CodeRedTO: Saving Gary Webster

After City Council's dramatic moves two weeks ago to rescue Toronto's LRT plans from the clutches of Rob Ford's underground-only transit "vision" (which, amazingly, I did not post about), the mayor is about to strike back by terminating Gary Webster, the highly respected manager of the TTC. See CodeRedTO for the whole sorry story.

There are five members of the TTC Board doing the mayor's bidding, instead of looking out for Toronto's interests: Vincent Crisanti, Frank Di Giorgio, Norm Kelly, Denzil Minnan-Wong, and Cesar Palacio. They really need to hear from the public. So too do the four members expected to support Mr. Webster: Chair Karen Stintz, Co-chair Peter Milczyn, Maria Augimeri, and John Parker. I just sent the following e-mail to all members of the Board.

Dear Councillors:

I am writing to express my support for TTC Manager Gary Webster. Mr. Webster has done an admirable job steering the TTC through some very challenging times, growing ridership in spite of budget pressures, improving customer service, and providing much-needed expert, fact-based opinions to Council as it plans the expansion of the system.

The move to axe Mr. Webster is transparently political, and I have no doubt that it originated in the mayor's office. If successful, it would send a terrible message to this city's senior civil servants, who should feel empowered to offer the best professional advice possible to our representatives. Moreover, it would represent a significant loss to the TTC and incredible disrespect for taxpayers, certainly costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars in severance and possibly exposing the city to further legal liabilities. It pains me to think about how many service cuts are being foisted on the public to make up for this kind of truly wasteful spending.

The TTC Board needs to display professionalism and rise above these ugly politics. I strongly urge you to vote against Mr. Webster's removal.

I sent a separate message to Karen Stintz, with this extra bit urging her to bring to bear the full weight of Council:

Moreover, I believe it is Council's responsibility to ensure that the TTC Board is acting appropriately. If it fails to do so, its membership should be changed. To that end, I encourage you to seek support once again for a Special Meeting of Council at the earliest possible opportunity. All indications are that five members of the Board are ready to act against the city's best interests; however, I think they would be less inclined to do so if they knew their actions were about to be reviewed and acted upon by Council.

Thank you very much for all of your dedication to the TTC, and I hope you will continue to demonstrate inspiring leadership on this file.

CodeBlueTO: Stintz's Position

I received one particularly interesting response to my e-mail yesterday about the Port Lands. It comes from Councillor Stintz, and it lays out her position on the issue. This is of interest because Stintz is one of Mayor Ford's close allies, and up until now, she had not voiced a position publicly. Last night we learned that there is at least one member of the mayor's inner circle prepared to vote against him, and it now appears there is another.

In her e-mail, Councillor Stintz expresses support for Waterfront Toronto and its plan, and my read is that if forced to choose, she would vote against transferring control to the Toronto Port Lands Company. However, her preference is clearly to reach some kind of face-saving compromise for the mayor.

Here is Stintz's text:

Dear Neighbours and Fellow Residents,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about how the lower Port Lands will be developed.

There is a proposal coming to City Council next week that will ask for the Toronto Portlands Corporation to be the lead development agency for the Portlands. The assumption is that the Portlands Corporation can develop the land more quickly and economically than Waterfront Toronto. Over the last few weeks, I have met with the Toronto Portlands Corporation and Waterfront Toronto.

I am convinced that Waterfront Toronto has done a complete and comprehensive plan for the Portlands and has done so consistent with the City's vision and the requirements of Ministry of Environment.

I believe that the current proposal put forward by the Toronto Portlands Corporation should be studied but the proposal departs significantly from the City's current vision that the Portlands would be developed as a neighbourhood community with mixed uses.

I will be working with my colleagues on amendments that will continue to advance the work of Waterfront Toronto while also attempting to achieve of some under lying goals of the proposal by the Toronto Portlands Corporation, such as realizing the vision for this land more quickly.

Thank you for your concerns and interest in this important city issue.

Yours truly,
Karen Stintz
City Councillor,
Ward 16, Eglinton-Lawrence
City of Toronto
Chair, Toronto Transit Commission

CodeBlueTO: Saving the Port Lands

Toronto lurches toward its next crisis, as our charming and tireless mayors, Doug and Rob Ford, are plotting to upend waterfront development plans for the Port Lands. CodeBlueTO has all the information you need to help protect the people's plans for the waterfront. Ford for Toronto's Matt Elliot has again compiled a list of undecided or potential swing votes on Council. However, in light of mounting opposition, I have decided to write to all members of Council not named Ford. Here is my letter:

Dear Councillors,

I am writing to express my opposition to Mayor Ford's move to transfer control over the development of the Port Lands from Waterfront Toronto to the Toronto Port Lands Company. I urge you to vote against the Executive Committee's recommendation when the issue comes before Council on September 21.

I am strongly supportive of the existing, approved plan for the Toronto Port Lands and of the process of extensive public consultation by which it was created. Waterfront Toronto is doing excellent work, mixing development with unique and engaging public spaces, like Sherbourne Common and Canada's Sugar Beach. The plan to renaturalize the mouth of the Don River and provide expansive green space and public access to the waterfront, along with high-value mixed-use development, is affordable and would meet Toronto's wants and needs perfectly.

