Slashdot Mirror

I've sent an email to my MP. I hope all other Canadian /.ers do likewise. Here is what I wrote. Be sure to add your name and full address to yours, and cc the Honorable Peter Van Loan (vanlop@parl.gc.ca) as well. Feel free to modify to suit your own political beliefs. (Not that you need my permission for that, just being honest and transparent.) If you don't have their email address, you might want to look that up.

In regards to a proposed new bill:

http://www.news1130.com/more.jsp?content=20090617_213536_8084

The point of laws regarding privacy, and court-sanctioned warrants overriding privacy, is not to make it easier for the police to solve crimes, but to weigh carefully the right to privacy on one hand and the reasonable evidence pointing to a particular suspect requiring further information on the other. The police, being human beings, can easily get emotionally attached to the pursuit of an individual, and invade what could easily turn out to be an innocent person's privacy. The whole point of a warrant being issued by a judge is for oversight to ensure that the police aren't cutting corners prior to actually invading someone's privacy.

By removing this level of oversight, I feel we are going in the wrong direction on personal liberties and freedoms, and are sliding towards a police state.

It's not that I have an issue with ISPs keeping logs, the same way corporations are supposed to keep account of their transactions in case of an audit. But it requires some oversight to keep the police from accessing just anyone's account without reasonable evidence otherwise. As long as the logs are protected by similar privacy laws that any other aspect of citizens' private lives, and only released under proper court warrants, the police continue to have the tools they need to pursue internet crimes while continuing to protect citizens' privacy, thereby protecting liberties and freedoms we all enjoy.

I hope you will incorporate proper privacy protections in this bill, requiring the police to act the same as they do with any other aspect of our private lives.

That's not entirely true. Yes, the health risks and benefits of Cannabis are still under debate, but so far, it has been proven that the substance can affect you both positively and negatively, and I wouldn't say the positive effects outweigh the negative effects (especially considering that there may be a link between pot smoking and various mental illnesses).

"May" be a link. So, you'd rather put people in jail, just in case of a hypothetical link? As opposed to, say, relying on education so people can make their own informed decisions?

Well, this is a matter of personal experience then I guess. The Cannabis users I know keep talking about how cool it is constantly and try to make social events out of their consumption sessions.

Now that's a far *far* cry from randomly handing out pot to people and trying to seduce them into using it. In fact, that sounds like good ol', run-of-the-mill peer pressure. You know, the kind your mom and dad warned you about, that's been going on for a very *very* long time now. Hardly anything to worry about.

If you'd legalize Marijuana, more and more people would start using it, as it's much more easily available

False. Once again, one need only look at Amsterdam to see what would happen. Here's a study on the topic. In case you don't feel like reading it, the conclusion is simple: rates consumption rates would probably remain the same.

Marijuana would soon become similar to Alcohol - "a little bit now and then, that's all ok, especially on social events".

Wait... how is that a bad thing, again?

but then, I also met people who are not, people who do not just use, but abuse Cannabis.

So, you'd prefer damaging, discriminatory laws, in order to protect a minority of people who might have a problem? Do you also support alcohol, tobacco, and gambling prohibition?

But as long as our society cannot even solve all the problems alcohol and cigarettes cause, I don't think we should legalize another drug.

Those problems will never be solved. But why create a whole raft of *new* problems, such as organized crime and so forth, as well? I mean, the lessons of prohibition seem pretty clear: it doesn't reduce consumption rates, it creates more problems than it solves, and in the end, it just ain't worth it.

LOL, you think Industry Canada can't do this as well (8.2b)? Hell, in Canada the Queen can comandeer any radio transmitter she likes, by law (7.1).

At least in the USA, if you get a license, you can broadcast just about anything you like, as long as it meets some basic obscenity guidelines (and even those tend to be relaxed for radio). In Canada, radio and TV stations are told just how much non-Canadian content they'll be allowed to play each hour. And that's just the start... In this country you're not even allowed to pay the broadcaster to receive a broadcast if it's isn't approved by the government (don't get any funny ideas, decrypting it without paying is illegal too) (9.1cd).

Attempting to get a license for a low-power "indy" station requires going to court in this country.

