Life in Canada

Move marks victory for Canadian insurers

* Rules spell out products that are not allowed

* Directive goes against OSFI ruling last June

TORONTO, May 27 (Reuters) - Canada said on Thursday it was cracking down on banks that market "unauthorized insurance" on their websites, spelling out new rules designed to keep the realms of banking and insurance separate.

Canada's banking laws have long forbidden banks from selling insurance directly through their branches, but in recent years they have skirted the rules through the Internet and stand-alone insurance offices.

By banning online insurance sales by banks, the government is choking off a growing source of revenue for the lenders, while protecting the bread and butter of Manulife Financial Corp (MFC.TO), Sun Life Financial Inc (SLF.TO) and Canada's other insurance leaders. [ID:nN07468589]

"These measures were made necessary by the evolving use of technology by banks," said Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in a statement.

The new rules distinguish between authorized insurance products, such as credit and travel-related insurance, and non-authorized products, such as life, property and casualty insurance.

Under the directive, Canadian banks can display links to subsidiaries that deal in non-authorized insurance only on their corporate web pages, where no financial products are promoted.

Flaherty said last month that he planned to meet with the banks to clarify the rules. [ID:nN24117042]

All of Canada's major banks -- Royal Bank of Canada (RY.TO), Toronto Dominion Bank (TD.TO), Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS.TO), Bank of Montreal (BMO.TO) and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CM.TO) -- offer a variety of insurance products, and several are aggressively trying to expand their insurance businesses.

While the Bank Act prohibits banks from directly selling insurance in branches, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions ruled last June that "a bank website is not a bank branch" and therefore a bank could promote insurance products on its website.

Flaherty said he disagreed with the ruling, which was seen as a blow to the thousands of insurance brokers across Canada.

Canadian Government – Stop Talking About the Canadian DMCA!

The Canadian Government is moving to table the Canadian DMCA in spite of the will of Canadians. Now, the government is frustrated and asked the Canadian public to criticize the bill only after it is tabled.

The Canadian Veneer is present here we come again, shackled of course

The last time the Canadian DMCA was introduced, Jim Prentice made a very similar request for the Canadian public to not criticize the Canadian DMCA until it was tabled. While its been mention articles previously, Michael Geist noticed that the Canadian government is asking the public to wait for the actual bill to be tabled before discussing it.

There is some significance to this if one were to look back on the history of the previous attempts to table a Canadian DMCA. On a previous attempt, the Conservatives announced that they would be tabling the Canadian DMCA. Michael Geist then set up a Facebook page called “Fair Copyright for Canada” and tens of thousands of people signed up quickly in protest of the legislation. The concern over the Canadian government to sell out Canadians interest to foreign corporate entities such as the top members of the CRIA and the CMPDA (both little more than arms of the MPAA and RIAA operating in Canada respectively) among other things.

The result was that the bill was delayed because of public outcry over the copyright bill. The mood amongst Canadians were mirrored by the Canadian copyright consultation held by the government of Canada where it was nearly unanimous that Canadians did not want to see another Bill C-61. It would be impossible to say that the Canadian government did not notice this.

Since there are definite signs that the Canadian government opted to show their middle finger to the Canadian public over this issue, their move to ask Canadians to not criticize the bill before it is tabled makes sense. If Canadians do not talk about the bill, then there would be less of a chance that the bill would be delayed like that previous attempt. If the Canadian government is planning on tabling a consumer friendly bill, they would have noted a few details about this by now – which they have not. If it was a consumer friendly bill, saying so would have quelled concerns, but if it is anti-consumer, trying to stay quiet would mean that they aren’t directly lying to the public.

I have noted before that the only thing that will likely save Canada is another election (which would mean the bill would die on the order paper) That doesn’t mean that letters and other forms of opposition would not be successful by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, the more opposition to this bill that is seen, the more it’ll be likely delayed. That will increase the chances that it would die on the order paper.

