Category: Canada

Anything related to Canada or Canadians

Private Copying Tariff increase

Canada has increased its Private Copying Tariff on writable CDs from 21 cents to 29 cents. Supposedly, the purpose of the tariff is to pay artists back for unauthorized copying. In total, the levy generates about $30 million per year. 66% of the revenues go to eligible authors and publishers, 18.9% to eligible performers, and 15.1% to record companies. That being said, the tariff does not give consumers a clear right to make copies of their music. It certainly will not do so if the new copyright bill tabled by the Conservative Party becomes law.

It is clearly unfair to assume that all writable CDs will be used to copy commercial music. It is also clearly odd to levy the tax on CDs but not DVDs, and to not make clear what rights are conveyed by the existence of the tariff.

Hopefully, we will see this system rendered more rational through future government policies and court decisions. Whatever your feelings on the ethics of copyright, the current arrangement is an ugly muddle.

The coalition and Canadian democracy

My friend Mike has written an interesting post about Canada’s ongoing political situation, and the possibility the Conservative minority will be replaced by a Bloc-supported NDP-Liberal coalition:

stephen harper, who is huge fan of blind canadian patriotism à l’américaine, has taken it upon himself to re-align the country along more populist lines. the frightening thing is that he does not just do this through legislation (i.e. “screw the scientists; safe-injection sites have to go!”), but he does it by changing the icons of our national heritage (i.e. “it’s not a coalition; it’s a coup d’état!”). basically, harper is applying the traditional centralised power of the prime minister’s office in a manner that is reminiscent of the american political system. in other words, he’s playing baseball with a hockey stick.

herein lies the rub (and the danger): what stephen harper is doing in this scenario is pretending that he not only has a parliamentary majority (which he doesn’t), but also that he can govern by divine right since his government was directly elected. this is incorrect, and he knows it.

Since it is interesting – and because I am too busy to write anything substantive today – I suggest that readers go have a look at the whole post. It makes a good case for both better understanding of Canada’s existing political system and traditions and for some ways in which they could be usefully modified.

On a related note, Watawa Life has a photo of ‘Hotties for Harper’ protesting against the coalition on Parliament Hill.

[Update: 28 January 2009] As of today’s Liberal response to yesterday’s Conservative budget, it seems the possibility of a coalition is dead, at least for now.

Stop selling off UBC

It seems that the University of British Columbia has granted a temporary reprieve to the on-campus farm, deciding that it will not be converted into housing “as long as the university’s housing, community development and endowment goals can be met through transferring density to other parts of campus.” While this strikes me as a modest victory, I have long had the feeling that UBC has had its priorities wrong in terms of campus development. Often, it seems to behave like a tax-exempt land management company in possession of a lot of prime real estate in Point Grey. The fact that the company happens to run a school can seem incidental.

The UBC endowment lands are meant to exist as a perpetual legacy for the university. It isn’t clear to me why selling so many of them for commercial development has been beneficial for the student body. To me, it seems the best course of action would be a freeze on new construction not related to students, coupled with a renewed focus on education, rather than property management.

Dealing with the oil sands is not enough

An intelligent article in The Calgary Herald makes the case that dealing with the oil sands is not a sufficient Canadian contribution to climate change mitigation. Firstly, this is because they represent a small fraction of total Canadian emissions and, even in the worst-case projections, are still a minority of emissions in a few decades. Secondly, it is because technologies developed to de-carbonize the oil sands are likely to be less generally applicable than those created for more widespread industrial activities. Thirdly, it is because many of the emissions associated with the oil sands occur wherever the fuels being produced are burned, rather than at the point of production, where they might be captured.The second point is an interesting one, and the overall case is strong:

The oilsands now produce about four per cent of Canada’s emissions; if production were to triple with no change in technology and all other emissions stopped growing, they could be as high as 10 to 15 per cent around 2025.

This is a big number, and it’s going in the wrong direction since if we want to avoid dangerous climate change, we should be driving our emissions to zero sometime soon after 2050. However, even if we shut down all oilsands operations tomorrow, Canada would still be one of the top greenhouse gas emitters’ per capita in the world. Fixing the oilsands will not get us off the hook.

While I think the authors are somewhat overconfident in the applicability of carbon capture and storage (CCS), they are right to say that dealing with the oil sands must be only one part of Canada’s overall climate change strategy.