To rub salt into that wound, an attempt was made only a few years ago to pass laws that would prohibit the import of any receiving equipment that wasn't approved by a government licensed broadcaster. Lucky for us, the government changed hands before a vote could be held.

Canada has one of the most restrictive sets of laws governing broadcasts of the entire free world. The only way I can think of to make it worse would be to require payment to the CBC to receive their broadcasts, similar to paying the BBC to watch TV in the UK.

Here is the Canadian government summary report (annotated) that describes the logic behind the conclusion. You can accept or reject it at your discretion, but it does attempt to explain the very thing you're asking about.

Moving towards it, yeah right, only another 2 or 3 generations and they might have had another study.

Are you kidding me?

BILL C-17: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONTRAVENTIONS ACT AND THE CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT

Disclaimer - I work with these guys on occasion.

I am an hESC biologist, and this stuff is quite significant. I expect iPS cells will take over from hESC in the near to mid-term future (5-10 years). Not that I have any problems with hESC, but as a professional in the field, if they can do the same things and not bother people as much, why not? It's worth noting though that this would never have happened without research on embryonic stem cells to allow us to identify the culture conditions etc necessary to maintain puripotence. This lab is not-coincidentally also one of the few Canadian labs licensed to make new hESC lines from discarded blastocysts. Also worth noting that iPS lines will eliminate some of the ethical issues around hESC - but definitely not all of them. This will be particularly important in the U.S. IIRC - Canadian law on hESC is defined around pluripotence (e.g. it includes human iPSC), whereas I don't think this is the case south of the border.

In a timely juxtaposition, the other primary front-page story in today's Globe and Mail was about cutbacks to Canadian research funding. While you guys get Obama and an extra $10bn to the NIH, we are stuck with a conservative government and losing hundreds of millions from our research councils. Our Minister of Science and Technology (a chiropractor FFS) apparently screamed at representatives of the national organization of University professors and stomped out of the room when asked about it.

For those Canadians reading this: Canadian scientists are among the best in the world. We can compete on this and many other playing fields - but we need stable, non-politicized funding, most particularly for basic research like this. Industry will not do this kind of work, the profits are too far down the road. Our government needs to stop playing silly power games, and pay attention to the task at hand, before we lose a lot of these top players to the U.S.

Please write (snail-mail as always is both free and most effective) your MP and encourage them to support scientific research in Canada. If nothing else, when the bailout money runs out and the carmakers finally go belly up, this is where the next generation of jobs will come from.

And this is why Canadians have less rights and freedoms than Americans do. They don't have any true protections under the law. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a very fragile document. There's an especially huge hole in the Notwithstanding Clause. The federal government or any province can override sections of the Charter as they fit. Sure there's a time limit of five years on it, however there's no limit as to how many times they can renew it. The Charter is flawed and doesn't even come close to the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the US.

It may be the case that Canadian politicians are not eager to explicitly invoke a "screw the constitution" clause, possibly because they understand it to be a potentially career terminating move.

In fact, outside of Quebec (which is very different from the rest of Canada), the clause has been used only three times since it entered the charter in 1981, and never actually invoked.

The first was in Yukon's Land Planning and Development Act (1982), which was never proclaimed into law.
The second was in Saskatchewan (1984-86), to protect back-to-work legislation that was later ruled not to violate the charter.
The third was in Alberta (2000), amending that province's Marriage Act to define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. That had no legal effect because the federal government has sole jurisdiction to decide who is eligible to marry in Canada.

I am not defending section 33, but before you dismiss the Canadian constitution out of hand because of it, I suggest you read a little about it.

• How Canadians Govern Themselves
• Inside Canada's Parliament
• Democracy In Action

I especially recommend "How Canadians Govern Themselves", first written by a Senator and now updated and published by the Library of Parliament. It is written for a general audience (not the law school crowd), but I do not think that it over-simplifies things. Because most Canadians' expectations of how government should function is shaped by US sources, the publication includes a section that compares US and Canadian governance, which I think would be a useful section for any interested American readers, too.

• How Canadians Govern Themselves
• Inside Canada's Parliament
• Democracy In Action

I especially recommend "How Canadians Govern Themselves", first written by a Senator and now updated and published by the Library of Parliament. It is written for a general audience (not the law school crowd), but I do not think that it over-simplifies things. Because most Canadians' expectations of how government should function is shaped by US sources, the publication includes a section that compares US and Canadian governance, which I think would be a useful section for any interested American readers, too.

