War or the aftermath of the subsequent decades, it can be hard to understand the significance of Russia’s actions. It doesn’t help that—at least here in Ontario—our one compulsory high school history course ends after World War II. Let’s break the facts down and see if we can make some sense of what’s happening.

First, some background. South Ossetia is a region in Georgia that is loyal to Russia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia became an independent country, but South Ossetia wanted to join Russia—and they were willing to fight for it. Naturally, Georgia does not want to lose a large region of territory. In the early ’90s, violence ensued. Eventually Georgia and South Ossetia reached a tenuous cease-fire. However, other governments have refused to recognize South Ossetia as an independent country.

The current confict is indubitably fuelled by these long-standing tensions. As I understand it, the ignition occurred when Georgia sent soldiers into the South Ossetian region to quell dissidents. Fighting broke out, and Russia saw this as an opportunity to send its own forces into the area under the banner of peacekeepers. This escalated the situation into a global one—Russia invading any country is a matter for concern, especially considering its tenuous relationship with the United States. After all, the Bush administration is full of old war horses who still worry that Russia will set up us the bomb. Furthermore, Georgia is a prospective member of NATO.

Russia, of course, apologized and quickly moved to clarify the situation: it did not care what the rest of the international community thinks. Eventually France brokered a ceasefire that stipulated Russia must withdraw its troops to within South Ossetia—Russia has yet to do so. Initially they insisted they were withdrawing (when they weren‘t), and now they’ve just decided to declare South Ossetia and Abkhazia independent.

So I mean … who’s side are we on? Either way, this sets precedents. South Ossetia is getting what it wants—the very nature of democracy implies that the people should be able to choose their government, and the South Ossetians want Russia. It seems like a pretty clear-cut solution: Georgia and the rest of the international community should accept the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia must face sanctions, of course—whatever the result, the means were unacceptable.

On the other hand, are we just going to let Russia go in and carve up another country like that? Canada came close to losing Quebec—can you imagine if Quebec separatists had won the referendum and wanted to join the U.S.?

Plus, we know that the U.S. and the rest of the world can’t just let this go. Georgia is but the latest pawn in this Ice-Cold War between the U.S. and Russia. Of course, before making an enemy, it is best to ensure that you don’t need them as a friend.

I’m viewing the issue as one of democracy versus the special interests of other countries. How do you view it?

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!