Failings of the DMCA

The United States enacted its DMCA in 1998. Plenty of people from all perspectives expressed their dismay with the huge problems it would cause, unfortunately the DMCA took effect anyway. In March 2010, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) published a study3 (PDF) on more than 10 years of consequences of the DMCA. It found the following

* “The DMCA Chills Free Expression and Scientific Research.
Experience . . . demonstrates that it is being used to stifle free speech and scientific research. . . have chilled the legitimate activities of journalists, publishers, scientists, students, programmers, and members of the public.
* The DMCA Jeopardizes Fair Use.
By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, the DMCA grants to copyright owners the power to unilaterally eliminate the public’s fair use rights. Already, the movie industry’s use of encryption on DVDs has curtailed consumers’ ability to make legitimate, personal-use copies of movies they have purchased.
* The DMCA Impedes Competition and Innovation.
Rather than focusing on pirates, some have wielded the DMCA to hinder legitimate competitors. For example, the DMCA has been used to block aftermarket competition in laser printer toner cartridges, garage door openers, and computer maintenance services. . .
* The DMCA Interferes with Computer Intrusion Laws.
Further, the DMCA has been misused as a general-purpose prohibition on computer network access. . .”

In the Canadian context, back in 2008, Michael Geist wrote up a bunch of reasons that a Canadian DMCA was problematic4. Although the Conservatives swapped out their Industry Minister and we’re talking about a new bill, much of Geist’s rationale still holds. Here are some of the things he pointed out about the prior Conservative DMCA attempt, if their new version is like the old, we’ll have to worry about the same problems.

“Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized the importance of balance between creators rights and user rights, the Canadian DMCA eviscerates user rights in the digital environment by virtually eliminating fair dealing. . . Canadian DMCA erects new barriers for teachers, students, and schools at every level who now face the prospect of infringement claims if they want to teach using digital media. . . Canadian DMCA will render it virtually impossible to protect against the invasion of privacy by digital media companies. . . Canadian DMCA means that consumers no longer control their own personal property. . .”

If you were to buy a media device like an iPod, your use of it is controlled by a third party. This already happens with Apple and other companies to some degree. Consider this excellent piece by Russell McOrmond5 (3 May 2010). He’s talking about DRM (initially known as digital rights management but more aptly called digital restrictions management for the way it is truly used), he’s not talking about the DMCA or copyright changes. However DRM is a problem compounded by DMCA-like laws because those DMCA laws prevent people from lawfully circumventing the silly (and I’d argue unethical and abusive) DRM that already exists. Russell makes it simple:

“. . . we have a scenario where people are buying something, but where they are not expected to retain ownership-like rights. To me it is obvious that if I own something that it is me, and not someone else, that maintains the keys for any locks applied to what I own. . .”

It’s worse than that though. If you continue reading, McOrmond points out a significant transformation in how we interact with our cultural manifestations.

“Anti-competitive locks on content threaten to cause a transformation of traditional retail content distribution from where the product is the content and the customer is the audience, to one where the product is the audience and the customer is the copyright holder. If a small number of locked platform providers are able to dominate the distribution networks for copyrighted works it will then be these platform providers, not copyright holders, that are in control of the business models.”

You see, the copyright holder has the reins on what the audience can get however the device manufacturers manage how. Together these manufacturers and copyright holders control everything the audience is allowed to experience. And that’s to be codified in law. No wonder major music and movie industries push so hard for these new copyright laws, they stand to control so much.

Look, it’s fine to try to appeal to everyone’s tangible pleasures with the points about not controlling your own “property”. But our very rights to interact and share our own culture are on the line. Our rights for freedom of expression are at risk of being restricted and that is going to hurt in unimaginable ways.

Why do these old industries need laws to coerce everyone into accepting their control. The control they want is contrary to the digital medium where information flows infinitely and effortlessly reproduces itself. The control they want is wrenched–flawed–from a physical realm in which control was tangible and nothing really could be reproduced infinitely or effortlessly.

Canada needs to evolve and build its economy, especially as we move out of a recession and face a huge opportunity with digital media. The way many old media companies (those pushing for DMCA-style restrictive, unbalanced copyright reforms) used to make money is irrelevant in the digital realm. This is the greatest bone of contention that I have with the push for DMCA-like copyright reform. It’s biased toward ways of thinking that simply don’t pertain to our modern culture, economy, and way of living. It’s biased toward industries that need to evolve or be put out of their misery. Helping irrelevant non-evolving industries to struggle along just puts Canada at the very back of an emerging world economy. And it will do it at the cost of enslaving our culture making criminals out of innocent citizens.