• How Canadians Govern Themselves
• Inside Canada's Parliament
• Democracy In Action

I especially recommend "How Canadians Govern Themselves", first written by a Senator and now updated and published by the Library of Parliament. It is written for a general audience (not the law school crowd), but I do not think that it over-simplifies things. Because most Canadians' expectations of how government should function is shaped by US sources, the publication includes a section that compares US and Canadian governance, which I think would be a useful section for any interested American readers, too.

Here's the summary text of Bill C-47. I checked whether there was a recording of votes, but it passed by acclimation at the third reading, so there was no vote count taken.

Basically, there are now two trademark laws in Canada, one for ordinary businesses, and one for the Olympics.

Here's the summary text of Bill C-47. I checked whether there was a recording of votes, but it passed by acclimation at the third reading, so there was no vote count taken.

Basically, there are now two trademark laws in Canada, one for ordinary businesses, and one for the Olympics.

...immediately following Jim Prentice's introduction of the Canadian version of the DMCA. DMCA allows creators to censor criticism. It is an attack on Free Speech. I encourage all Canadians to Write your MP and express your concern over the erosion of freedom that Mr. Prentice is attempting to bring about. For those who want to read the fine print, here is the legalese of Bill C-61, an amendment to Canadian Copyright law.

Check my latest journal entry for more details regarding the proposed legislation.

...immediately following Jim Prentice's introduction of the Canadian version of the DMCA. DMCA allows creators to censor criticism. It is an attack on Free Speech. I encourage all Canadians to Write your MP and express your concern over the erosion of freedom that Mr. Prentice is attempting to bring about. For those who want to read the fine print, here is the legalese of Bill C-61, an amendment to Canadian Copyright law.

Check my latest journal entry for more details regarding the proposed legislation.

I think this might be a good way to find your MP if you have no idea who it is.

I posted this on another forum this afternoon.. Though I should paste it here as well.. ---- So, after doing some reading, I learned that our government is back at the Copyright Reform table yet again trying to pass a bill very similar in nature to America's DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The long and short of it is if this is passed we're going to lose a lot of the freedoms we enjoy with our media today. I suggest you read the proposed changes at the following website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/h_rp01157e.html - Recap version http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3570473&Mode=1&Language=E&File=48 - Entire bill Once you've done so, I'm going to bet that you will be angry that our government would heavily favor the big media corporations so heavily in this bill while taking away the rights that we currently enjoy like copying a DVD we own for personal use, etc. I strongly advise you write your MP if you do not support this bill after reading about it. If you need to know who that is or find their contact info, visit the following website: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC The following is the letter I've written. You can feel free to send it, or come up with your own. But I urge you to do something and make your voices heard if you do not support this bill. ------- Greetings, I am usually not one to make waves when it comes to political issues, however this one effects me personally and just about every technology using Canadian. After reading through the "Copyright Reform Process - Fact Sheets" (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/h_rp01157e.html) I have several issues with your proposals. Below I am going to go through each section of the "Fact Sheet" and state my issues with them. With regards to Format Shifting (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01158e.html): "With respect to audiovisual material such as films, the format-shifting provision would apply only to videocassettes and would not allow you to make copies of material stored on other media, such as DVDs." This scares me. Looking at this statement, if I understand it correctly, and taking it for face value means that I could not take a DVD that I have purchased and put it on my iPod or other digital media players without breaking the law. It would mean that I'd have to purchase another copy of said film (that I had already purchased on DVD) for the media player of my choice. Having to buy the same thing multiple times does not bode well with me. I work hard for what I own, and do not believe that the laws of this country should dictate how I use it. "You could not circumvent or hack a technological measure (digital lock) to make a copy." This is 100% flawed. 99.9% of commercially produced DVDs have a digital protection on them called CSS and an increasing number of audio discs have content protection on them as well. If I wanted to make a backup of media that I own, that means that I would have to break some kind of Digital Rights Management (DRM) to do so, thus making me a criminal under the law. With regards to the Private Copying Of Music (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01160e.html): On this page, you mention: "What could be copied? -- You could make a copy of music you have accessed legally onto devices you own and onto media to use with these devices. However, you could not copy music you have borrowed or rented." Further down the page you mention: "You could not circumvent or hack a technological measure (digital lock) to make the copy." I'm looking at the last ten CDs I've purchased and eight of them mention they have some form of anti-piracy measures on them. So, ev