By contrast, the mayor's "vision" is stunning and almost comical in its extravagance. We have no need for a monorail, a giant Ferris wheel, or a mega-mall, and the obvious question is, how could we ever pay for them? The mayor would have us believe that the private sector will happily foot the bill, but that is the stuff of pure fantasy. Taxpayers deserve to see concrete plans and a full and proper accounting for this "vision" before any steps are taken that would put the current waterfront plans at risk.

That Mayor Ford and Councillor Ford developed their fanciful "vision" in the back rooms of City Hall, with lobbying from unregistered foreign developers, is a slap in the face to all of the Torontonians who participated in Waterfront Toronto's open process. The mayor's actions demonstrate not only disrespect for citizens, but alarming disrespect for Council as well: Council unanimously approved the current plans just one year ago.

If the mayor is concerned about the pace of Waterfront Toronto's development plans, as he claims, he should engage with the organization and work towards a solution that would accelerate them. The very idea that we can speed things up by throwing away five years of planning and starting from scratch is absurd.

The citizens and taxpayers of Toronto are relying on you to do your job and protect us from the mayor's reckless gamble. We have a secure investment in Waterfront Toronto, and the mayor has no mandate to put that at risk. Please vote to safeguard it by rejecting EX9.6.

Special thanks to Jaime Woo for suggesting the wording that I used (approximately) in my concluding paragraph.

Jarvis Bike Lanes

As you probably heard, the Jarvis Bike Lanes are on the chopping block. The War on the Car is over, long live the War on the Bike.

City Council is set to vote on the issue on July 12 or 13. If you support the bike lanes, please write your councillor (you can find your councillor and his or her e-mail address here). You might consider cc'ing all of the "mushy middle" councillors and the hard-line Ford supporters who previously voted for the installation of the bike lanes in 2009.¹ Their votes will decide this.

Also, give the mayor a call at 416-397-FORD. He claims to be hearing only from people who want the lanes gone, but I doubt that's entirely accurate.

In any case, here is the e-mail I sent to my councillor, Kristyn Wong-Tam, and the others mentioned above:

Dear Councillors,

I am writing to express my concern about the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee's recommendation to remove the Jarvis bike lanes, and to you urge to oppose that measure when it comes before Council. As a driver, a cyclist, a resident of the neighbourhood, and a taxpayer, I strongly believe that such a move would be a big mistake.

I live on Jarvis, so I have seen first-hand the dramatic improvement resulting from the addition of the bike lanes. The reality is that cars and bikes are coexisting much better than they ever had before.

I drive on Jarvis daily, and my observation is that traffic has not become noticeably worse since the centre lane was removed. The recent staff report supports this view, demonstrating that average travel times have increased only slightly. It also makes recommendations for advance left turn signals that could address what congestion does exist.

The same report shows that, while vehicle traffic has not been reduced at all, bike volume has tripled since the lanes were installed, increasing Jarvis's total capacity by almost 5%. This is great news for everyone: The gridlock problem we face in Toronto will only be ameliorated by using our limited infrastructure more efficiently.

Moreover, I'm very worried that removing the bike lanes will just add that new bike traffic back into the vehicle lanes, slowing them down as a result. Separating bike and vehicle traffic allows both to travel better, keeping bicyclists safe and drivers moving.

What concerns me most is the apparent rush to push through a decision on removing the bike lanes, without due consideration or any kind of consultation with the public. Even my local councillor was cut out of any discussion before the Committee's decision.

Does the proposal to remove the bike lanes even include a plan for what to do with the road space that would be recovered? If it does, the public hasn't been told, and we certainly don't know what it would cost. The indications are that it could be very expensive, indeed. The disrespect for taxpayers, and for citizens of the area in particular, is galling.

Once again, I urge you to please vote against the removal of the Jarvis bike lanes.

---
[1] Thanks to Ford for Toronto for the full list: councillor_milczyn@toronto.ca, councillor_grimes@toronto.ca, councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca, councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca, councillor_digiorgio@toronto.ca, councillor_colle@toronto.ca, councillor_palacio@toronto.ca, councillor_bailao@toronto.ca, councillor_matlow@toronto.ca, councillor_robinson@toronto.ca, councillor_crawford@toronto.ca, councillor_kelly@toronto.ca, councillor_moeser@toronto.ca

Yet Another CRTC Fail

In January, the CRTC  proposed a change to rules prohibiting false or misleading news broadcasts on radio and television.  Naturally, those changes would weaken the rules, paving the way for more public disinformation. Great, just what we need.

The changes are currently open for public comment, but only for two more days. Here is my brief submission.

1. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed amendments to the Radio Regulations, 1986; Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987; Pay Television Regulations, 1990; Specialty Services Regulations, 1990; and the Broadcasting Information Regulations, 1993, that would relax the existing prohibition on broadcasting false or misleading news.

2. I am a citizen who is greatly concerned about the quality of news and information in the public sphere, and I fear that the proposed changes would constitute a giant step backward on that front.

