Letter to my MP: Concerns and Suggested Changes to Bill C-61

Mr. Poilievre:

As discussed in our meeting last week, I have a number of concerns with the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act in Bill C-61. The lack of public consultation (to date) on this bill also concerns me, and in lieu of such a process I ask that the suggested changes to C-61 herein be sent to the Minister of Industry and those responsible for chairing its parliamentary committee (once it is convened).

Concerns with Bill C-61

First, I will elaborate on three of my concerns specifically to give my suggested changes some context:

1. Playing legitimately-purchased DVDs on a Linux computer will constitute copyright infringement, according to the definitions of technological measure and circumvent in Bill C-61 (section 41.1);

2. Backing up legitimately-purchased digital media (e.g., movies on DVD, music on CDs, music from on-line music stores) will constitute copyright infringement, according to a number of sections of C-61, including, but not limited to, section 29.22 (1) (d), and in some cases, 29.22 (1) (c); and

3. Playing movies from legitimately-purchased DVDs on a video iPod will constitute copyright infringement, according to a number of sections in C-61.

Playing DVDs on Linux

Software called DeCSS is required to play the majority of commercially-produced DVDs on the Linux operating system; this software decrypts the Content Scrambling System (CSS) – an encryption and authentication scheme designed to prevent the direct copying of video files off of the discs themselves – on these DVDs. CCS is administered by the DVD Copy Control Association, which excludes Linux from the licensing it requires of the manufacturers of all DVD-related equipment (including DVD players, for example).

By defining a technological measure as “any effective technology, device or component that... controls access to a work...” – as opposed to focusing on those that control the right to reproduce the work (i.e., copy-protection measures), which is all that is required by the WIPO Internet Treaties – Bill C-61, section 41.1 prohibits the use of DeCSS, thereby prohibiting the playback of legitimately-purchased DVDs on any computer running the Linux operating system.

Backing up digital media

By the same reasoning, making a backup copy of the movies on legitimately-purchased DVDs – in case the original is scratched or otherwise rendered unreadable – is also prohibited by Bill C-61. Section 29.22 (1) (c) also prohibits making a backup copy of the music on legitimately-purchased CDs that include any sort of digital rights management software, as well as the music in files legitimately purchased from on-line music stores such as Apple's iTunes store – again, in case the original is scratched (in the case of CDs), corrupted (in the case of music files), or otherwise rendered unreadable.

However, Section 29.22 (1) (d) is even more troubling, as it prohibits both of the methods I currently use for backing up all of my music (including the music on legitimately-purchased CDs without any sort of DRM software): 1) making backup copies to blank DVDs; and 2) Carbonite's on-line backup service. The latter is a service that, for a fee, allows the user to designate certain files on their computer(s) for backup to the company's servers.

By using either of these methods, I am making more copies of this music than I have devices to play it; however, given the money I have invested in this music, and the time I have invested in making it available on my computers and iPods (likely the equivalent of many weeks at least, given my collection of approximately 700 CDs), I think that I am justified in wanting to back it up.

Playing DVD movies on an iPod

Making a copy of a movie on a legitimately-purchased DVD for the purpose of playing it on my video iPod is also prohibited by Section 41.1.

Suggested changes to Bill C-61

In the light of my stated concerns with Bill C-61, I present two options to address them:

1. The Private Use option:

   1. Retain the Copying for Private Use section of the Copyright Act (i.e., C-42, Section 80); and

   2. Amend it to cover digital media in general, including, but not limited to, music, movies and video games; and

   3. Amend the definition of technological measure in C-61, Section 41 to focus on controlling the right to reproduce a work (i.e., copy-protection measures); OR

2. The Backup Exemption option:

   1. Retain the Computer Programs section of the Copyright Act (i.e., C-42, Section 30.6); and

   2. Amend it to cover digital media in general (as outlined above); and

   3. Amend the definition of technological measure in C-61, Section 41, as outlined above; and

   4. Replace the reference to “videocassette” in C-61, Section 29.21 (1) with a more general term that could refer to any number of video formats we might have in the future; and

   5. Remove C-61, Sections 29.21 (1) (c) and 29.22 (1) (c).

Rationale for suggested changes to Bill C-61

In addition to the reasoning I provided as part of outlining my concerns with Bill C-61, I would like to highlight some examples of international law that support the changes I have suggested to Bill C-61.