I posted this on another forum this afternoon.. Though I should paste it here as well.. ---- So, after doing some reading, I learned that our government is back at the Copyright Reform table yet again trying to pass a bill very similar in nature to America's DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The long and short of it is if this is passed we're going to lose a lot of the freedoms we enjoy with our media today. I suggest you read the proposed changes at the following website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/h_rp01157e.html - Recap version http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3570473&Mode=1&Language=E&File=48 - Entire bill Once you've done so, I'm going to bet that you will be angry that our government would heavily favor the big media corporations so heavily in this bill while taking away the rights that we currently enjoy like copying a DVD we own for personal use, etc. I strongly advise you write your MP if you do not support this bill after reading about it. If you need to know who that is or find their contact info, visit the following website: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC The following is the letter I've written. You can feel free to send it, or come up with your own. But I urge you to do something and make your voices heard if you do not support this bill. ------- Greetings, I am usually not one to make waves when it comes to political issues, however this one effects me personally and just about every technology using Canadian. After reading through the "Copyright Reform Process - Fact Sheets" (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/h_rp01157e.html) I have several issues with your proposals. Below I am going to go through each section of the "Fact Sheet" and state my issues with them. With regards to Format Shifting (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01158e.html): "With respect to audiovisual material such as films, the format-shifting provision would apply only to videocassettes and would not allow you to make copies of material stored on other media, such as DVDs." This scares me. Looking at this statement, if I understand it correctly, and taking it for face value means that I could not take a DVD that I have purchased and put it on my iPod or other digital media players without breaking the law. It would mean that I'd have to purchase another copy of said film (that I had already purchased on DVD) for the media player of my choice. Having to buy the same thing multiple times does not bode well with me. I work hard for what I own, and do not believe that the laws of this country should dictate how I use it. "You could not circumvent or hack a technological measure (digital lock) to make a copy." This is 100% flawed. 99.9% of commercially produced DVDs have a digital protection on them called CSS and an increasing number of audio discs have content protection on them as well. If I wanted to make a backup of media that I own, that means that I would have to break some kind of Digital Rights Management (DRM) to do so, thus making me a criminal under the law. With regards to the Private Copying Of Music (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01160e.html): On this page, you mention: "What could be copied? -- You could make a copy of music you have accessed legally onto devices you own and onto media to use with these devices. However, you could not copy music you have borrowed or rented." Further down the page you mention: "You could not circumvent or hack a technological measure (digital lock) to make the copy." I'm looking at the last ten CDs I've purchased and eight of them mention they have some form of anti-piracy measures on them. So, ev

I already phoned in to my MP, Prentice, Verner, Dion, and Harper. Use this to get your local MP's mailing and phone information.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC

I plan to write some letters tonight.

The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.

What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?

Specifically, it includes measures that would:

• expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the "statutory damages" a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;
• implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;
• clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and
• provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.

What Bill C-61 does not do:

• it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation

What this Bill is not:

• it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia

Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner.

For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home

Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter.


The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of Industry

The Honourable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women
and Official Languages and Minister for
La Francophonie

Please write your MP and let them know you want no part of this bill. Please write a polite and informed message to them, encourage them to check out Michael Geist's page (link in article above). The world does not need another DMCA that empowers big media at the expenses of consumers' rights. Write your MP.

• Your Local MP
• Stephen Harper
• Jack Layton
• Stephane Dion
• Gilles Duceppe
  and ask them to support this bill. Remember, mailing your MP requires no postage, and they tend to take written letters over e-mail anyways. Show them that we support this, and we want this through.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as limiting or restricting the right of a network operator to

(a) manage the flow of network traffic in a reasonable manner in order to relieve congestion;

A copied song--as it was not produced by the authorized agent--could be considered "counterfeit."