3. The new requirement that false or misleading news "endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public" is unduly narrow, failing to account for other important societal harm that such reporting can cause. The existing prohibition without qualification is certainly more appropriate. If there are particular exceptions that require special consideration, such as satire, those should be enumerated specifically.

4. I am appalled that these changes have been proposed without any apparent justification and without a significant public consultation. They have the potential to damage Canadian society and our democratic institutions, and as such warrant significantly more attention and input than they have received.

***End of document***

I'd encourage you to submit your comments using the online form. Note that you must number your paragraphs and end your submission with the line ***End of document*** (to indicate that the document has not been truncated).

Check out posts from Michael Geist's and the Green Party for more information.

Transit City II

I just accepted an invite for the the Facebook "event" Support Transit City, send a quick email. If you care about public transit in Toronto, you should, too.

I'm not really one to send a form letter, so here's what I ended up sending to Rob Ford and the new TTC Chair, Karen Stintz.

Dear Mayor Ford,

I am writing to express my support for Transit City and my concern about your plans to scrap it. In particular, your statement Wednesday that "Transit City is over" seems premature, ill-considered, and entirely disrespectful of council's authority.

You have frequently claimed that people want subways, and I have no doubt that is true. However, there is no denying that subways are extremely expensive. The TTC estimates that your proposed Sheppard subway extension would cost 3-4x as much as the planned LRT line, despite being only two-thirds its length. Wanting something doesn't mean you can afford it.

As a citizen of Toronto and a taxpayer, I believe we cannot afford to see the tax dollars already been spent on Transit City go to waste. Contracts have been signed, work has begun, LRT vehicles have been ordered, and the city of Toronto will be on the hook for costly fines and penalties if we change course now. Scrapping this plan would also represent the loss of billions of dollars of federal and provincial infrastructure money for Toronto.

I am both a driver and a public transit user, and I do not believe that Transit City represents "a war on the car." Only by rapidly improving public transit options can we begin to reduce congestion on the roads and make things better for everyone. Throwing out almost a decade's work on an affordable city-wide rapid transit plan would be the height of irresponsibility.

Mr. Mayor, you promised respect for the taxpayer. Abandoning Transit City would demonstrate exactly the opposite.

Bill C-32

The Conservatives are taking another kick at the Copyright can. This time, they've come up with Bill C-32. Here is my letter to the Minister of Industry, Tony Clement. Please get informed and speak out!

Dear Mr. Clement,

I am writing to express my concerns with the recently introduced copyright bill, Bill C-32. Professionally, I am a software developer and a published author, so I am dependent upon copyright to make my living. I am also an enthusiastic consumer of copyrighted works, particularly music and software, so I view the issue from both sides.

The bill represents a significant step forward from your government's previous attempt at copyright reform. In all areas but one, it appears to take a balanced approach. Unfortunately, the one exception, the digital lock provisions, destroy that balance by giving producers of content a final technological veto over any and all rights that would otherwise fall to consumers. Thus, in its current form, Bill C-32 is critically flawed.

The inclusion of such strict protections for digital locks is surprising, to say the least. They appear to have survived, virtually unchanged, from the failed Bill C-61, in spite of the outpouring of opposition during last summer's Copyright Consultation. Indeed, the most commonly heard opinion throughout the Consultation was opposition to C-61-style anti-circumvention provisions (expressed in 6641 of 8306 submissions). One cannot help but wonder what purpose the Consultation was meant to serve when its strongest message has been ignored, no doubt in deference to the wills of a powerful American corporate lobby. As one Canadian who made the effort to have my voice heard, I am deeply upset by this result.

The DMCA-style hard line that has again been offered in Bill C-32 is clearly not supported by Canadians, and it is not necessary for Canada to meet our obligations under the WIPO Internet treaties, which require only “adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies” for digital locks. In other countries, including India and New Zealand, WIPO implementation has been achieved with more balanced approaches to digital locks.

A copyright balance requires that consumers' rights be protected in all cases, not left to the whims of the dominant media corporations. Circumvention of technological measures can be necessary to exercise those rights, so it is simply unacceptable to criminalize such circumvention for non-infringing purposes. I strongly urge you to amend Bill C-32 to make the anti-circumvention provisions applicable only to circumvention for the purpose of copyright infringement.

Transit City

I just wrote the Premier in support of restoring provincial funding for Transit City. Please take action to help, too. Here is what I wrote.

Dear Premier McGuinty,

I am deeply disappointed by your recent decision to delay previously promised funding for the Transit City Light Rail plan. Delaying funding now will only compound Toronto's severe transportation woes, and could very well kill this vital project altogether. It would be most unfortunate if your lasting legacy was undoing all the work and collaboration that has already gone into developing this plan.

In December 2009, as construction began on the Sheppard East line, Minister Bradley was quoted as reaffirming your government's commitment to quickly building a comprehensive public transit network in Toronto. He said, "By providing more convenient, affordable, faster rides on public transit, we are tackling congestion, creating jobs, stimulating the economy and improving the air we breathe." He was corrrect: Transit City will allow Torontonians to make a contribution to the critical cause of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, provide desperately needed transit access to Toronto's inner suburbs, and stimulate the economy with thousands of jobs.

