Slashdot Mirror

They're still trying, and with the new NAFTA crafted by a reality TV star, they might succeed.
We have the 15 GB tax (only reason a household would use more then 15 GBs a month is due to legally streaming from companies that rip off the artists, so we the people, should pay a tax that in theory would help pay the artists who signed a bad contract) http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...
Then we have the move to tax or censor HTML links, this link should cover it, but it is currently not loading properly in my old browser, http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRend...
Also at the same link should be info on other shit they want in our revised copyright act.
Unluckily we have an 800LB gorilla behind a lot of this shit.

Peterson is a liar. Here is the text of the bill (PDF): www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C-16_1/C-16_1.PDF.

Show me anything in that bill relating to compelled speech or pronoun usage.

Obtaining and possessing identity information with the intent to use the information deceptively, dishonestly or fraudulently in the commission of a crime.
Trafficking in identity information, an offence that targets those who transfer or sell information to another person with knowledge of, or recklessness as to, the possible criminal use of the information.
Unlawfully possessing or trafficking in government-issued identity documents that contain the information of another person.

That bill seems to just apply to criminal use of stolen identities, but you're welcome to quote the relevant parts
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePub...

Not when we have court judgments standing against ordinary citizens for non-commercial infringement of over $10,000 per violation.

One gross miscarriage of justice is not a rationale to commit another one, nor to entrench systematic miscarriages.

f the infringing fees were more reasonable (particularly for first-time offenders), that'd be one thing... but they're not.

They are in some civilized countries.

Bill C-11 passed in 2012:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/...
-----

38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright
owner may elect, at any time before final
judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of
damages and profits referred to in subsection
35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any
one infringer is liable individually, or for
which any two or more infringers are liable
jointly and severally,

(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not
more than $20,000 that the court considers
just, with respect to all infringements involved
in the proceedings for each work or
other subject-matter, if the infringements are
for commercial purposes; and

(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not
more than $5,000 that the court considers
just, with respect to all infringements involved
in the proceedings for all works or
other subject-matter, if the infringements are
for non-commercial purposes.

-----

Give that a good read. Statutory damages in Canada, for a noncommercial infringement starts at $100, and tops out at $5000; as a single payment for all infringements involved ithe proceedings. (so not 'per song' )

For the citizens of democratic countries: Canada (and many English-speaking countries) is not a democracy but a geocracy, which ensure geographic regions (called ridings) are fairly represented. As can be seen on this official GoC website less than 4 in 10 Canadians voted for the party that somehow has an absolute majority in parliament.

Interesting, but Telus still charges $35: http://www.telus.com/en/qc/get...
Bell also charges (no specified amount): http://support.bell.ca/Billing...
Rogers charges $50: http://redboard.rogers.com/201...

It seems that C-343 hasn't been accepted yet. http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInf...

Funny you mention that as i wasn't commenting on why they were different.

If you look here the Canadian Senate released a report to "explain" the price gap.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/...

The problem is the report fails to point the finger at what is probably the single greatest reason for the price gap (the government).

Buy a pair of kids socks in most US states and you will find they are tax exempt.
Not so here, the government wants its 13% tax on that purchase (Ontario, we have HST)

Buy a winter coat in most states and only pay taxes on the "non-exempt" portion (assuming your coat is over the non-exempt amount).
Buy a winter coat in Canada, and it is 100% taxable, clearly they have no issues taxing "required" things as well.

Heck, they even tax food here (there is a very small list of "exempt" items, but only what they determine is "essential").

Despite the myth of drugs being addictive rather addiction being a disease or addiction being a triggerable personality trait or addiction being a response to misery or all the other perfectly valid models of what addiction even IS, it's important to understand that only 23% of people who use heroin are addicted: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publi...

Yes, it's more addictive than cannabis. But the dangers associated with it are mostly societal and political. See The Myth of Drug-Induced Addiction: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/.... There is nothing wrong with recreational use of ANY drug. You just don't hear about the 'chippers' and responsible self-medicators because they aren't going out commiting crimes to fund their recreation.

Also, tolerance&dependence != addiction. Addiction is psychological. SSRI users are tolerant and dependent. They're not junkies. Even most heroin users are chippers not junkies according to the US government above---and they have the most reason to artificially inflate that number!