Regarding the definition of technological measures

New Zealand's Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill¹ includes the following definition:

TPM or technological protection measure—

(a) means any process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system that in the normal course of its operation prevents or inhibits the infringement of copyright in a TPM work; but

(b) for the avoidance of doubt, does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that, in the normal course of operation, it only controls any access to a work for non-infringing purposes (for example, it does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that it controls geographic market segmentation by preventing the playback in New Zealand of a non-infringing copy of a work)²

The Lithuanian Law No. IX-1355 of March 5, 2003, Amending the Law on Copyright and Related Rights³ includes the following article:

Article 75. Limitations for Application of Technological Measures

1. When technological measures applied by owners of copyright, related rights and sui generis rights prevent the users of such rights from benefiting from the limitations of copyright, related rights and sui generis rights, provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 20, subparagraphs 1 and 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 22, paragraph 1 of Article 23, Article 27, subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 29, subparagraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of paragraph 1 of Article 58, and paragraph 1 of Article 63 of this Law, the users of the rights must be provided with conditions or adequate means (i.e. decoding devices and other) enabling to use legitimately accessible objects of copyright, related rights or sui generis rights to the extent necessary for the users of the rights to benefit from the limitations of copyright, related rights and sui generis rights provided for their interests.

I would point out that Lithuania has acceded both treaties that make up the WIPO Internet Treaties.⁴

Finally, the Norwegian Copyright Act⁵ includes the following section:

§ 53a. It is prohibited to circumvent effective technological protection measures that the rightholder or others he has given permission employs to control the copying or making available to the public of a protected work.

...

The provisions of this section shall not hinder research into cryptology. Nor shall the provision in the first paragraph hinder private users in gaining access to legally acquired works on that which is generally understood as relevant playback equipment.

Regarding Personal or Private Use

New Zealand's Copyright Amendment Bill also includes the following section on personal use:

81A Copying sound recording for personal use

(1) Copyright in a sound recording and in a literary or musical work contained in it is not infringed by copying the sound recording, if the following conditions are met:

(aa) the sound recording is not a communication work or part of a communication work; and

(a) the copy is made from a sound recording that is not an infringing copy; and

(b) the sound recording is not borrowed or hired; and

(c) the copy is made by the owner of the sound recording; and

(d) that owner acquired the sound recording legitimately; and

(e) the copy is used only for that owner’s personal use or the personal use of a member of the household in which the owner lives or both; and

(f) no more than 1 copy is made for each device for playing sound recordings that is owned by the owner of the sound recording; and

(g) the owner of the sound recording retains the ownership of both the sound recording and of any copy that is made under this section.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if the owner of the sound recording is bound by a contract that specifies the circumstances in which the sound recording may be copied.

Lithuanian Law No. IX-1355 also includes the following article on personal use:

Article 20. Reproduction of Works for Personal Use

1. It shall be permitted for a natural person, without the authorisation of the author or any other owner of copyright, to reproduce, exclusively for his individual use, not for direct or indirect commercial advantage, in a single copy a work published or communicated to the public in any other mode, where the reproduction is a single-action.

Regarding backup copies

Finally, in the following article, Lithuanian Law No. IX-1355 also discusses the idea of multiple backup copies for use in the event that the original is unusable (as I discussed in my concerns above):

Article 30. Making of a Back-up Copies and Reproduction for Adaptation of Computer Programmes

1. A person who has a right to use a computer programme, shall, without the authorisation of the author or other owner of copyright, have the right to make back-up copies of the computer programme or to adapt the computer programme, provided that such copies or adaptation of the programme are necessary:

1) for the use of the computer program in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction;

2) for the use of a back-up copy of the lawfully acquired computer programme, in the event the computer programme is lost, destroyed or becomes unfit for use.

Sincerely,

John Jarvis

1http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/b/2/a/00DBHOH_BILL7735_1-Copyright-New-Technologies-Amendment-Bill.htm

2http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2006/0102-3/latest/096be8ed801aae8a.pdf

3http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/details.jsp?id=2890

4http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/Remarks.jsp?cnty_id=1071C and http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/Remarks.jsp?cnty_id=1264C

5http://www.kopinor.org/opphavsrett/norwegian_copyright_act

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Nepean-Carleton page on a Fair Copyright for Canada wiki

I'm maintaining the Nepean-Carleton page on the Fair Copyright for Canada, Ottawa Chapter wiki and I'll be including the latest information on my efforts to talk with Mr. Poilievre there.