Although the province's budget deficit is unfortunate, public transit funding is not the cause of this deficit, and cutting this funding is not the solution. Nothing has changed since Minister Bradley's statement last December.

As a long-time Liberal supporter, I am also concerned about the impact of this about-face on your government's prospects for re-election. If another party campaigns on a promise to restore Transit City funding in the next election, I fear that I will have to give them my vote. I cannot think of another issue that is more important than this one.

I ask you to please deliver on your promise and return the $4 billion to the Transit City budget to keep this plan on track. Transit City is too vital to the health of our city to be put on hold.

My Copyright Consultation Submission

The Copyright Consultation wraps up on Sunday, September 13, so there's just over a week left to make your submission! I finally finished mine today. Here it is.

Thank you very much for receiving this submission, and for holding this consultation in the first place. I hope that hearing the views and concerns of all Canadian stakeholders will lead to new copyright legislation that is more balanced and forward-looking than the deeply flawed Bill C-61.

The primary reason for this submission is to express, in the strongest terms possible, my opposition to the DMCA-like anti-circumvention provisions of Bill C-61. Banning all circumvention of technological measures (as opposed to just circumvention for the purposes of infringement) and banning technologies that can be used for circumvention are extreme measures that destroy all balance in copyright.

We do not achieve balance by allowing copyright holders to decide for themselves exactly how their works may be accessed and then legally protecting the technologies that enforce those decisions. If a consumer has purchased a copyrighted work and a technological measure attempts to, for example, override Fair Dealing, protect the work beyond its copyright's expiration, or revoke access on the whim of the distributor, the consumer must be allowed to circumvent that measure to access the work.

The DMCA has been wholly ineffective in preventing widespread copying in the USA. The realities of modern computing and communication -- that copying and distribution now have essentially zero cost -- have led to an explosion of file sharing in that country, just as they have here in Canada and in the rest of the world. The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA didn't stop DVD-CSS or FairPlay from being defeated. Rather, they have been used and abused to limit interoperability, deny access to persons with disabilities, disrupt security research, and slow innovation. The American situation is absolutely not one we should be trying to recreate here.

Instead, I believe we should take a wider view on modernizing copyright, as I will explain in my responses to the five specific questions posed for the consultation.

1. How do Canada’s copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernized?

I am affected by copyright law both as a producer and a consumer of copyrighted materials. Professionally, I am a software developer and a published author. Like most members of the general public, I am a consumer of music, movies, and the written word. I am a strong supporter of Canadian artists.

In both my professional and personal lives, I am a user of, contributor to, and advocate for Free and Open Source Software. While this type of software is usually distributed without charge and without any restrictions on end users, it relies on copyright law to control distribution and use in derivative works. Free and Open Source software thrives in open environments, and it is vulnerable to abuse of copyright law to restrict compatibility and interoperability with other software and hardware.

Canadian copyright law is in need of modernization. In particular, I believe it should be simplified and brought into line with current technological realities and public sentiment.

Copyright law currently just doesn't feel relevant to most individuals, especially younger people. Millions of Canadians engage in file sharing, without believing that they're really doing anything wrong. For most people, sharing feels good. Sharing music tends to build communities of fans and promote the artist whose work is being shared.

The overall effect of a decade of file sharing on the music industry has been most decidedly negative, but in the last few years, we have seen dramatic growth in online music sales beginning to offset the losses. It is hard to pinpoint the reasons for this change, but the music industry's long-overdue move to abandon DRM could be one of them. It is also too early to tell whether, given enough creativity and technical savvy on the part of artists and the industry, this could mark the beginning of a turnaround.

What is abundantly clear, however, is that file sharing is not at all comparable to commercial, for-profit copyright infringement. If non-commercial copying is to be outlawed, this should be specified expressly in copyright law and the punishment must fit the crime. In the USA, individuals have faced multi-million dollar lawsuits for sharing a handful of files. This is an unreasonable and disproportionate response. Statutory fines on the same scale as a speeding ticket (total, not per file or per transfer) would seem much more appropriate.

Moreover, copying for one's own personal use (and for the use by other members of one's household) should not be subject to any copyright restrictions at all. Once a consumer has legitimately purchased a work, he should not be prevented from making a backup copy or transferring the work to another format or device. Any restrictions only undermine the credibility of copyright and artificially diminish the value of new technologies that could otherwise help users enjoy the content they have purchased.

In the not-too-distant past, copying and distributing creative works was difficult and expensive, which meant that these acts were generally only carried out for commercial purposes. If someone was going to make money from copying the work, it certainly made sense to ensure that it was the creator, so as to provide an incentive to create. Today, copying and distribution is effectively free and instantaneous, making personal and non-commercial copying commonplace. Copyright law should reflect this reality.

2. Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time?

Technological neutrality and flexibility are key to ensuring that copyright law can withstand the test of time. Rights and exceptions can be specified without ensorsing or banning particular technologies, leaving the courts with sufficient flexibility to apply the principles to the relevant technologies of the day. Bill C-61 was very poor in this regard, attempting to carve out exceptions for specific uses of specific technologies, many of which were already obsolete.

3. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?

I believe that all of the changes I have described so far would have a positive effect on public perception of the credibility and relevance of copyright law. If fewer Canadians are inclined to violate copyright law, then creators will be better able to receive the benefits that the law intends.

