Telecommunications service providers would be required to provide basic subscriber information to designated police, CSIS and Competition Bureau officials upon request. This identifying information would be limited to a subscriber’s name, address, phone number, email address, IP address, and the name of their service provider. This information can already be provided without a warrant under existing legislation, but only on a voluntary basis, which results in inconsistent access and delay.

Source

According to the above quote, we should be happy that the new bill limits accessible information to….every piece of information required to establish your identity and link you to any alleged crime associated with your IP address. That’s fine though, the police need to conduct investigations. The frightening part is that all the access occurs without judicial oversight, no warrant or application required, no need for probable cause or any evidence by investigators. We should also feel very sorry for the government because the current voluntary request system means inconsistent access for investigators. What a terrible, terrible inconvenience. It should be noted that obtaining records of transactions, search histories etc. will still require a warrant. Bill C-30 does, however, allow a judge to sign a single warrant for surveillance of multiple types of information and other powers are “streamlined”. We’re not at the best part though.

Today, just hours after tabling Bill C-30, the Conservatives ended the long-gun registry by passing legislation through a final vote. Why did they want to abolish the long gun registry? At least in part because the Conservatives found that the information collected on gun owners was an invasion of their privacy.

I’m not exactly old, but I’m old enough to remember the Jetsons. Though we still don’t have in-house conveyer belts and all-in-one wake-up machines, the Mypressi Twist adds a little bit of Jetsons magic to the world’s most consumed breakfast beverage. Espresso preparation doesn’t lend itself to simplicity. Sure there are “espresso” or, god forbid, “expresso” gadgets that are small, light, cheap and easy to use like moka pots and steam driven “espresso” machines. But none of those machines create espresso; the closest they come is strong and/or thick brewed coffee. The difference is crucial, and it’s in the details. Espresso is a method of preparation, a way to garner the tasteful oils and soluble solids without all the bitterness and caffeine that often comes with prolonged soaking of coffee grinds in hot water (read: percolation). Espresso involves momentary contact of very hot water with compressed, finely ground coffee under high pressure. This method of extraction runs contrary to thermodynamic principles – things don’t like to stay hotter or more pressurized than the atmosphere around them for long. Thus, espresso preparation has traditionally involved expensive, elaborate and often ineffective machines and has long remained the domain of commercial cafes. With recent technological and manufacturing advances, home espresso preparation has become more reasonable, if not exactly simple. Real espresso preparation remains steadfastly within the purview of OCD geeks. It’s worth a brief pause to contextualize the geeky appeal of espresso:

It’s very difficult to describe the taste and experience of high quality espresso. Suffice to say that it is unique from all other coffee preparations and, most importantly, from sub-par methods of espresso preparation. Ultimately, as in any food preparation, ingredients are the most important. Contrary to apparently popular belief, coffee gets stale. Quickly. Folgers lovers know the taste of stale coffee well. For a close facsimile, try soaking a rock-hard piece of bread in warm water for 3 minutes and munching on that. Yummm. For some reason, this kind of quality is completely acceptable among most coffee drinkers. After roasting, coffee beans remain acceptably fresh and retain taste for 2-3 weeks. After grinding, freshness wanes rapidly and taste declines within minutes.

But, enough with the preamble and back to the Twist. Think of a toaster oven. Now flip it on its side. That’s about the size of a small-ish home espresso machine. Depending on the features, they can cost anywhere from $600 to $3000; as a rule of thumb, expect to pay between $800 and $1000 for anything of decent quality. As a committed life-long student living on debt, my first whimsical espresso purchase occurred not because I was particularly in love with espresso, but because I found a CHEAP La Pavoni at a yard sale when I was in Italy:
 This was the smallest espresso machine available that could (with great effort) make cafe-quality espresso and it’s about as basic as they come. It’s completely manual; no electric pump means that your arm is the pump. And, like any Italian-engineered equipment, it may look great but it’s a finicky beast.  It continues to serve me well, though my efforts are rewarded in a less than perfect ratio of attempts to successes. I didn’t (and continue) not to have the money to purchase more expensive pump-driven machines, so I felt very fortunate when a MyPressi Twist landed in my lap via a draw at a local Ottawa coffee shop. I had read much about the device (it’s far too small to call an espresso-machine). About the size of a wine bottle (though far more ergonomic) and weighing about as much as the bottle when full, it’s not exactly pocketable. Compared to every other espresso machine in existence, however, it’s TINY. It’s powered by N2O or CO2 cartridges, which provide the requisite 9 bars (135 PSI) of pressure to extract true espresso. This means that you pull the gun-like trigger and out pours espresso.

