Slashdot Mirror

I am writing you concerning your document "Statement of Proposed Levies to be Collected by CPCC for the Sale, in Canada, of Blank Audio Recording Media for the Years 2003 and 2004".

The current levies are more than adequate compensation for recording artists -- these new fees are extremely high, arbitrary, and totally unjustifiable.

Remember that most of the country lives within a day trip of the U.S. All you're doing with these ridiculously high tariffs is to force people to buy their CD media and MP3 players in the U.S. You're not helping anybody with these high tariffs except U.S. retailers. I suggest to you that these tariffs makes it economically sensible for most Canadians to buy these items in the U.S. and because of this, the total amount you will collect will probably go down. Remember what happened when you raised taxes on cigarettes to ridiculous levels? And not only will Canadian businesses lose money to cross border shopping, the Canadian government will also lose money on lost sales taxes.

I also suggest to you that CD-R's have become the lifeblood of software distribution and as such, you are mostly punishing the computer and software industries with these tariffs (I own a small software company). In an economic downturn and with these industries in cut-throat competition, these tariffs create unneeded and unnecessary economic pressure on these businesses and may even force some of them to relocate to the U.S. How do you justify the computer/software industries subsidizing Canadian artists?

What it comes down to is this: Why in the name of God do we need the government collecting money for a specific group of people in Canada? Do our musical 'geniuses' build roads, pick up garbage, or protect out borders? Are they responsible for our national defence? Is it critical to our country's best interests to give these people handouts? Does Celine Dion really need another million? The government has absolutely no business being the 'bag-man' for the music industry. In fact, you're doing the exact opposite of what you ARE mandated to do; you should be representing the interests of consumers who elected you to office, not the fat-cat music industry.

I know it's tough for a lot of you to lose your historically Canadian socialist tendencies but we live in a new world of global competition and you're going to have to disabuse yourselves of these notions or we'll do it for you at the ballot box. Montreal is already the highest taxed area in North America and we will not put up with any more of this garbage. And believe me when I say that although this is just one e-mail, I speak for a LOT of people who feel the same way.

You people have lost all reason and need to get a grip on reality. Please leave the levies as they are.

Outraged Canadian Citizen.

I've drafted a letter to my MP, and for anyone else who wants to do the same, here's a page that allows you to get the contact information for your MP:

Find the Constituency with a Postal Code

- YS

Deadline for written comment is May 8, 2002. So get writing! And for the love of God, use paper, much better impact. Remember, you don't need a stamp to mail your MP, so enjoy the free ride :) Look up an address here.

The constitution act, 1867 did not include what is there now. That was added later.

Wrong. Section 17 was not added later. The link points to the Constitution Act, 1867 consildated with amendments. Section 17 does not have a note indicating any amendment. It is section 17 that establishes the existence of Parliament. Section 18, and the Parliament of Canada Act, 1875 to which you refer, simply clarified the wording of section 18.

Part 4 (The part to which you refer) was repealed in 1931, and the new one was introduced in 1982.

The Statute of Westminster in 1931 did not repeal part 4 of the (then) BNA Act. The Constitution Act 1982, does not establish the Parliament of Canada.

Check out Parliament's own web site: The Constitution Act, 1867 established Parliament, consisting of the Queen, an appointed Senate and an elected House of Commons.

In order for a bill to pass parliament, it need a 2/3 majority vote. Therefore ALL ammendments need a 2/3 majority.

Then given that the current government only has 169 seats out of 301, how does it pass any legislation? If a 2/3 majority were required, it would need 201 votes to pass any legislation.

The constitution act, 1867 did not include what is there now. That was added later.

Wrong. Section 17 was not added later. The link points to the Constitution Act, 1867 consildated with amendments. Section 17 does not have a note indicating any amendment. It is section 17 that establishes the existence of Parliament. Section 18, and the Parliament of Canada Act, 1875 to which you refer, simply clarified the wording of section 18.

Part 4 (The part to which you refer) was repealed in 1931, and the new one was introduced in 1982.

The Statute of Westminster in 1931 did not repeal part 4 of the (then) BNA Act. The Constitution Act 1982, does not establish the Parliament of Canada.

Check out Parliament's own web site: The Constitution Act, 1867 established Parliament, consisting of the Queen, an appointed Senate and an elected House of Commons.

In order for a bill to pass parliament, it need a 2/3 majority vote. Therefore ALL ammendments need a 2/3 majority.

Then given that the current government only has 169 seats out of 301, how does it pass any legislation? If a 2/3 majority were required, it would need 201 votes to pass any legislation.

In Canada, the law that is supposed to protect Canadian consumers and businesses is the Competition Act. The Government agency in charge of upholding this law is the Competition Bureau.

It is funny how the Microsoft has been convicted in the US and EU of illegal monopolistic business practices yet the Canadian Competition Bureau has done nothing. You can email them to ask why here.

If you are Canadian and want to ask the same question of your member of parliment, their email addresses are here.

In Canada, the law that is supposed to protect Canadian consumers and businesses is the Competition Act. The Government agency in charge of upholding this law is the Competition Bureau.

It is funny how the Microsoft has been convicted in the US and EU of illegal monopolistic business practices yet the Canadian Competition Bureau has done nothing. You can email them to ask why here.

If you are Canadian and want to ask the same question of your member of parliment, their email addresses are here.