Well, seeing how the age of consent in Canada is 14 years... arranging a meeting woth a 14-year old should not be a problem - unless they arrange for anal sex...

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm

I don't think his Canadian senator has much pull with the Pentagon.

Worse, while his Member of Parliament sits for election and is keen on donations, his Senator is an appointed position. She's had her seat since 2001 and isn't going anywhere until 2024!

This it isn't just about an ID card. Even in this initially modest conception, the system requires a database to keep tabs on everyone, a massive infrastructure to collect peoples' details, and a network to verify people against their cards and the database. This presents a tempting & convenient source of data - its use will grow to more than just a licence for border crossing. There has almost never been a government system of this type that hasn't vastly expanded from its original purpose (eg. Social Insurance Numbers were originally just for pensions & some limited employment insurance programs, and we still live with the temporary measure introduced to fund World War I known as "income taxes")

Besides the fact that this system will undoubtedly cost lots of money to implement and add another layer of beauracracy, and besides the fact that its purposes are already well served by strong identification systems already in place (the Permanent Resident's Card, the Citizenship Card, current Drivers Licences, and above all, Passports) it will be hacked in no time. No electronic system is completely secure, in fact there has never been an electronic system invented in widspead use that hasn't been cracked and exploited, including RFID systems. We can assume that these will be freely readable to anyone with a reader from 30m away. Like credit card readers, these RFID readers will become widely available (on the open market) as these ID cards become more popular.

Let us not even consider the obvious temptation of putting people's biometic ID on these cards - an identity theft nightmare. Even if the only RFID tag on the card is a unique ID number that authorities use to look you up on a secure database - and assuming this RFID database remains both secure AND within the jurisdiction of Canadian privacy laws - the cards will still be widely exploited for criminal use. It's easy: scan everyone's ID driving down a residential street, then come back another night and scan again to see who's home. It's not just break-ins that are facilitated, but stalking people becomes much easier for those so inclined. Some say that we should just leave our ID cards at home or carry them in a "Faraday cage wallet" if we're paranoid about these types of things, but they forget that the more widespread ID cards are in use, the less you can do without them: as their utility increases, so does the pressure to use and carry one (even if you don't like borrowing, it's impossible to live in today's soceity without a credit card, for example) And sorry, people won't get a Faraday cage for their cards. Criminals will have a field day.

Canadians are far more distrustful of their government than Americans or Europeans are of theirs, and this is a good thing. It is a fact that has generally served Canadians well in defence of their liberties and privacy rights so far. But the pressure from foreign sources to implement these types of systems in Canada is intense - Canada has now acquiesced to handing over air passenger lists to the US government, for example (the agreement is not reciprocal). This system will be widely implemented in BC and then the rest of Canada unless action is taken. It's not futile: opposition to such systems worked in Australia 20 years ago and looks like NO2ID is winning over the UK. Write your MP and provincial representative if you value your freedom.

Write Your BC MLA
http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-1.htm

Write Your Member of Parliament
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/PostalCode.asp

Vote for those that are clearly wary of these dangerous ID systems.

And here I'd thought Bush was still pissed off at Canada for not joining his war in Iraq. I guess with Harper begging to be next in line to kiss his arse, things are looking rosier again.

Write your MP and express your views.

I don't know about you, but I like short URLs (not that any pages except top-level ones have short URLs, as evidenced by those links). I also don't like how that page needs the "www" (as you can see, the same being true for Elections Canada). Then again, few people actually go to pages through the URL; they just go to Google, and as you can see, it doesn't take much work to find it (you don't even need "of Canada").

As you can see on the Order Paper for Tuesday, the Minister of Industry can still introduce such a bill (with some last minute changes that water down only the most objectionable content, or no changes at all), just like he could yesterday. It'll stay on the "waiting to be introduced list" until it's introduced, or removed. With 4 more days until the holiday break, it should be interesting to watch; I know where I'll be tomorrow morning at 10 a.m....

Oh, of course, as already mentioned, the title and summary of this story are wrong, since a bill that's never been introduced cannot be withdrawn. As usual with editors, YMMV.