Of course, it’s not quite that easy. Like all espresso machines the Twist requires the requisite preamble to produce quality espresso: dosing (measuring/weighing the correct amount of coffee), grinding, tamping (pressing the coffee into the machine) and temperature control. But, the amazing thing about the Twist is that it can produce very, very good espresso. Not just, “good for it’s size”, but good even when compared to any other machine, including $10,000+ commercial machines. While it may not be as consistent or as quick as those commercial machines, it is eminently possible to produce exceptional espresso from the diminutive device. It also has a really great cool factor: I really do feel like a Jetson when syrupy espresso pours out of a machine that I’m holding in one hand!

It’s not all crema and perfect pours though – with no internal heat source, one of the two crucial elements of good espresso (temperature control) becomes difficult. Though the ingenious developers have made significant advances through the use of heat-retaining metals and design, the lack of an internal heat source adds an extra step – pre-heating. All the device’s various parts must be immersed in boiling water to get them up to temperature prior to pouring the shot water. Ultimately, the lack of internal heating is part of the appeal; small is the point. Most espresso machines also need to heat up – the Pavoni for example needs a good 10 to 12 minutes to get up to temperature/pressure – the Mypressi’s heating process is just a little more involved than flicking the “on” switch (see slide show at the top for a beginning to end guide, including preheating). The cartridges aren’t cheap, even the cheapest ones I can find usually work out to about 10 to 20 cents per shot. Each cartridge tends to last about 4 shots. Since the unit only costs $150 new, however, for a low-use household (1-2 shots a day) it shouldn’t break the bank. It’s also a bit of a pain to clean, the resulting puck is usually quite wet and requires complete disassembly after every shot. But having dealt with the finicky Pavoni for the last few years, it was a breeze. Finally, like any espresso machine, the magic is really in the grinder. Not being able to afford the requisite $600 for a really high-quality grinder, I resorted to a hand grinder upon returning with my chrome prize from Italy. It produces the required fine grind, but at a snail’s pace. Just last year I broke down and purchased Breville’s newest grinder – the Smart Grinder. Sure, it’s not a Baratza Vario, but it comes darn close for 1/4th of the price. Just a caution, if you want an electric grinder, be prepared to shell out at the very least, $200 along with a Mypressi.

The ingeniousness of the Mypressi is in its obviousness – NO2 cartridges have been around since the 50s for use in whipping cream among other things. Though the cartridges can’t be taken on a plane, they’re widely available, making the Mypressi easy to travel with (it comes with a bag!). Paired with a good hand grinder (see the Pavoni picture above) it would make a nice alternative to Folgers or French Press on camping/road trips! The proof of any espresso machine is in the shots – check out the photo gallery at the beginning of this post for my proof – it looks great, sure, but it tastes even better and really rips out the dark, chocolatey flavours that I can’t achieve on my Pavoni. It’s perfect for my lifestyle – no more than a couple shots a day – and really satisfies my OCD struggle for the perfect shots. Fiddling, for me, is part of the fun and really, if you’re looking for that quick fix, one of those superautomatic monstrosities might be more your speed. Somewhat oddly, one of the Mypressi’s quirks works in its favour: at the end of every shot, when you release the trigger, you get a whoosh of compressed air letting you know that your perfect pour has come to an end (almost like the sound of a door on the Starship Enterprise, the geekier among us might say). The future is tasty and satisfying.