Also, doctors like this http://drpullen.com/cant-find-... are a pretty clear indication that all drugs should be available OTC if only because they stonewall fucking pain patients who obviously need analgesics.

All of this pisses me off so much because we COULD be reasonable about drugs and recognise them as a tool that people can and will use and teach people how to use them responsibly, but instead we'd rather persecute them and deny ourselves perfectly good problem management and solving tools in the process.

(I'm glad I'm dying soon and won't have to put up with this world much longer.)

But this whole thing is really about Rogers and Shaw lobbying the CRTC to block foreign competition for their new Shome project. CRTC is probably quite happy to be flexing their "muscle" in this situation after continually taking a beating from US lobbying interests on allowing US content onto Canadian networks.

That's the real reason.

You may not realize it, but about 5 years ago (it was illegal since 2002, but many companies appealed), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was illegal for Canadians to view US TV via US "grey market" satellite receivers.

No, these were not people hacking DirecTV or Dish receivers to receive content for free. They were normal Canadians who were paying DirecTV and Dish their normal rates to get US TV. It was ruled illegal for companies to provide any sort of service to enable them to do this. (It's called grey market because to Dish or DirecTV, it's a normal subscriber paying full freight on their subscription, except they were receiving it in Canada).

The culprit? Bell.

So yeah, it's a bit bull-headed of Netflix - all the CRTC wants is to have numbers behind Netflix's claim that they provide tons of Canadian support. (That's what Netflix was claiming - that they already fulfil the rules they don't have to follow, and the CRTC basically says "prove it - show me the numbers").

In the end, it's going to be one big nasty fight. Sure, Netflix is worried because those numbers that prove its point are highly sensitive competitive information, but you'd think they could compromise in that Netflix could find a way to give the CRTC what they want without giving it to competitors. But it's better than the alternative which forced an entire industry to shut down.

A remarkably neutral document was compiled out of this - http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePub...

Sounds like I need to contact my MP, last time the CRTC pulled this shit with UBB it took the federal government threatening to pull their mandate for them to smarten up. Fellow canucks can contact their MP via this list here. Sounds like they need to be threatened again, and if they decide to piss on us--I'll get a VPN and get the US netflix. And if they make it illegal like US satellite dishes, people will say fuck you anyway.

There's a reason why the cableco's up here are hemorrhaging subscribers.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/Spicer-e.htm

Here's one that gives it a little background. Look down around; 3.Ancient Near East A. The Sumerians

The origins of my sig can be found at http://www.subgenius.com/

When I tried writing to my (Canadian) MP, Costas Menegakis, expressing concerns about the digital locks provisions in bill C-11 and the fact that they trump *all* consumer rights, the result was an exercise in frustration.
The reply that I received, was a generic blurb extolling the virtues of the bill. There was no mention of digital locks whatsoever.
I then wrote him again, expressing my disappointment that my original message was apparently not read at all, reiterated my concerns and asked him again to address them.
The reply that I received that time was a propaganda piece to the effect that digital locks are the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. A lot of unsupported statements, zero facts. None of the points that I raised was addressed.
I wrote the third time, quoting his propaganda piece and (politely) poked holes in each of the arguments.
The reply to that message was... the same generic blurb that I got the first time.

That's when I blew a gasket.

After I calmed a little, I wrote another message, telling him that I believe that, as a representative of the riding, it is his duty to represent the residents, and I strongly feel that if he is not willing to at least listen to their concerns, not to mention actually addressing them, he is not doing his job. It took me several hours to compose this message because I had to redact all the statements that could hint at my true feelings toward that useless waste of space. I only sent it when I was satisfied that the result was fit for public consumption.

The reply? A generic message thanking me for my support...

The whole affair took a long time because apparently it took his office about a month to compose each useless reply.

Maybe it's because he's Conservative, but when the Liberal representative (Bryon Wilfert) was also less than helpful when I wrote him about pending legislation. However, he seemed to at least read my concerns, although he dismissed them out of hand.

tl;dr: you're lucky to have a responsive MP.