As you can see on the Order Paper for Tuesday, the Minister of Industry can still introduce such a bill (with some last minute changes that water down only the most objectionable content, or no changes at all), just like he could yesterday. It'll stay on the "waiting to be introduced list" until it's introduced, or removed. With 4 more days until the holiday break, it should be interesting to watch; I know where I'll be tomorrow morning at 10 a.m....

Oh, of course, as already mentioned, the title and summary of this story are wrong, since a bill that's never been introduced cannot be withdrawn. As usual with editors, YMMV.

As you can see on the Order Paper for Tuesday, the Minister of Industry can still introduce such a bill (with some last minute changes that water down only the most objectionable content, or no changes at all), just like he could yesterday. It'll stay on the "waiting to be introduced list" until it's introduced, or removed. With 4 more days until the holiday break, it should be interesting to watch; I know where I'll be tomorrow morning at 10 a.m....

Oh, of course, as already mentioned, the title and summary of this story are wrong, since a bill that's never been introduced cannot be withdrawn. As usual with editors, YMMV.

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

Consequently, less than a month later, a new bill, to include a provision for the maintenance of essential services, was introduced, and was first debated a week ago today.

But how do they deal with compromise, you ask? Simple: they just agree to vote for each other's bills, and then actually do it. I know it's hard to believe that people would actually do what they said they would, but it happens all the time up North, especially in today's minority government (3.5 years and counting). There are ways to make sure the bills are voted on consecutively, but at each vote each member has the opportunity to decide how he or she wants to vote. But if you say you'll support someone else's bill and then change your mind as

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

Consequently, less than a month later, a new bill, to include a provision for the maintenance of essential services, was introduced, and was first debated a week ago today.

But how do they deal with compromise, you ask? Simple: they just agree to vote for each other's bills, and then actually do it. I know it's hard to believe that people would actually do what they said they would, but it happens all the time up North, especially in today's minority government (3.5 years and counting). There are ways to make sure the bills are voted on consecutively, but at each vote each member has the opportunity to decide how he or she wants to vote. But if you say you'll support someone else's bill and then change your mind as

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

Consequently, less than a month later, a new bill, to include a provision for the maintenance of essential services, was introduced, and was first debated a week ago today.

But how do they deal with compromise, you ask? Simple: they just agree to vote for each other's bills, and then actually do it. I know it's hard to believe that people would actually do what they said they would, but it happens all the time up North, especially in today's minority government (3.5 years and counting). There are ways to make sure the bills are voted on consecutively, but at each vote each member has the opportunity to decide how he or she wants to vote. But if you say you'll support someone else's bill and then change your mind as

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

Consequently, less than a month later, a new bill, to include a provision for the maintenance of essential services, was introduced, and was first debated a week ago today.

But how do they deal with compromise, you ask? Simple: they just agree to vote for each other's bills, and then actually do it. I know it's hard to believe that people would actually do what they said they would, but it happens all the time up North, especially in today's minority government (3.5 years and counting). There are ways to make sure the bills are voted on consecutively, but at each vote each member has the opportunity to decide how he or she wants to vote. But if you say you'll support someone else's bill and then change your mind as

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

Consequently, less than a month later, a new bill, to include a provision for the maintenance of essential services, was introduced, and was first debated a week ago today.

But how do they deal with compromise, you ask? Simple: they just agree to vote for each other's bills, and then actually do it. I know it's hard to believe that people would actually do what they said they would, but it happens all the time up North, especially in today's minority government (3.5 years and counting). There are ways to make sure the bills are voted on consecutively, but at each vote each member has the opportunity to decide how he or she wants to vote. But if you say you'll support someone else's bill and then change your mind as

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

Consequently, less than a month later, a new bill, to include a provision for the maintenance of essential services, was introduced, and was first debated a week ago today.

But how do they deal with compromise, you ask? Simple: they just agree to vote for each other's bills, and then actually do it. I know it's hard to believe that people would actually do what they said they would, but it happens all the time up North, especially in today's minority government (3.5 years and counting). There are ways to make sure the bills are voted on consecutively, but at each vote each member has the opportunity to decide how he or she wants to vote. But if you say you'll support someone else's bill and then change your mind as

What's a guy supposed to do when he lives a riding with a jackass for an MP? I'm afraid to contact him. It may cause him to open his mouth again. No good can come of that.