The current socio-economic context demands that the law clarify the effects of bankruptcy and insolvency on pension benefits. In Re Indalex, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) broadened the rights of pension members to recover outstanding payments. The ONCA granted members priority over secured creditors, including the US Company who was debtor-in-possession of its bankrupt Canadian subsidiaries. The Court interpreted the company’s pension administrator role as a fiduciary duty owed to the members; this obligation took priority even during proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). A broader interpretation of the members’ “deemed trust” under the Pension Benefits Act included all outstanding amounts regardless of payment timeframe. Indalex had breached its fiduciary duty to the pension members by attempting to undermine the operation of the deemed trust. The Court’s application of a constructive trust provided an equitable remedy for the underfunded pension.

Re Indalex presents a perfect opportunity to examine the development of a novel fiduciary duty and the application of a constructive trust in the context of secured transactions. Contrary to a Professor’s warning against conceptualizing equity as magic, the pension members felt the touch of a fairy godmother in the Court’s application of an equitable remedy. The case isn’t perfect, however, particularly when viewed from the perspective of the secured creditors whose priority was trumped by a previously unsecured interest.

Until the SCC decision, the new rules may introduce uncertainty in CCAA procedures. The challenges of underfunded pension plans will only worsen under the weight of increasing concurrent withdrawals. However, if creditors can’t be assured of their ability to claim secured interests from a debtor’s estate, the incentive to invest may decrease. If there is any hope of maintaining growth during the coming workplace exodus, investment is a necessity. Creditor prudence may also force businesses to outsource pension plans and purchase additional insurance to shield from a plan administrator’s fiduciary obligations. Such actions could drastically increase the cost of administering pension plans and decrease employer contributions. The question is one of efficiency. The ONCA appears to believe that placing the burden on the defaulting company is most efficient, but the SCC may not agree. The broad changes described by the ONCA may not be met with enthusiasm at the SCC, where “incremental change” and deference to Parliament may be used to prod legislators into action.

I’ve been reading Ezra Levant. It’s not my fault, I was rather forcefully told his “ShakeDown” was a must read. I suppose it’s necessary to break one’s bias every once in a while and it turns out it wasn’t completely wasted effort. I won’t claim to have finished the thin, pocket-sized criticism of Human Rights/Commissions in Canada. With a mountain of reading for school always on the horizon, it’s tough to find the time and willpower to read anything else let alone synthesizing the meaning.

Up to my current place in the book, I’ve seen two real issues with Levant’s reasoning:

1. Interpretation of the charter regarding freedoms (particularly of expression, liberty, thought and opinion); and

2. The policy and pragmatic reasons underlying the so-called “fascist” interpretations of the Human Rights Act and it’s impact on the above named constitutionalized rights and freedoms.

I’ll deal with these two issues in separate posts to keep things to a readable length. This post will deal with the Charter and the second will deal with the policy reasons for the charter-prescribed limits on rights and freedoms.

Housekeeping

As a caveat, Levant may very well deal with these issues later in the book, so this is something of a mid-way reflection. From other materials I’ve seen from Levant, it seems fair to say that the above issues are never satisfactorily dispatched. I’ll update when I’ve finished, but fair warning, that may not come until December!

First, it’s important that I deal with a common inductive fallacy that is pervasive in social policy arguments: Hasty Generalizations or, more commonly, Cherry Picking. Essentially this faulty logic occurs when a small sample is taken, without further evidence, to represent the whole. In other words, a small sample of evidence is chosen to represent a certain viewpoint. Levant does a lot of hasty generalizing. In many instances Levant seems to say “look at the bad things that happened to me, look at these examples of really bad things, thus the whole Canadian human rights system must be bad”. Like the broader legal system and every other socio-political institution in existence, human-rights in Canada are subject to the occasional irrationality and individual querks of the people using and administering them. Our criminal courts convict and sentence innocent people, our Doctors over-medicate and incorrectly diagnose, and our teachers behave inappropriately with students. Does this mean that our legal, health and education systems are all facist and corrupt? No. It means that they are run by fallible, subjective human beings. Our legal and political system is especially vulnerable to human fallacy by its tangled and complex nature.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The absolutist rights and freedom movement from the US has started to leak north of the border. This is inappropriate for a variety of reasons, not least of which are the massive differences between the methods by which rights and freedoms are constitutionally entrenched in our respective countries. In Canada there are two provisions in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which are particularly relevant to this discussion:

Section 1:  The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Section 33. (1): Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Section 1

Section 1 is abundantly clear; the rights and freedoms guaranteed to Canadian citizens in the charter are only guaranteed within reasonable limits. The fact that this limit is set out in the first section is no coincidence; it describes how the rest of the charter is to be interpreted. Levant often seems to conveniently forget this limitation. The requirement that limitations of rights and freedoms be “demonstrably justified” is a more slippery question, however, and probably where Levant would hang a rebuttal. It seems to me that justification must be considered from a reasonable perspective, one which attempts to balance the interests of all citizens and which goes to the second part of this post – policy and common sense. Limitations are, however, ultimately the purview of the judiciary (i.e. judges), who, with by and large, are a pretty intelligent, aware, and reasonable bunch.

The point of section 1 is, in essence, to say that your rights are guaranteed only when and where they don’t impinge on those of “society-at-large”. Though the charter is directed toward public action (state interactions with individuals or groups of individuals), it has often been interpreted in spirit to deal with civil action (individuals interacting with other individuals). Section 1, in a civil context, means that your rights and freedoms are only guaranteed until they impinge on your neighbour’s. As I will argue more extensively in the second part of this post, if you’re part of the majority (in terms of race, religion, strata etc.) your guarantee to rights/freedoms may be interpreted (correctly in my opinion) less strictly than those of a person belonging to a minority. I’ll leave the reasons for this to the discussion on policy.

Section 33(1)

In order to temper what is essentially a law-making power given to judges (the ability to interpret law through the charter), Parliament  included the infamous notwithstanding clause at the behest of the provinces. It simply allows Parliament to maintain sovereign right as an elected body to create laws that reflect the will of the country, regardless of their interaction with the charter. In other words, Parliament, if it so desires, can create laws that intrude on charter rights if it expressly declares that it cannot be struck down due to charter interference. This isn’t as relevant to my argument since it can only be invoked by government and no government has yet to do so, presumably because the political cost would be extremely high.

Both of these Charter sections simply demonstrate how Canadian rights and freedoms are subject to significant limitations. Why should our rights and freedoms be limited? Why are certain groups’ rights and freedoms interpreted more liberally than others? The choice to limit rights/freedoms is one not taken lightly. It is, however, a necessary choice if we are to continue to strive for a diverse, democratic and free society where all citizens are afforded equal opportunity.

It’s an unspoken hole in our collective knowledge, and its depth is profound. Technological literacy doesn’t mean the ability to write code; rather, it seems to me that technological literacy is the ability to understand, appreciate and critique technology in a broad sense and the drive to learn how to use it. Learning how to use a particular technology or version of a technology is not the point. Technology, as we’ve seen over the last two decades, changes so rapidly that traditional learning methods mean that knowledge is outdated almost as soon as it is obtained. This is the basis for the massive costs incurred by firms through lost productivity when switching to a new technology. Technological literacy is a skill, not a knowledge; it’s an ability to self-teach.

Of course, a basic level of knowledge is necessary to facilitate self-teaching. Basic tenets of technology, such as input methods, concepts of filing systems and the most basic understanding of the internet (not tubes) and cloud-computing (sharing of computing power and storage through networking). These are things that can be “known” and will apply to almost every piece of software and technological innovation in electronics/computing. They’re also skills that are incredibly simple to learn and involve all aspects of brain function, from reasoning to tactile input/output.

So why is there such a problem with technological literacy? Maybe it’s a lack of respect for the power of technology. Maybe we’re frightened by the unknown. Maybe it’s a by-product of the technology itself; thinking that everything should just be done for us. Regardless of the reasons, a lack of basic understanding of basic technologies is placing us far behind the possible efficiency that technology, used properly, could allow us to achieve.