When I tried writing to my (Canadian) MP, Costas Menegakis, expressing concerns about the digital locks provisions in bill C-11 and the fact that they trump *all* consumer rights, the result was an exercise in frustration.
The reply that I received, was a generic blurb extolling the virtues of the bill. There was no mention of digital locks whatsoever.
I then wrote him again, expressing my disappointment that my original message was apparently not read at all, reiterated my concerns and asked him again to address them.
The reply that I received that time was a propaganda piece to the effect that digital locks are the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. A lot of unsupported statements, zero facts. None of the points that I raised was addressed.
I wrote the third time, quoting his propaganda piece and (politely) poked holes in each of the arguments.
The reply to that message was... the same generic blurb that I got the first time.

That's when I blew a gasket.

After I calmed a little, I wrote another message, telling him that I believe that, as a representative of the riding, it is his duty to represent the residents, and I strongly feel that if he is not willing to at least listen to their concerns, not to mention actually addressing them, he is not doing his job. It took me several hours to compose this message because I had to redact all the statements that could hint at my true feelings toward that useless waste of space. I only sent it when I was satisfied that the result was fit for public consumption.

The reply? A generic message thanking me for my support...

The whole affair took a long time because apparently it took his office about a month to compose each useless reply.

Maybe it's because he's Conservative, but when the Liberal representative (Bryon Wilfert) was also less than helpful when I wrote him about pending legislation. However, he seemed to at least read my concerns, although he dismissed them out of hand.

tl;dr: you're lucky to have a responsive MP.

Here is the direct link to the bill. It is in lawyer / legislative speak, but (as you alluded to) says nothing about effective.

The anti-circumvention rules are a mirror image of the DMCA, otherwise the bill is very different. Of course, in almost every single section granting user rights (with the exception of the computer security section, IIRC) has a statement to the effect of, "Not withstanding section {anti-circumvention}, the individual is allowed to".

You can read the bill here if you're inclined.

Mind you, I've asked my local MP why he feels I should receive a two year jail term simply because I want to format shift a DVD to my android tablet. He has not provided any answer (besides a simple form letter).

I'd like to take a moment to address the question of C-11. I have, in fact, read it in its entirety, since media coverage is never without bias.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&file=4

I'm sure you've heard from people who are far more rabid in their disdain for this legislation than I, and you've likely heard all of the arguments against it.

I will therefore restrict myself to declaring that, should this legislation pass, I will not be voting for you in the future. That is an unconditional promise.

Yours,

Petersko

C-11 is nothing like SOPA.

Don't believe me? Read it for yourself.

If you're in Canada, Bill C-11 actually criminalizes it.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&file=4

it was Bill C-61 first, then it died and was replaced by Bill C-32 which also died. Now its called Bill C-11. Have fun reading this.

Theres also a website which gives lots of information on that bill : http://www.digital-copyright.ca/billc11/

I LIKE my copyright priveleges as a Canadian

Get ready to be using the past tense. Your privileges are about to be revoked.

Please, C-11 does nothing of the sort.

C-11 is really just renaming some things in the original copyright acts

Shilling much?

Go read Section 41 then come back to apologize for your ludicrous statements.

C-11 criminalizes the circumvention of DRM for any purposes whatsoever, including bunt not limited to exercising your fair dealing rights. Want to rip the DVD that you bought in order to watch it on your iPhone? Congratulations, you are now a criminal for circumventing CSS.

Bloody liar.

It is wrong to assume that legalization would result in greater usage. Consider marijuana usage in the Netherlands, where usage patterns did not change after decriminalization. People don't decide to use drugs because they're legal, they use them because they want to use drugs. Also consider how likely you would be to try heroin if it were legalized tomorrow. For most, of us, it wouldn't even be a consideration because we recognize the potential harm without paternalistic hand-holding, and for those who want to try it, laws are not exactly an effective barrier.

Criminalization also shifts the demographics of drug usage. Prior to opium being criminalized its most common users were housewives, who used it fairly moderately for 'women's problems.' Usage shifted to a younger, male, thrill-seeking crowd shortly after, which resulted in the drug becoming more potent and dangerous (demand from the new demographic). A shift away from prohibition could lead to less usage by people in the thrill-seeking demographics, leading to more moderate usage practices.

Prohibition also leads to unsafe usage practices. During alcohol prohibition, the barriers to getting alcohol were such that, once it was available, people were binge drinking. All sorts of chemicals ended up in alcohol (like iodine and embalming fluid), making it more dangerous. You get the same thing with people using unsafe drugs now (like meth and 'bath salts'), rather than safer alternatives.