You can find a list of the main actors, plus contact information for members of Parliament and news organizations here (scroll down).

The most important person to contact is your MP. I've heard it's better to get him or her to forward your letter to the minister responsible (Jim Prentice) than it is to send it to Prentice directly. Doing both can't hurt. Paper mail and faxes are the best, though phone calls are good too. Don't forget to contact newspapers big and small. In all cases, be polite and to the point.

You can find your MP's contact information by typing in your postal code here.

If you need sample letters, check out the Facebook group's list. My non-technical explanation of why this is a terrible law is here. I'll quote it in a reply to this post.

The bill was listed on the Parliamentary notice paper and scheduled to be introduced on Monday, though it may end up on Tuesday:

Notice Paper
No. 34
Monday, December 10, 2007
11:00 a.m.

Introduction of Government Bills

...

December 7, 2007 -- The Minister of Industry -- Bill entitled "An Act to amend the Copyright Act".

Here is the important page:
LEGIS info -- 39th Parliament - 2nd session (from Oct. 16 on) House of Commons Government Bills
This is where you see the bills passed for the parliament review. As of now (Dec 7), there is no mention of any intellectual property/copyright bill.
This is a page to watch!

Below is a letter I have written to Paul Szabo my MP, feel free to send it in as your own and comment and improve it in the process. Look for your MP here if you wish to write them. I know this bill is not likely to be passed but it will come back again and again, lets get together a kick this crap out.

Honorable Mr Szabo,

I am a constituent in your riding and would like to take a moment of your time to share some concerns. First let me tell you about my self. My first year of college in 1999 I was exposed to Napster music sharing, being able to sample music at whim was a very life altering experience for me. I was able to listen to the full length songs that were sampled in commercials and movie trailers. I was able to search for music I likely never would have found standing in a local music store for hours flipping cases. I guess this is what seeded what we call the Digital Music Revolution. My music tastes have changed, I feel much more devoted to the groups I favour and enjoy giving them my money to let them know I encourage their abilities. I feel that we as a people are at a serious cross road. It feels like every day we see these new bills being introduced that favour the industries to such an extreme it is bound to leave us extremely unbalanced as a country. I believe a government that can stand and balance the situation will bring us to the fore front of respect of our selves and the rest of the world on us.

I understand the position of recording industries voicing their right to be able to hold back their contribution until a satisfying trade can be arranged, this is how the market works. What I do feel is that these industries do not speak for all music. I do realize it does not seem likely for these industries to concede to fate by the whim of others. The actions of these industries have been accepted for quite some time as they are very aggressive in their pursuit of more talent and more revenue, they have been so aggressive as to saturate our entire market. I do not want to force anyone to let me listen to their music without paying but I have to let it be known that I feel not all music is worth my money, I am willing to to pay for music I enjoy.

It seems the world is between a rock and a hard place. Music is the cornerstone of human civilization, one of the few constants in our world. How can we pass up the opportunity to take advantage of this revolution? As I stated earlier I do not wish to waste time convincing these people that they should reconsider. Their power only reaches as far as the musicians they influence but those are limited. As a country of innovation from the Avro Arrow to the Canada Arm we should continue to show the world our ability, we should create a platform that allows for music to be accessed in exactly the way they want and make it work. The world has many truly talented musicians and many more people who are waiting to be influenced by their abilities, why must we quarrel with these people over something so pointless? I believe that if Canada would start a platform it would take the world by their ears and bring us to the fore front in a way that has never been witnessed in history. I believe if we show the world a sound stage and let anyone who want their voice to be heard preform for us would be a land mark in human evolution. As a country of tolerance we will have the vulgarities as well as great beauties that will be uncovered, but I feel my county is the one that can foster such an en devour. I firmly believe all else will fall into place. Let these industries horde their accomplishments but do not let them speak for music as a whole. This is our opportunity as a country to yet again show the world what it can be like to be truly innovative and be real leaders.

I appreciate your time in reading this message, I will be following up with a traditional letter to your office. I do assure you as a

The Parliament posts its order of business .. here:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=status&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2

This supposed "Super-DMCA" is nowhere on the list of house or private members bills.
The government never gets through its order of business anyways, so if this thing is supposed
to get tacked onto the end of the list at some future date, it's unlikely to even
get a reading during this session of parliament.