In addition, we need to prevent the construction of new coal power plants (at the very least, those without effective CCS) and phase out those that already exist. We need to seek and exploit mitigation opportunities in all sectors – from agriculture to transport to heavy industry – with the ultimate goal of carbon neutrality. One important mechanism for creating the right incentives for lowest-cost across-the-board reductions is putting a price on carbon. That is not, however, sufficient to address all the externalities relating to climate change. Government also needs to work to improve standards and build intelligent infrastructure, supporting the choices that will lead to the emergence of a low-carbon society.

Metal detectors and carry-on restrictions for Greyhound travel

The policy of restrictive carry-on rules appears to be spreading from planes to Greyhound buses. Apparently, as of December 15th, passengers boarding them in Ottawa will be forced to put everything aside from “medication, baby formula and small handbags” in checked baggage. No matter that those rattling baggage holds are hostile territory for cameras, computers, and other delicate items. Likewise, no matter that the logic of security on intercity buses differs substantially from the logic for aircraft, as I have written about previously. The system has already been introduced in Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg.

To summarize my earlier post:

  • With a plane under their control, hijackers can fly to distant states that might assist them. The only way to stop them is to shoot down the plane, killing everyone on board. Buses are comparatively easy to stop.
  • [S]omeone in control of an ordinary plane can kill a lot of people. They can certainly kill everyone on board. They can also kill many people on the ground. Similar risks do not exist in relation to buses.
  • [I]t isn’t clear that this strategy won’t simply displace any violence that was to occur to a different venue. If I want to harm a particular person, I can do so in a place other than a Greyhound bus. The same is true if I just want to hurt people at random.
  • If you are really determined to hurt people on a bus, you can get on at a rural stop, rather than a bus station with metal detectors

It seems that the best low-cost and relatively low-carbon form of intercity travel is about to be needlessly constrained. It remains to be seen whether Greyhound proves enduringly committed to the new procedures once customers start appreciating just how inconvenient and unnecessary they are.

Video on copyright in Canada

Why Copyright? Canadian Voices on Copyright Law is a 50 minute film about copyright in Canada, produced by Michael Geist and Daniel Albahary. It is largely a response to the Conservative government’s deeply problematic proposed copyright legislation.

Equitable copyright laws are an important issue. In the first instance, that is due to the overwhelming importance of information, who controls it, and who can do what with it. Secondly, it has to do with societal decisions about what kind of conduct is acceptable, who enforces the rules, and what the consequences for violating them can legitimately be. Rules on when technical means of copyright enforcement can be legitimately circumvented are especially important, since that is a new sort of right potentially being extended to content owners. As such, the balance between the societal interest of fair use and the content owner’s claim to protection needs to be evaluated in a more profound way than has occurred so far.

As with many of the new developments on this issue, I found out about it through BoingBoing.

The cold in Ottawa

In my experience, Ottawa has a pretty standard multi-level system to how cold it is in any particular environment. This is reflected on two scales: a static scale based on how cold you would feel in ordinary indoor clothes and a dynamic scale based on what you were wearing in order to deal with the conditions shortly before.

This is the dynamic scale:

  • The hottest part of the scale is where you are seriously bundled up and unexpectedly delayed in a warm environment. For instance, you hop onto a bus to go a couple of stops and it gets stuck in traffic. You are about to go out, so you don’t want to disrobe, but remaining in the heat is very uncomfortable.
  • The level varies depending on the amount of wind. Sometimes, it is the ordinary transition from being outdoors to being in a warm building or vehicle. Sometimes, it is the transition from being somewhere windy to being somewhere outside but protected. In some cases, the latter transition is actually far harsher. There have been times when after waiting for a bus in an exposed area, I moved to a covered area and felt almost as warm as in the topmost scenario above.
  • Below those is the neutral level, in which you are basically adequately dressed for your surroundings and can operate comfortably for a good period of time at your current level of activity.
  • The next level is cold due to something lacking: either the result of being slightly less active than you were recently, or because you are missing one or two items that would make you comfortable. For me, those things are most often a hat, adequate gloves, or warm socks overlapping with long johns.
  • The next level is being significantly cold temporarily, either while your body heat spreads through clothing you just put on or while you ramp up to whatever stable level of physical activity you will be maintaining.
  • With the next level, minor persistent suffering arrives. Usually, this is the result of poor planning. Most often, this is a case of not expecting to leave a place as late as you did and ending up walking by night instead of by evening. Wind of unexpected ferocity can also cause this.
  • Beyond that, the levels aren’t really distinct. At the extreme edge – which I have experienced once or twice – you are actually cursing your way through savage winds from doorway to doorway. In this situation, you will actually feel that injury (and ultimately death) will result before long if you remain out in the cold and wind.