Conversation with Pierre Poilievre's Constituency Office

I called Pierre Poilievre's constituency office today and was told that I wouldn't be able to meet with Mr. Poilievre until the next "Constituents' Day" at the end of the month or early next month. I was told that Mr. Poilievre had recently had such a day, and that a number of people had used the opportunity to express their displeasure with Bill C-61. (The person I was talking with added that the office hadn't received any positive feedback on the bill to date, that we -- i.e., those opposed to the bill -- were doing the right thing in getting our message to our MP, and, on a more personal note, that he had to admit that the product of bureaucrats could sometimes leave you shaking your head.)

I left my name, phone number, and community of residence with this person, who told me that he would call me when the next Constituents' Day was scheduled (again, likely near the end of July or early in August).

I'm planning to call Mr. Poilievre's parliamentary office tomorrow to see whether I get the same message.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Planning to meet with Pierre Poilievre in the next week or so re Bill C-61

As per the subject, if you live in the riding of Nepean-Carleton and are interested in meeting with Pierre Poilievre to discuss your concerns regarding Bill C-61, send me an e-mail. I'm not thinking about anything fancy; just a few points on how I want to be able to watch DVDs on my video iPod, etc. I'll post more details on what I plan to say shortly -- and the date and time of the appointment too, of course, once I've booked it (sometime in the next few days).

Also, if you're on Facebook, consider joining the Ottawa Chapter of Fair Copyright for Canada.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Poilievre on assessing constituent participation

I was recently provided with a summary of a meeting with my MP, Pierre Poilievre, on Bill C-61. There were many points of interest to me, but one that stood out was Mr. Poilievre's ranking of constituents' participation in the debate: specifically, e-mail form letters, even a lot of them, are not considered important, but that someone who sends a brief in is taken very seriously. I assume this also means that original letters, regardless of their method of delivery, rank above form letters, as Mr. Poilievre emphasized the importance of implicit evidence of the constituent's time and thought.

Much of this is intuitive, but there are nuances that I wonder about:

• Where do petitions fit in? I suspect it depends entirely on how they're used, but again, even the most organized and articulate presenters would be able to make a more compelling case with real examples of conversations on constituents' doorsteps, I would think;
• Are all messages from constituents dealt with similarly? Or, is the post better than e-mail, and delivery by hand better than both? I suspect the answer to both is yes.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

FriendFeed continues to surprise me

I don't normally write what amounts to a sales pitch, or at least not in this forum. However, since one of the consequences of this discovery is less content in this very forum, I figure the breach of decorum is justified.

FriendFeed is a free service that allows you to gather all your shared content in one place, and, by extension, read and comment on all of your friends' shared content. Now, while I can appreciate how cool that is, it isn't why I love FriendFeed.

I love FriendFeed because it is a really slick way for me to comment on a variety of content. Google finally updated their excellent Reader to allow you to make a note on any item you share, providing some context. However, the interface is a bit clunky, especially when compared with the comment feature in FriendFeed: I add my shared items feed as a 'service' in FriendFeed; now I can comment on any item that comes in. But get this: FriendFeed also parses any notes I've made on those shared items in Google Reader as comments too, which I can then edit or delete (neither of which Google Reader allows, unless I want to delete the whole item). Not only that, but FriendFeed parses URLs in those notes so that they're ready to follow; Google Reader treats them as text that must be copied to the address bar.

Plus, it's easy to share any page you find, and include optional comments and an image. (Yes, Google Reader includes this functionality too -- except for the image bit -- but, again, you'd better not make any mistakes because there's no way to edit that note later on.) Then there's that new site that you stumbled upon: automatically shared. Party photos on Flickr: nicely shared as one item with thumbnails. It's useful -- I count well over 30 services that are compatible with FriendFeed -- and it just looks great. Finally, and possibly most importantly (particularly if you have a group of like-minded friends on FriendFeed, I'd imagine): you can comment on or simply 'like' other users' content, which is then pulled into a 'discussion' feed of those items you'd recommend.