Beyond that, the best way to foster creativity is to ensure that copyright law does not negatively affect people's ability to create new works based on existing ideas. Creative people have always built on what has come before, and with the help of technology that is now more true than ever. More flexible Fair Dealing, most especially including parody and satire, would be helpful in this regard, and certainly the public domain must be protected by not extending the current term of copyright.

4. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?

Once again, I believe that technological neutrality in copyright is key to fostering competition and investment in Canada. Banning particular technologies would be damaging to the software and electronics industries.

5. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?

Certain large players in the content industries are having trouble adapting to the new, digital economy, and they are pressing for extreme changes to the copyright balance. It is worth noting again that these changes have not had the desired effect in other jurisdictions that have adopted them, and that artists and creators, themselves, are not at all convinced.

I believe that the more reasonable proposals described so far in this submission would be much more effective in helping position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy.

Thank you again for receiving and considering this submission.

My Letter to the Governor General

I just sent the following e-mail to the Governor General. It's not too late to have your voice heard. Write to info@gg.ca to express your opinion.

Excellency,

I am writing to encourage you to allow Parliament to express its non-confidence in the government and, if it does so, to ask the Liberal-NDP coalition to form a new government.

As I am sure you know, the concept of Responsible Government forms the basis of our democracy. Yesterday in Question Period, the Prime Minister faced repeated demands to allow Parliament to express its lack of confidence in the government with a vote. I was shocked to hear our Prime Minister dismiss these demands as an attempt to "hide behind parliamentary niceties."

Such profound disrespect for this defining principle of our democracy is appalling.

It comes as no surprise, then, that the Prime Minister plans to seek prorogation of Parliament for no reason but to avoid facing a confidence vote. But without the confidence of Parliament, the Prime Minister lacks the authority for this action. The use of such tactics to hide from a confidence vote would set a profoundly troubling precedent, severely damaging our parliamentary democracy. I urge you to deny such a request.

You have been entrusted with the great responsibility of upholding Canada's parliamentary tradition, and I am confident you will act appropriately.

Vote Wisely

Some more thoughts on the day before we go to the polls...

Stephen Harper's probable perjury is just the latest reason to want him out of office. From a surplus-killing $12-billion GST cut to a climate change plan that will allow emissions to rise, from arts cuts and film and TV censorship measures to the Canadian DMCA, from the MPs' handbook on obstructing parliament to In & Out, this has been the most disastrous Canadian government in recent memory. And the most secretive, least transparent government ever. Oh, and who can forget about broken promises on income trusts and fixed election dates?

Just four-weeks ago, Leader Harper made this prediction: "My own belief is if we were going to have some kind of crash or recession, we probably would have had it by now, a year into the crisis." Since then, the TSX has dropped by 26%, and Scotiabank and TD have said that the country is headed for a deep recession. Isn't it great to have a PM with a Master's in Economics?

Some two thirds of Canadian voters do not want to see the Conservatives reelected tomorrow, but we're poised to hand Harper another minority government, nonetheless. Here are the latest poll results from Nanos and seat predictions from democraticSPACE and Election Prediction Project, all of whom most accurately predicted the vote in 2006.

Hopefully, they'll prove sobering for anyone who bought Layton's line about running for PM. He doesn't have a shot. Either he's deluding himself or he's merely trying to delude you. If you're a staunch New Democratic Party supporter, I would think you're facing a really difficult decision tomorrow: will you vote for the NDP or against Stephen Harper? Unless you live in one of a handful of ridings, you really can't do both.

The same is true for Green Party supporters, but the situation is even more dire. There are but two ridings in which Green candidates might possibly be elected: Central Nova and Vancouver Centre.

If you oppose Stephen Harper, I really hope you've given some serious consideration to how you'll vote. I hope you've read all the parties' platforms and thought about the course this country will chart over the coming years. If you care about the environment, I hope you've reflected on how, for the first time ever, a major party has put an environmental issue at the heart of its campaign, and what it will mean for the future if that move is seen as a big part of the reason for its defeat. I hope you've at least used the tools available to see which candidates in your riding can defeat a Conservative.

Please vote, and please vote wisely.

Our Perjuring PM?

On Friday evening, it was revealed that Harper's expert witness found that the Cadman tape was not altered. A couple days later, that story seems to have dropped off the radar, but it's really significant.

In 2005, Conservative-turned-independent MP Chuck Cadman voted with the Liberal government, passing the budget by a single vote and preventing the government from falling. At the time, Cadman was battling malignant melanoma. After his death, his widow, Dona Cadman, revealed that her husband had been approached by two Conservative Party officials with an offer of a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his vote against the Liberal budget. Under section 119 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to bribe an MP.

At the beginning of this year, a tape-recorded interview by Vancouver journalist Tom Zytaruk came to light, in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged that he had approved of making an offer to Cadman.

Zytaruk asked, "The insurance policy for a million dollars, do you know anything about that?"

Harper responded, "I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions. This is not for publication?" He went on to explain that the offer to Cadman was "only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election," and he failed to address specifically the allegation of a million-dollar insurance bribe.