In my experience, the best way of coping with all this is to be prepared, try to anticipate the conditions in which you will find yourself, and dress in ways that are conducive to moving both up and down the scale. Having long johns, a wicking layer, two fleece layers, and a wind/waterproof outer is a lot better than having a wicking layer, one absurdly warm layer, and a shell. The former lets you move through the scale in one-step increments, while the latter commits you to two or more.

One odd consequence of the relationship between warmth and activity can be just how much those of us with stingy thermostats need to wear in order to sleep comfortably. On nights where walking around in moderate garb is perfectly tolerable, actually sleeping in my flat may require two wool hats, long johns, trousers, a fleece, two pairs of warm socks, a fleece sleeping bag liner, and a down duvet. The question then becomes whether you will be woken by cold as the night progresses (likely if you went to sleep early), or by unbearable heat when the sun finally starts to thaw the city at dawn.

Talkin’ ’bout a coalition

The prospect of an NDP/Liberal coalition is certainly an intriguing one. For one thing, there is a lot of history to be made in parliamentary procedure. What can the Conservative government do to resist falling? How should, must, and will the Governor General act in different scenarios? If a coalition did come into being, how would it govern and how long-lasting could it be?

Given the NDP’s opposition to Stephane Dion’s ‘Green Shift’ carbon tax, it is especially unclear what sort of climate policies would emerge from a coalition government. They would be in a doubly weak position to create rules that would govern industry for years. Firstly, well-founded questions about the longevity of the coalition would make regulated industries wonder whether spending to meet new requirements makes commercial sense. In the absence of certainty about long-term climate policies, intelligent investments cannot be made. Secondly, there is uncertainty about what will happen to climate policy in the United States. How much of a priority will it be for the new Obama administration? Will Congress press forward or hold back on the issue? Will the US seek a national system, or will they try to come up with an integrated North American system as proposed by the Harper government? What will happen to the regional climate change organizations, such as the Western Climate Initiative?

These are certainly interesting times. Hopefully, the uncertainty will not serve to perpetuate inaction.

[Update: 28 January 2009] As of today’s Liberal response to yesterday’s Conservative budget, it seems the possibility of a coalition is dead, at least for now.

Junk medicine and Canada’s cabinet

Given the evidence that acupuncture doesn’t work (except possibly for some kinds of pain and nausea) and chiropractic is downright dangerous, it is a bit saddening that Gary Goodyear – Canada’s Minister of State for Science and Technology – has fellowships in both.

Is it too much to ask that the cabinet minister in charge of science actually have scientific training or, at the very least, not be personally invested in demonstrated forms of pseudo-science? The chiropractic connection is especially worrisome, given the kooky beliefs espoused by practitioners (such as that all illness is caused by ‘subluxations’ of the spine) and the evidence that chiropractic treatments cause vascular damage, especially when necks are manipulated or it is practiced on adolescents or children.

Two scenarios for Canada’s 2020 electricity situation

This previous post on Canada’s new commitment to generate 90% of its electricity from sources that do not emit greenhouse gasses by 2020 was a bit too wide-ranging, since it sought to consider all possible mixes that satisfied the 90% criterion. A more reasonable approach is to consider two plausible scenarios.

In the first scenario, electricity demand rises by 10%. Assuming that means 10% more generating capacity is required, that means increasing Canada’s electrical capacity to 132 gigawatts. Doing so while achieving the 90% target would mean scrapping 20.4 gigawatts of emitting capacity (about three times the capacity of all of Ontario’s coal plants) and building 32.4 gigawatts of non-emitting capacity (six giant dams or about thirty five nuclear reactors).

In the second scenario, energetic conservation efforts cause demand to fall by 10%. As such, we would be able to cut our total generating capacity to 99 gigawatts. Producing that while reaching the 90% target would mean scrapping 23.1 gigawatts of emitting capacity (3.5 times Ontario’s coal plants) and building 23.1 gigawatts of non-emitting capacity (under five giant dams, or about twenty five nuclear reactors).

The numbers might work out a bit differently if you did the calculations based on terawatt-hours of electricity use, rather than gigawatts of installed capacity.