So, now I find myself jotting down a quick comment on a shared item (either through Google Reader -- if I don't feel a typo coming on -- or waiting 'til it pops up in my FriendFeed feed), or simply 'liking' something that appears in my friends' feed or the public feed. Sure, some topics can't be summarized in a few lines, so this blog will continue, but for my (almost) daily thoughts, check out my FriendFeed feed, my comments feed, my 'likes' feed or a combination of all three.

Light rail as a sign of progress

I happened to catch a segment on the Leonard Lopate Show about the upcoming North Carolina primary this afternoon, and this off-hand statement (at approximately 9:28 in the recording, in case you want to skip to it) made me smile:

Charlotte just opened its first light rail... a century behind a lot of northern cities in that respect...

A lot, maybe, but not Ottawa. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-) )

On security cameras

A UC Berkeley report on whether security cameras have deterred crime in San Francisco is conclusively inconclusive, according to the mayor. Schneier also commented on the article; unsurprising, as the security camera is a popular target of his security theater argument.

I just finished reading Robert A. Heinlein's Friday, where he speculated that, in the future, monitoring security cameras in 'real-time' would require sampling, in practice; he implied that this was common knowledge, at least amongst criminals, and that they managed their risk accordingly (e.g., they went ahead and played the odds, or destroyed the camera, etc.).

However, the reality that this and other articles reinforce is that all of these decisions - including whether to install security cameras, how many to install, how to operate them, and how to monitor them - are heavily influenced by money. If there's money available, why not install security cameras, just in case, in other words; this, despite the fact that compelling arguments against the collection of unnecessary data have been put forth since the 60s.

The system sucks

The Lower (formerly No) Impact Man, Colin Beavan, has succinctly expressed my current opinion on the environment in a recent post (that I also shared with you, incidentally): the system sucks. By that, he means that the ruts in the road that we normally follow throughout our lives are not designed with the environment in mind; it's the backdrop, and it's taking a beating, according a body of knowledge (including last year's IPCC report).

The example that's the centrepiece of his post is air travel, and it's also the one that forced me to look long and hard at my life. I realized that for many of the previous years, my lifestyle didn't reflect my opinions; there are all sorts of examples I could list, but by far the most damaging to the environment was my annual air travel.

Colin writes about the incentives to vacation once a year versus, say, going on longer sojourns, much of which could be done over land, and I certainly live in that world. (While he also makes some valid points about business travel, that isn't the world I live in right now.) I would eventually lose my vacation allotment were I to attempt such a drastic change in my lifestyle, so I will go a step farther and say that the system punishes that sort of behaviour.

I love traveling. And while I love the breadth of settings my country offers me - and there are still many parts of it that I have yet to explore - I love traveling far away. I have only just begun to travel the world. I can envision a time when my wife and I will be traveling somewhere warm every year, as we do now, and taking another trip to a far-off locale, in addition to our annual trip 'down East' in the summer (by car). Yes, some years that extra trip will probably be closer to home (e.g., the birthday celebrations in Québec City this year), but I certainly don't want to feel obligated to do that.

That may be selfish, but at this point in my life, I'm O.K. with that. I will use cloth grocery bags, I will buy fair-trade coffee (and drink it out 'n' about if it's served, in my travel mug if I have it, or out of a paper cup if that's the only option), I will take the stairs, I will drive a smaller car, but I will not feel bad when our annual flight down South blows all the carbon dioxide emissions I've managed to save during the previous 364 days; not for one minute.

Some of the examples I've raised bring me to my final point: Colin's right; the system can be changed. I like my analogy of ruts in the road because it communicates how deeply ingrained some of this stuff is, while indicating that it isn't immutable. On the plastic grocery bags, complaining about that in the 80s would've got you some funny looks - acid rain was the only problem in our part of the world back then, in case you weren't aware - and even just a few years ago our mayor lamented the cost of sending our plastic bags to the Far East(!) for recycling when he canned the program. Now most of the grocery stores around my house take them back, and they all sell their own cloth bags. My favourite movie theatre, the Bytowne, sells fair-trade coffee (in disposable cups), and Bridgeheads are popping up all over the place.