Prohibition also acts against attempts to limit damage to public health. When something is illegal, people are far less likely to seek help, which means people lose their support networks and people who might otherwise seek drug treatment don't. In places where drug use is decriminalized, there are fewer overdoses, fewer diseases, and higher quality of life. It also results in reduced, rather than increased, health care costs because prevention is almost universally less expensive than treatment.

Finally, a disproportionate number of non-functional drug addicts are mentally ill and using drugs to self-medicate. Once you destigmatize their drug addition you can start to treat the underlying mental health problems, potentially turning that person into a productive member of society or at least managing antisocial behaviour.

This is all before you get into the issues surrounding dealing and law enforcement, which history tells us would be all but disappear in the long term through legalization. This is why people aren't being gunned down by gangsters selling alcohol anymore. While it's undeniable that some black market would still exist (such as the one surrounding untaxed cigarettes), the effect would be far less devastating than the current scenario.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/presentation/korf-e.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition

Come to Canada, we have the wonderful Bill C11 (soon to become law) that criminalizes tampering with DRM.

>Sorry, I'm not understanding the relationship between "copyright reform" and "the Balanced Refugee Reform Act". It would appear that C-11 is related to immigration, not copyright reform?

In Canada we reset the bill numbering after a federal elections.
You referenced bill C-11 of the 40th (previous) parliament.
I was talking about bill C-11 of the 41st parliament (the current one).
Confusing, eh?

>Sorry, I'm not understanding the relationship between "copyright reform" and "the Balanced Refugee Reform Act". It would appear that C-11 is related to immigration, not copyright reform?

In Canada we reset the bill numbering after a federal elections.
You referenced bill C-11 of the 40th (previous) parliament.
I was talking about bill C-11 of the 41st parliament (the current one).
Confusing, eh?

Yes, there are laws against that. The government has a website with more information about it:

http://fightspam.gc.ca/

And the raw law (it was bill C-28) if you're interested:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocID=4547728

Contact your Member of Parliament. Express your thoughts. They need to know we won't tolerate this.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx

In Canada our politicians are busy ensuring the complete erosion of private internet use as we know it. One of our current bills before parliament in Canada is essentially about to give make carriers to do this for the government. Basically they are installing lawful intercept systems for various law enforcement organizations to use. "This enactment requires telecommunications service providers to put in place and maintain certain capabilities that facilitate the lawful interception of information transmitted by telecommunications and to provide basic information about their subscribers to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and any police service constituted under the laws of a province" http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4007628&Language=e&Mode=1&File=19 And we are allowing it....

The text of the first reading of the bill is here: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4740653&file=4

It says that officers can intercept private communications without a warrant if they fell that an offense is or would be committed immediately. (this part is probably in response to a real world case where officers were witnessing a child being molested in real time via internet video and needed to track the offenders location through ISP's in a hurry in order to stop the offense in process)

Further on in the bill is says that other exigent circumstances may allow interception without a warrant.
It reads like a bunch of other laws that are "Safe when used as directed".

Of course another solution would be to fund the courts so that proper judicial oversight can be in place *even* when your in a hurry.

It is because we have legislation in the works (Bill C-32) that the US government, er music and film industry, thinks will help give them more money. So far, it is called the "DMCA of Canada" for good reason. i.e. restriction of breaking digital locks for any reason, and although the Conservative government says it is willing to make modifications based on the input of Canadians, basically it has ignored the input given last summer by thousands of Canadians through "Copyright Consultations" and is pushing ahead. The Liberals (not a swear word here) have proposed modifications such as an Internet levy to pay for artists, however almost none of the money that the CD-levy has actually not gone to the artists themselves. Here is the Bill, and not is is a lot longer and complex that the original law that we have to today. Our Heritage Minister branded us as "not wanting to modernize Canadian law", because most Canadians who know about the law know that it does not need changing. In fact parts of the Canadian government seem to go lock-step with their US counterparts, with both Prentice (former Industry Minister) and Clement (current Industry Minister) being sent to the US to meet with US government officials about this law as one of the first things they have done when they took office. So to the US who is helping to introduce a law that most Canadians feel is unnecessary: "Go shove it".

Actually, your original point is relevant. In many jurisdictions sexual activity involving more than two people has no expectation of privacy, regardless of the circumstances.