This post is not so much about what the Conservatives have done, but rather what they’re about to do. It’s time to once again get up in arms, protest, write letters, and spread the word about the impending shortsightedness of an upcoming Conservative copyright bill. And in case copyright still sounds like a dull and arcane issue, please understand that the way these copyright bills have been going (under the Conservatives and in certain other countries’ sorry legislation's) they will have profound, deep-reaching impacts on your life.

Geist recommends writing (physical) letters to your MP as well as the ministers and PM responsible, “No stamp is required – be sure to include your home address and send it to the House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6″. There’s some more information from the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights

Since the government is already amidst multiple scandals, another fiasco over copyright might be something they don’t want at this time. Because it is a minority situation, the opposition will have another edge in an effort to regain power even though they (the Liberal party as shown in the past with Bill C-60) quietly support the Canadian DMCA. That is why opposition stands a good chance at working at this time too.

So the best advice for Canadians is to do what Michael Geist already suggested: send paper letters to your MPs. Even more is to organize protests and keep the mainstream media talking about copyright. Anything that will attract attention to these issues. As long as Canada is silent on this issue, then the Canadian DMCA stands a much better chance at being passed. We all know that this is what Canada does not want.

Good Luck Canada...

So says a Canadian study led by Montreal University's Linda Pagan
Mon May 3, 4:23 PM

Early exposure to television is detrimental to children's health, academic achievement and social development, warned a Canadian study published on Monday.

Researchers found that every additional hour spent watching television at 29 months, beyond US recommended guidelines, corresponded to small decreases in classroom engagement, math achievements, and time spent on physical activity in later years.

As well, it lead to increases in victimization by classmates, higher consumption of soft drinks and snacks, and more body fat by the time children reached the age of 10, according to the study.

"Common sense would suggest that television exposure replaces time that could be spent engaging in other developmentally enriching activities and tasks that foster cognitive, behavioral and motor development," the researchers said.

Past studies of adolescents' television viewing habits found this to be true. This study is the first to look at how television affects much younger children.

"Broadcasting has an educational orientation when targeting preschoolers, which might have some cognitive benefits," the researchers opined.

"Nevertheless, preschool televiewing remains a cognitively passive activity at a time when key experiences for developing attention and behavioral self-regulation are expected to occur."

Children in this "critical period," for example, learn how to process information, interact with their environment and eventually use logic to understand math and science.

Television watching had no impact on reading skills, the study noted.

The researchers asked parents to note their children's viewing habits at 29 months and 53 months of age. At 10 years, parents and teachers then reported on the 1,314 children's academic abilities, health and well-being.

The American Academy of Pediatrics discourages any television exposure during infancy and less than two hours per day beyond two years of age.

Children in the study at 29 months watched an average of 8.82 hours of television per week, rising to 14.85 hours by 53 months.

The study led by Montreal University's Linda Pagani was published in the current issue of the American Medical Association's Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

Johnson & Johnson Canada

In Canada, the impact is limited to all lots of Children’s MOTRIN® and Infants’ MOTRIN® liquid suspension products and Children’s TYLENOL® Cough & Runny Nose liquid
suspension only. No other Canadian product is impacted.

McNeil Consumer Healthcare (Canada) is initiating this voluntary recall, in consultation with Health Canada because these products may not fully meet the required manufacturing specifications. The company advises consumers who have purchased these recalled products to discontinue use.
The company is conducting a comprehensive quality assessment across its manufacturing operations and has identified corrective actions that will be implemented before new manufacturing is initiated at the US plant where the recalled products were made.

Consumers who have purchased Children’s MOTRIN® and Infant’s MOTRIN® liquid
suspension products and Children’s TYLENOL® Cough & Runny Nose liquid suspension
products should stop using the product and contact McNeil Consumer Healthcare (Canada) at 1-888-222-6036 for more information.

Consumers can also log on to www.jnjcanada.com.
As with all OTC products, if consumers have any concerns about the use of these products, they should contact their health care provider.