The key is to identify the worst behaviours encouraged by the system and make some noise about them. In the time it takes you to put your thoughts down in a forum like this, you could have a strong, personal message for your MP or MPP. (I'm not a big fan of form letters, but that may be because I don't understand the system; there's that word again.) But another key is to identify those more malleable behaviours - the shallow ruts, if you will - that could be influenced by local campaigns and, likely, local spending habits. Even if those changes don't reduce carbon dioxide emissions, I think, in the aggregate, they show people the potential for real rewards from their efforts, and I think that's a message we don't hear enough these days.

Range Voting

I just got around to reading a very informative interview with William Poundstone on voting systems. I still have a lot to learn on this subject (as some have pointed out previously), which may account for my finding the interviewer's style a bit erratic; it was an excellent read otherwise.

Of particular interest to me was the discussion concerning small political parties: in addition to being the fairest voting system - according to a study by mathematician Warren Smith that is referenced throughout the interview - the range voting system also benefits small political parties. The idea is that by assigning each candidate a value in a range (say, from 1 to 10), voters address the 'spoiler effect', or the splitting of votes amongst similar candidates, such that a candidate in clear opposition to them wins the election with less overall support: under a range voting system, voters would be able to assign similar values to similar candidates, or to their favourite (possibly 'fringe') party candidate and the best of the candidates who are likely to win, if you will. This also addresses the concept of 'wasting' one's vote in a first-past-the-post or plurality voting system.

Musing on Nupedia and 'knol'

My first thought upon reading Google's announcement of its knowledge repository - called 'knol' - was that it's been tried before: Nupedia espoused similar goals before its demise. Subsequent thoughts included:

• Writing an article is a lot of work: will the benefits make it worthwhile? (Ad revenue would help with this.) The benefits of name recognition may be tough to quantify before you reach real renown, for example.


• A picture and biography of the author raise questions too: playing on their book analogy, I do check the dustcover occasionally, but it's rarely the deciding factor; particularly when I'm looking for an authority on a subject (as opposed to reading for pleasure, for example): the calibre and number of recommendations, followed by the quality of the writing are much more important to me. Also, I tend to agree with the criticism of journalists who include their pictures next to their newspaper articles: shouldn't the writing speak for itself? (Although, admittedly, this does seem fairly innocuous nonetheless.)

The circumstances surrounding Nupedia leave me of two minds: one could say that Wikipedia's rise detracted from Nupedia by offering a potentially less time-consuming means of contributing. However, one could also say that Wikipedia's rise brought attention to open knowledge in general, and that experts would quickly recognize what many more people have since: there are limits to the utility of articles that are perpetually open to modification by all; a sister site with Nupedia's philosophy could be attractive to that community of experts.

Whether Nupedia implemented that philosophy is open to debate. Certainly, and I say this with a tinge of irony, its Wikipedia article details a number of flaws. For my own part, I was content to copyedit articles in my subject area of computer science, so I have difficulty believing that experts suffering comments from anonymous reviewers with no knowledge of the subject area was endemic or little more than 'growing pains', as it were. Again, I know I had doubts as to whether I would be accepted as a CS reviewer with only a BCS to my name.

I'll be watching 'knol' with great interest. In addition to the tarnish Wikipedia has accumulated in recent years, the other, probably far more significant, circumstance associated with knol's introduction is its sponsor, and the enormous buzz that comes with it. Many will rightly say that if Google can't do this, no one can for the foreseeable future.

More on the public's perceptions: nanotechnology

I've written about the disconnect between the fears of the public and those of the experts before. A report published yesterday focuses on nanotechnology, and as one might expect, one of the only significant sources of public concern regarding it related to surveillance devices: a favourite bogeyman of the mass media and privacy advocates alike (although, admittedly, their complaints normally focus on the macro devices, as it were).

Still, I don't know that I would've ranked any of the subtopics in the article as a concern; yet another research topic, I guess.

Update: December 3: Building a Safe Nanotechnology Future, and, for the truly industrious, Nanoscale: Issues and Perspectives for the Nano Century sounds like an excellent resource.

The role of deception

I read Flowers for Algernon recently, and Charlie's frustration after seeing a movie with a sappy ending early on in his development - It isn't real! - came to mind as I read this statement in an In Character article on deception and autism:

Many children with autism are perplexed by why someone would even want to deceive others, or why someone would think about fiction or pretense.

For further reading on the uses of deception, check out the International Herald Tribute article entitled Denial makes the world go round.