You can't, it is not legal for sale in Canada (contrary to what the other poster wrote). Canada regulates caffeine as a drug in "light-colored" beverages. This is why Canadian mountain dew has no caffeine, compared to the 55 mg contained in american Dew (see motion, the "citrus flavored drink refered to is Dew).

What I did was email the fine folks at www.red-bull.com, and they sent me a list of distributers in Washington State, which is only an hour from my house. I go down every few months and buy 3-4 cases, they cost $34 ($USD) each for 24 cans, and have never had problems with the customs officials.

Oh, and I mix it with alcohol all of the time, and it tastes really damn good with vodka.

-rt-

Here's some background, useful for Canadians and non-Candians alike...

In Canada, March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into force. Until then, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright. Part VIII legalizes one such activity: copying of sound recordings of musical works onto recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy.

Specifically, the Copyright Board says their ruling "does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else."

You may want to look at the Goverment of Canada Copyright Board backgrounder (see point 2, specifically) and allowance for private-use copying.

This is one reason why (for first-generation, private-use copies) Canada is a better place to use P2P than the United States.

I have a feeling youa re misinterpretiung this.

Legal advice is, of course, always a good idea. But I think it's pretty clear... You may interpret it from the horse's mouth, if you like:
Goverment of Canada Copyright Board backgrounder (see point 2, specifically) and allowance for private-use copying.

In fact if this were true I suspect record companies here in the states (I knwo how canadians hate it when refer to the sates as "america") will immediately stop shipping releases to Canada.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Well, it's true and it's been true for a few years now. Sure, manufacturers and citizens here complain about the small taxes now applied to blank CD-Rs, MiniDiscs, etc. But no US record companies have stopped shipping to Canada.

Professor William Schabas,Université du Québec à Montreal:The second point that came up in the testimony over the last few weeks dealt with the so-called reverse onus provision, namely, clause 53 of the draft legislation. In effect, paragraph 2 of clause 53 eliminates the notion of reasonable doubt in prosecutions under this bill. That means that in submitting defences at any point in these cases, an accused will not have to raise a reasonable doubt but will have to prove innocence. That is a far-reaching provision. I am not aware of many provisions that strong in our criminal law. To get such a provision past the Supreme Court, you would have to demonstrate that the prosecution absolutely needs it in order to obtain convictions and that it cannot enforce the legislation without it. What the courts have done -- and the Supreme Court did this in a recent case -- is read down this kind of provision by saying that maybe it was all right to impose a burden on an accused to raise a reasonable doubt but it was going too far to impose a burden on an accused to prove innocence. The distinction is an important one. The Supreme Court said that if all you are doing is allowing someone to raise a reasonable doubt, you are not violating the notion of proof of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, you are in accordance with the law. The Charter provisions that are raised by this are sections 11(d) and 7.

...

I do not know of any law in Canada that reverses the burden of proof to the extent that people are guilty until proven innocent. To make someone guilty until proven innocent would mean that the police could lay a charge against someone or the prosecution would present a charge and then, in the absence of any evidence, that person would have to prove his or her innocence. I do not know of any legislation that does that.

We often do allow, on the proof of certain facts, other facts to be presumed. We then require the defendant to reply to those facts and to rebut them. In some cases, the defendant rebuts them by simply raising a doubt; in other cases, the defendant must rebut or refute these presumptions by proving the opposite. For example, the Oakes case concerned possession for purposes of trafficking in narcotics. Upon proof that someone was in possession of a certain quantity of narcotics, he was then presumed to be in possession for the purpose of trafficking and had to get in the witness box to prove the opposite. This provision states that if someone can raise valid defences to these things -- exception, exemption, excuse or qualification then he has to prove them instead of merely raise a reasonable doubt about them.

Normally, the general rule is that if you want to raise a reasonable doubt defence, you raise that doubt by saying you have, for example, an exemption. For example, let us say an 11-year-old child is charged with an offence under the act.

The Chair: He cannot be charged because he is a young offender.

Mr. Schabas: Exactly. Theoretically, he could be charged because the Crown may think that the young person is actually aged 19 years old. That person could then raise that argument. He would have to prove it and not just raise a reasonable doubt. He would have to raise not only a doubt about it, which is the normal principle in criminal law, but also prove it to the satisfaction of the trier of fact.

As for higher tax rates, I'll have you know that Alberta is moving to a 10.5% FLAT tax at the start of the new year. There will still be federal tax... but even at its worst, if you live in Alberta you won't pay more than 38% in taxes no matter how much you earn. And look at what you get - space, a clean environment, safety, cheap living expenses, etc.

I live in Ontario, please friend, ask Alberta (and the west) to stop voting Reform (Alliance). I really believe what we will find under the aura of this 'progressive' party who encourages 'change' is an extremely right wing, pro BIG BUSINESS (ala America) group that will very literally sell our Canadian community out. I agree that change is good, and I welcome new ideas with very open arms (the true debate in Canadian policy and politics is refreshing and a great source of pride), but I am not convinced of Mr.Day's intentions and his honest commitment to his fellow Canadians. I am also not disagreeing with the 'flat tax' idea - I feel it deserves analysis and debate...

Also, please read the article at Discover.com and contact your member and ask them to end plurality voting. It looks like the elections people have already had some analysis.

Hear! Hear!

and write our MPs!

www.parl.gc.ca

Hey, who knows... It might actually work.