{ texts for nothing }

The Conservatives have commissioned a poll and a series of focus groups to examine the issue of electoral reform. Trouble is, the pollster they’ve hired is a raving right-wing lunatic, and the think tank that’s managing the focus groups thinks proportional representation is a bad idea. So far, the results are about what you’d expect. Idealistic Pragmatist has the details here and here.

That the Conservatives aren’t too keen on proportional representation isn’t surprising. Under proportional representation, the Conservatives — who can only claim about a third of the vote — would never be able to get the majority government they so desperately want. They’d have to form a coalition with other parties instead — something they seem to regard as unthinkable, even though it works quite well in other democratic countries. That’s why the Tories’ idea of electoral reform stops with elections and term limits for senators: real democratic reform, in the form of proportional representation, would sabotage their ambitions for a Parliamentary majority.

(Incidentally, the aforementioned Idealistic Pragmatist is a great source for information on electoral reform. IP’s Proportional representation FAQ and Six reasons to support proportional representation are excellent starting points if you want to learn more about the subject.)

Did you know that the Canada has the highest cell phone fees in the developed world? As someone who pays $60/month for a pretty basic service package (a modest number of minutes, no long distance or Internet plan), I must say I’m not surprised. The Canadian wireless industry is simply not favorable to consumers. We pay $80-$100 a year in unnecessary system access fees; we’re locked into long-term contracts (it would cost me $200 if I wanted to leave Rogers before my contract expires); and our phones only work with the service provider we bought them from. Sure, we finally got phone number portability last week — but we should have had that years ago.

If the NDP can push to get rid of ATM fees, surely something can be done about the sorry state of the cell phone market in this country.

(Hat tip to Michael Geist, as usual.)

That was fast! On Friday, the Liberals introduced their private member’s bill on lawful access. It’s Bill C-416, the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act.

Michael Geist reports that the Liberals plan on reintroducing lawful access by means of a private member’s bill. The move is part of the Liberals’ effort to appear “tough on crime” in advance of an anticipated spring election. My hunch is that, unless an election interferes, the Tories will either support the bill or try to steal the Liberals’ thunder with proposals of their own.

Geist quotes this speech by Liberal leader Stephane Dion:

Marlene Jennings, the Liberal justice critic, is re-introducing the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act. This bill will allow the police and Canadian intelligence community to adapt to new communications technology. Telephone and Internet service providers will be required, subject to vigorous privacy safeguards, to include an interception capability in new technology, and make subscriber contact information available on request to designated law enforcement officials. This act strikes the right balance between the needs of police and industry, while respecting Canadians’ right to privacy.

That last sentence in particular makes me snicker. Note how citizens’ interests are an afterthought: it’s police and telecom interests that are the priority here, as usual for lawful access policy. (In the last round of stakeholder consultations, for example, business interests got plenty of input into the lawful access policy proposals. By contrast, civil society groups got one meeting in which the proposals were outlined for them, and then a laughably short two-week window in which to submit their comments.)

I’ll have a more substantive post on lawful access — what it is, what’s wrong with it, and past attempts to legislate it — in the near future.