Last March, Prime Minister Stephen Harper sued Stéphane Dion and the Liberal party for defamation over allegations made linking Harper to the affair. So as to avoid demonstrating malice, the Liberals were forced to remove allegations from their Web site.

This August, Harper testified. During cross-examination, he was asked about Zytaruk's question regarding the insurance policy and responded, "That is not the question as he put it. He has done some editing there.

"What I do know is that this answer is not the answer to this question, I think there's been some editing in this question, so I don't think it goes from this question to this answer."

Harper tried to delay the proceedings until after the election, but on Friday lawyers for the Liberal party filed an analysis of the recording by Harper's own audio expert. His findings?

The key portion of the recorded interview contains no splices, edits or alterations.

The best information available to the public now suggests that Prime Minister Stephen Harper made verifiably false statements on a material matter while under oath in a court of law.

Mr. Harper has already made history with his defamation suit, which seems to have been engineered to silence any discussion of the matter until after the election. He is the first sitting prime minister ever to have filed such a suit. If Canadians return him to office tomorrow, he may also become the first sitting prime minister ever to be charged with perjury.

Reassurance

Concerned about the economy? Worry no more.

My View on Organ Donation

On Monday, the story about Health Canada's new regulations for organ donation broke. CBC reported on the rules, which came into effect in December and prevent several high risk groups from donating. Included among these groups are injection drug users, people with tattoos, and any men who had sex with other men in the previous five years.

After reading the article, I went to CBC's Your View section to read some comments. As expected, there was a range of opinions, from outrage to blatant homophobia. What I found particularly troubling was the way people were misreporting, misinterpreting, misstating, and downright making up various numbers to try to back up their arguments. So, I set down to find some actual numbers and do some very rough calculations to try to interpret them. When I went to post my analysis, I discovered that they have a 2000-character limit. So, I broke it into two pieces and was able to post the first half. But, for whatever reason, the second half never appeared. I checked their Submissions Policy and found no restriction on multiple, related posts, so I tried submitting it again from another IP address, just in case they automatically screen out multiple submissions as a guard against spam. No dice, so I guess someone actually reviewed it and decided not to post it. Anyhow, the discussion is now closed, so I figured I'd just post it here...

First off, in response to the ridiculous non-statistics that have been bandied about, I'd like to offer some actual figures and back-of-envelope calculations.

2005 HIV Infection Numbers (from Health Canada):

58,000 HIV-infected people in Canada
29,600 are MSM (men who have sex with men)
2,250 are MSM-IDU (injecting drug users)

You'll notice that about 50% of HIV infected people in Canada are men who have had sex with men. Some people have inverted this claim and said that 50% of MSM are HIV-infected, which of course, is not at all the same thing. As we'll see in a moment, the real number is a tiny fraction of that.

Canada's population in 2005 was approximately 29,271,200. That's interpolated from the 2001 and 2006 census numbers (from Wikipedia: Canada).

I'll work on the assumption that 2.5% of the population are MSM. Of course, various studies have offered wildly differing figures, but I think it's reasonable to assume that 5% of men have had sex with men as a "consensus figure" for my rough estimations (from Wikipedia: Demographics of Sexual Orientation). Of course, I've halved that since I'm looking for the percentage of the population as a whole.

Using these figures, let's estimate HIV infections rates among...

MSM: 29600 / (0.025*29271200) = 0.040
MSM+ISU: (29600+2250) / (0.025*29271200) = 0.044
Non-MSM: (58000-29600 - 2250) / (0.975*29271200) = 0.00092

So, by my rough estimate, 4% of MSM are infected with HIV, compared to just under 0.1% of the rest of the population.

As a gay man, I find that pretty alarming. A man who has sex with men is more than 40 times more likely to be HIV+ than anyone else. The immediate reaction might be to take the steps that Health Canada has taken. But of course, a couple of statistics don't tell the whole story.

What you really have to look at is how small a risk those numbers actually represent. All donated tissues are tested, and those tests are considered to be highly effective, with false-negative rates of just 0.003% for HIV testing (from Wikipedia: Accuracy of HIV Testing). So, multiplying that out, we can estimate the chances that a donated organ that tests negative for HIV will actually carry the disease...

MSM: 0.04*0.003 = 0.00012
Non-MSM: 0.00092*0.003 = 0.00000276

Yes, that's right. A negative-testing organ from an MSM is "only" 99.988% safe, while a negative-testing organ from someone else is 99.999724% safe.

Now, given the choice, who wouldn't want the safer organ? But, of course, that's not the choice we face in reality. There is a chronic shortage of donated organs available and people are dying on the waiting lists. That's why those people in need of organs are willing to take that extra risk, as they expressed in their responses on the CBC's forum.

So, the appropriate question to ask is this: does the benefit of additional organ donations outweigh the increased risk of infection? My figures, while just estimates, suggest that it does, and by far. If we also apply the 2.5% MSM estimate to the pool of organ donors, then we can calculate the overall risk when they are included in the system:

Total: 0.025*0.00012 + 0.975*0.00000276 = 0.00000569

Removing this "high risk" 2.5% of the donor pool improves the safety of the system by a mere 0.000293%. The numbers strongly suggest that we're best served by maximizing the size of the donor pool and relying on existing, highly effective testing to identify unsafe organs. Even if these estimates are out by orders of magnitudes, how can the new regulation possibly be justified? Of course, if it had been debated in the open, we would be able to see and evaluate Health Canada's reasoning. But, I'd suggest, the way it was adopted in secret and announced a month later doesn't reflect well on that reasoning.