Sure smells like fear-mongering, rather than anything serious..

You can send letters to senators and MPs for free (no stamps required) if you address your letters to them at the federal Parliament in Ottawa.

You can send letters to senators and MPs for free (no stamps required) if you address your letters to them at the federal Parliament in Ottawa.

A little background may shed some light on Prof. Geist's comments. Canada has no 'fair use' law - we have 'fair dealing' which is more restrictive to users. While American copyright law describes what rights copyright owners have, and everything else is open to users, Canadian copyright law describes what narrow rights copyright users have, and everything else is restricted.

When Prof. Geist talks about time- and format-shifting, parody, and backup exceptions, these are not exceptions to copyright that are being taken away from Canadians. These are rights that, technically, we've never had. Unlike the US, which had the famous Sony/Betamax case which legalized VCRs, we have never had that debate, and consumers would likely lose if we did. VCRs and PVRs (DVRs) are in a legal grey area at best, if not outright illegal, and yet they are in virtually every home.

This leads to Canada lagging behind with adoption of newer technologies, due to the legally questionable situation manufacturers might find themselves in. TiVo just announced their entry into the Canadian market (officially) this month. How can our government move to reform copyright, and in the process make criminals of virtually everyone? How do we get out of our current contradictory mess of copyright law in Canada, through which downloading of copyrighted material from the internet is legal, and yet VCRs are not?

This bill has not yet been introduced, so we cannot even read it for ourselves to confirm or deny these rumours. That said, I urge every Canadian reading this post to write (snail-mail is best!) their MP post haste and let them know that they don't want to become a criminal every time they transfer songs from their CDs to their iPod, or use their PVR/DVR or VCR. No postage necessary. You can find your MP here: http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E/

Hon. Josée Verner and Hon. Jim Prentice are the ministers in charge of the copyright file. Write them too!

If you are Canadian, I encourage you to contact your member of parliament and make sure they know you, as a voter, want them to put the concerns of Canadian consumers before big business (especially foreign big business).

You are quite right. I don't know how to motivate people to care about something they should care about. I don't know whose responsibility it is. Nobody seems to care about who gets to be in charge. Maybe everyone thinks that their votes don't matter, or that whoever gets in is just as bad as anyone else. (It's a false choice, of course - the real answer is supposed to be "the electorate is in charge, and they aren't just 'taxpayers'".) Beyond a complete overhaul of the US election system, I don't really see any options for you guys. You're fucked. The average American would rather see news about some random celebrity or follow a sports team than see news about what's going on in the political arena.

I think I saw a Robot Chicken sketch where they gave the election results the "American Idol" treatment to increase interest in the 18-25 market. There were overlays showing the voting records of each candidate (105-8 against gay rights, 45-2 for corporate tax decreases, etc.), 1-800 numbers to text messages to get preliminary votes, and slides showing summaries of the party platforms. It was supposed to be funny, but I wondered why nobody has tried to make the system more interesting to people who don't even write in complete sentences.

I have many windmills of my own to tilt at, most of which have nothing to do with our elections. At least up here we've got somewhat of a choice in who to vote for. Personally, I've voted against the same guy (Dr. Keith Martin, MD) for several elections. The giant douche has won every fucking time. I'm still going to vote against him next time.

It's quite refreshing to have a minority government in power. That means that every time they want to get something done, they have to compromise. The winners are usually the citizens.

Yeah, but the 50% figure is utterly ridiculous. It is a number made up from an advocacy group dedicated to convincing people in Canada that the government is wasting our money. The "Canadian Taxpayers Federation" can hardly be called an advocate of honest or even relatively sane statistical data.

Here are a few references which show that the Canadian tax burden, while somewhat higher than the US, is nowhere near 50%...

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/ prb05107-e.htm#figure2
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922307.html
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_ world

Just to state for the record, C-59 was given Royal Assent on June 22, 2007. In other words, it is already law.

It spent 12 days in Parliament, 8 days in the Senate and then received Royal Assent on the same day the Senate passed it. Government is certainly a well oiled machine - you just need to know how to grease the wheels properly.

(hopefully my link works better then yours does)
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseBills/BillsGovernment. aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1#C59