Problems with proportional representation

Some time ago, a friend and I discussed some alternatives to the first-past-the-post electoral system. With the referendum on "mixed-member proportional" representation in Ontario coming up this month, these sorts of discussions are in the news again: in particular, David Warren's column in the Citizen this morning detailed how much of what I highlighted as advantages of proportional representation could be abused.

I think he goes too far in characterizing it as a potential "disaster," but he certainly gives us food for thought.

Rory Stewart to speak in Ottawa

I've spoken briefly about Rory Stewart in the past. This is an excellent opportunity; while it is free, seating is limited so register early.

Facebook news?

The CBC is now keeping me apprised of where Canada ranks in Facebook. I hope this isn't the extent of their plan for engaging the "Facebook generation".

On space colonization

When I read Charlie Stross's essay on the impracticality of space colonization, mankind's imperative to survive came to mind as a good counterpoint. As I mulled this over, however, I realized that I was equating life on Earth as we know it now (e.g., suitable atmosphere, large swathes untouched, etc.) with survival; taken more generally, things could get pretty bad on Earth (e.g., mass extinctions, pandemics, a large rise in sea levels globally, etc.) and mankind would still survive, in some form.

That's when I realized that Stross's argument held up: it would likely be more practical to build entire artificial environments on, and possibly orbiting, the Earth than to colonize space (given the technology that's feasible today, as Stross states).

That said, I decided to write about this after reading John Tierney's article in the New York Times on Dr. J. Richard Gott III's theory regarding the survival imperative. Initially, I wondered whether Dr. Gott covered points I hadn't considered. Unfortunately, however, he makes a simplistic leap from our survival to space colonization; if it is based on logic, as opposed to the popular talk on space, it isn't clear in the article. For example, Stross outlined why basing arguments for space colonization on our history of colonization on Earth is flawed.

Also, while the idea that all of our 'eggs', so to speak, are in the single basket called Earth intuitively compels us to colonize space - as I readily admitted above - Gott's seizing on Mars as a solution doesn't stand closer scrutiny: the biggest threats to Earth may also be threats to Mars (e.g., to be very optimistic, the lifespan of the Sun), so we certainly couldn't stop there. Which brings me back to my earlier point: while spreading ourselves out makes sense, for reasons outlined by Stross, things would probably have to get really bad on Earth before space colonization was considered practical.

Bill Moyers' interview with journalist Christian Parenti

I've read some disturbing news about the current situation in Afghanistan - I often share it and other information of interest in the frame to the left, incidentally - and Bill Moyers' interview with Christian Parenti last month (and the subsequent questions from the public that he answered) continues that trend.

As a caveat, let me add that I'm often skeptical of press reporting on Afghanistan, and North American press reporting in particular; however, Parenti seems to bring an informed opinion to the table, and, of course, the fact that he's sitting across that table from Moyers says a lot about him.

Godwin's Law

I hadn't heard of Godwin's Law before reading today's xkcd strip, and while the law specifies on-line discussions, a follow-on point attributed to Godwin got me thinking. First, the law:

As an on-line discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

I'm going to make another leap and say that the same logic applies to Neville Chamberlain comparisons. And I know I'm a bit late on this one, but, even after the public disaster, I don't think Elizabeth May gets that. Yes, she was sorry the day before, but, ooo, ooo! They did it too!

I'm sorry, if she couldn't do without the glass-houses comment, at least reiterate that it was a mistake. And I did laugh at the CBC radio news bit that played Layton's "I would never..." followed by his very own - deeply disgusted, I might add - Chamberlain reference in parliament a few years ago. So, no, I'm not claiming that no one should've pointed out this double standard. I just get this... smugness from the Green party site that seems to miss the point.

Conservatives propose to extend voting period

Two thoughts come to mind: 1) Has the government determined that a significant portion of the people who aren't voting cite polling booth hours when asked why they don't? And 2) Have they considered how this will change the polling booth security environment?

On the first point, I believe government employees are guaranteed a break to vote if their shift spans the polling booth hours. Can anyone confirm this? Or shed light on any private-sector policies?

On the second point, the longer they have to ensure the integrity of those ballot boxes, the greater their vulnerability.

Finally, if the answer to the first question is no, then the government could be wasting a lot of money, in areas related to the second question and beyond.