Gay and bisexual men may feel unduly targeted by this regulation, but we're not its real victims. Those people in need of organ transplants are.

Wow, Stephane!

Stephane Dion has just been selected as the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I've been watching the convention all day. It's been amazingly exciting, even though it feels like it's been moving in slow motion.

I've been a big fan of Dion since he wrote his open letters to Lucien Bouchard and Jacques Brassard. He has always displayed a clarity of thought and intellectual honesty that's too often lacking in politics. And his embrace of a strong environmental policy is most heartening.

Gerrard Kennedy, of whom I knew nothing before, has earned a lot of my respect, too. By abandoning his own bid after the second ballot and throwing his support behind Dion, he pushed Dion to the head of the pack. For me, that was a clear demonstration of commitment to his values and principles.

With Michael Ignatieff leading throughout the campaign, I was not looking forward to voting in the next election. Now all of a sudden, I can hardly wait!

Convenient Delusions

Last night, I saw An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary about Al Gore's campaign to raise consciousness of global warming. It was truly alarming.

I would love to summarize the points he made, but I don't think I'd be doing him justice. Most alarming for me were the revelations about the melting and cracking that's already occuring in arctic and antarctic ice. It's happening quickly -- in many cases, more quickly than previously predicted -- and the potential consequences are dire. The melting of Greenland's shelf ice would raise global sea levels by over 20 feet, submerging many costal cities around the world. Scarier yet, ocean currents may be affected in totally upredictable ways, completely altering global weather patterns.

The response to Gore's science mirrors a point he makes in the film: the scientific consensus is there, but it is denied by those who find it politically convenient to pretend that there is a significant disagreement within the scientific community.

Anyhow, I would encourage anyone and everyone to see the film.

This morning, I was enraged by conservatie pundit Ezra Levant, who appeared on Sounds Like Canada to promote his book, The War on Fun. In this book, he argues that nasty, liberal do-gooders are trying to control our every action and take away everything that's fun. Apparently, he defines "everything that's fun" as smoking, over-eating, and producing massive amounts of carbon dioxide. He was actually speaking from his new Hummer, as if to prove how obnoxious and disconnected from reality he is.

He tried to claim that, while we should have the freedom to do what we want, we also need to take personal responsibility for the outcome of our actions. But, he utterly failed to address any notion of collective responsibility for outcomes that affect us all. He might be just fine driving around Calgary in his Hummer, but if the Netherlands wakes up under water, how is he going to take responsibility for his part in that?

Big surprise, it's not even an issue for him. Ezra doesn't seem to believe in global warming. Without citing any science at all, he brushes off global warming as lacking a scientific concensus, and asserts that climate change certainly isn't the most pressing issue facing us.

I guess that's his convenient delusion.

Interestingly, Ezra's live-and-let-live attitude towards personal liberty only seems to go so far. On one hand, we shouldn't let something petty like a desire not to radically alter the world's climate stand in the way of his gas-guzzling fun. But, please, let's not offend his sensibilities by daring to extend equal treatment by the state to gays and lesbians. Fun is all well and good, but, two boys kissing? That's just gross.

Canadian Music Creators Speak Out

Today a new voice was heard in the debate over copyright reform in Canada: a group called the Canadian Music Creators Coalition was launched to represent the views of artists. Which artists, you ask?

How about Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Raine Maida, Billy Talent, Broken Social Scene, and Sloan, for starters? These are some of the biggest names in Canadian music. Some are signed to major labels, and other to independents. They've banded together to clearly reject the notion that the major labels and their lobbyists speak on their behalf, and to advance a decidedly fan-friendly agenda.

Here are their three guiding principles for the copyright reform process:

1. Suing our fans is destructive and hypocritical
2. Digital locks are risky and counterproductive
3. Cultural policy should support actual Canadian artists.

They expand on these principles to oppose the RIAA-style lawsuits and the harsh statutory copyright damages that make them possible, as well as DRM and DMCA-style legislation that protects it. Moreover, they advocate the notion of fair use to protect consumers, in place of our current, more limited fair dealings provisions, and call on the government to strengthen initiatives that really benefit Canadian artists, like The Canada Music Fund and FACTOR.

This couldn't come at a better time. The new federal government will be taking a fresh look at copyright reform, after Bill C-60 died with the previous session of parliament. They will now be faced with a strong voice putting forward these principles, and I'm sure they will find it difficult to ignore the artists.

C-60 may have seemed quite civilized compared to the DMCA, but viewed through the lens of these principles, it looks positively draconian. Hopefully copyright sanity will prevail in Canada, and the Canadian music will continue to flourish.

And now, I shall go listen to Train Wreck with glee.

Earth To Elections Canada

I was surprised to read that the publication ban on voting results is back in effect for this election. Does anyone really believe that bloggers and small Web sites won't publish results before the polls close across the country?

Here's a simple solution to the problem: don't start counting any ballots until all the polls are closed! Now, I realize that might mean that Eastern and Central Canadians would have to either (a) stay up late, or (b) wait until tomorrow morning to hear the results. But, you know, I think that's a little bit more reasonable than trying to bend the Internet to Elections Canada's will.

Tommy! BluePages QuickSearch

Name:

Politics and Sheep

I just don't get it: how could Stephen Harper have been so scary in 2004 and not now? The shift in public opinion has been huge, and I fear that we're going to see major policy reversals that will change a great measure of what we tend to think of as Canadian values. I can think of a few possible explanations...

1. I have, along with the Liberal and New Democratic parties and much of the press, a skewed view of Canadian values. Canadians' tendencies really aren't as socially progressive as we might imagine. Those of us who live in the cities (I've only ever lived in Vancouver and Toronto) probably underestimate the how different the world-views held in much of the rest of the country are.

2. Canadians really aren't concerned about social issues right now. They don't agree with the Conservative position on same-sex marriage, for instance, but they're willing to put their differences aside in order to send a message that they will not tolerate what they perceive as waste and corruption. Other institutions of government, notably the courts, and public opinion will probably constrain a Conservative government, preventing them from significantly altering the country's path on sical issues.

3. Apparently, Harper has been much nicer to the press in this election. Last time, he didn't give them much time or access, but in this campaign, they say he's actually been friendly with them. As a result, his coverage has been much more positive and Canadians have decided that he must be an okay guy. In other words, we're a bunch of sheep.

I fear that the third explanation might be the most accurate.

Tommy! BluePages QuickSearch

Name:

Pride and Hope

Ever since the CBC lockout started, I've been pretty out of it when it comes to current events. I rarely listen to the radio these days, and I never watch TV news. Pretty much all I know is what I read in the free papers and on the Net.

So, yesterday, I was totally oblivious to Micaelle Jean's investiture as Governor General of Canada. But this morning, as I walked past the newspaper boxes on my way to the subway, I couldn't help but notice the pictures and headlines. Writers from the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, and, yes, even the National Post seemed to be falling over themselves to heap praise on the new vice-regent.

Huh? What happened to the hasty appointment, the lack of background checks, the ties to Quebec sovereigntists and the FLQ? I picked up a copy of the Globe to find out more.

Here's what happened: Canada got to see and hear Michaelle Jean.

Now we understand what Paul Martin must have seen when he first met her, immediately deciding that she should be Governor General. I wonder if he's been laughing to himself a lot over the past few weeks, as an anglophone press that clearly knew nothing of the woman questioned her allegiance to Canada.

In her installation speech yesterday, Mme. Jean answered their concerns beautifully, and went far beyond:

The time of the "two solitudes" that for too long described the character of this country is past. The narrow notion of "every person for himself" does not belong in today’s world, which demands that we learn to see beyond our wounds, beyond our differences for the good of all. Quite the contrary: we must eliminate the spectre of all the solitudes and promote solidarity among all the citizens who make up the Canada of today. As well, we must make good use of our prosperity and our influence wherever the hope that we represent offers the world an extra measure of harmony.

And that is how I am determined that the position I occupy as of today will be more than ever a place where citizens' words will be heard, where the values of respect, tolerance, and sharing that are so essential to me and to all Canadians, will prevail. Those values, which are paramount for me, are linked inextricably with the Canada I love.

Canada is known for its values: freedom, tolerance, respect, and generosity. It's on those values that we've built our remarkable society, and it's in those values that we will find our better future. The soveriegnty movement isn't just misguided -- it's irrelevant.

And, on the subject of the future, this:

Most of all, I want our young people to be our standard-bearers. I want them to dip into the enormous treasure trove that is Canada. I am the mother of a little girl whose story opened my eyes to certain very harsh realities that we must not ignore. My daughter, Marie-Éden, has changed my life. She has taught me that while all children are born equal, they don’t all have the same opportunities to flourish. This is as true for children here as it is for children in the third world...

Nothing in today’s society is more disgraceful than the marginalization of some young people who are driven to isolation and despair. We must not tolerate such disparities. After all, our young people are helping to redefine the great family we all belong to, in a world that is less and less impermeable, more and more open. They are the promise of our future and we have a duty to encourage them to join us in this reinvention of the world.

In every photo, Jean is stunning, with her warm smile radiating youthful vitality. It's a marked contrast to the series of old, white men who held the post before Jean and her predecessor, Adrienne Clarkson. She is dignified and glamourous, yet comes across as authentic and relatable. She's an truly an exciting personality in political climate that seems nasty, disconnected and irrelevant.

As John Ibbitson gushed in the Globe, "but here is this beautiful young Canadian of Haitian birth, with a smile that makes you catch your breath, with bemused older husband by her side, and a daughter who literally personifies our future, and you look at them and think: Yes, this is our great achievement, this is the Canada that Canada wants to be."

As for me, I'm proud. Proud that Michaelle Jean has chosen this country to live in, and of the words she choses to describe it. Proud that this country recognized this woman and lifted her to one of its highest offices. And today, I'm hopeful for its future.