In Canada this went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2005 that if the adults are consenting and there is no "harm", any activity involving more than two people is a private matter and none of the state's business.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/843-e.htm#indecency

IANAL but in Canada, suing for damages is a bit different from the US... my understanding is that damages awards for loss have to be consistent with actual, concrete, demonstrable loss. I know that these things get complex and follow some convoluted paths, at least to the non-lawyers, but I was given this example. Say I offer to sell you a car at $1000 less than the going rate and you accept but before you come over to pay and collect the vehicle, I sell the car to someone else. You can sue me for damages but you are basically limited to the $1000 difference between the going rate and my original offer to sell. Now that's straight damages. I don't believe there are any statutory damages for copyright.

Bill C32 I think, changes that. It introduces American style "statutory" damages with a minimum per instance (er... $100 non-commercial and $200 commercial) for copyright violations. The maximums are much higher ($5000 for commercial). The Bill has passed second reading, still needs third reading and to pass in the senate. It is not yet in force:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=23&Type=0&Scope=I&query=7026&List=stat

So... you have to think that there is some house-cleaning going on. Currently, the damages would be limited to actual license costs plus possibly legal fees, hence the ability for the association to set aside an exact amount for the settlement. They have been thinking about this for a long time.

I believe that the industry association has a vested interest to get this matter out of the way in prep for the passing of C32, which could push the damages up significantly, as high as $1.5 Billion. I would also be suspicious that the Heritage Minister is involved here somewhere and strong armed the artists to accept the industry settlement so that Bill C32 could be put into place without any embarassing fallout. The argument would be that C32 is good for the artists so accept this and be done with it. I think that everyone involved in the settlement is doing the ol' nod nod wink wink.

There has been a long running difference in view between Heritage Canada (artists, er... proponent of blank CD/DVD surcharges) and Industry Canada (resp. for telecom, ISPs, etc and traditionally against making ISPs etc responsible for infringing data transmission). I would bet money that the two ministries have been settling differences behind the scenes and in cabinet. This "settlement" is just one item on a long list of to-do items that are part of aligning Canadian copyright law with American law. I am not saying there is conspiracy but there is an expected amount of co-ordination and deal making within the Conservative party cabinet. Okay.... maybe it IS a conspiracy ;->

One thing is for certain: a lot of shit has been going on behind the scenes in this story.

The long game doesn't have to be so long. See Canada's bill C-24, enacted in 2003. Corporations can't donate over $1000 to a party, people can't donate over $5000.

The gritty details

That is a smart idea. I think the US should follow this example.

The long game doesn't have to be so long. See Canada's bill C-24, enacted in 2003. Corporations can't donate over $1000 to a party, people can't donate over $5000.

The gritty details

Names, phone numbers, email and snail-mail addresses:
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

In Switzerland there's an interesting program:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/ille-e/library-e/collin1-e.htm#3.%20%20Third%20Pillar:%20Harm%20Reduction

I wonder if...
- drugs in the street were still illegal, but...
- legal drug centres were available that provided professionally made drugs, medical help, meals, consultation, social help
... that the consequences would be to...
- undermine the profitability of illegal drug trade (and as a consequence the "advertising" of drugs by dealers, in schools etc.)
- make crime resulting from addiction redundant, to a degree (as free drugs in a safe environment would be available in the drug centres)

Sure, organised criminals might move on, but I think it would reduce "the drug scene" and many of its consequences.

If you are a Canadian, contact your MP and tell them that if their party does not go all out against ACTA, they can forget about your vote forever.

Hopefully someone more fluent in English than myself can draft an example letter.

My fellow Canadians...

Allow me to say you can find all your MP's here. Once you find your MP for your district please jot down the physical address. Then write a snail mail letter telling them your opinion and drop it in the mail box.

In Canada, you don't need postage to write your members of government. Ever. Write them. Tell them your opinion. Be proactive, it's your write as a voting member. Do it, or you'll never forgive yourself. And by the time you've read what I've written. You could have already had a letter done.

put down the cardiac poutine and fire a few e-mails off, guys.

here are email links to Federal Minister for Public Safety Peter Van Loan Opposition critics to : Federal Liberal Critic Mark Holland Public Safety and National Security NDP Don Davies

put down the cardiac poutine and fire a few e-mails off, guys.

here are email links to Federal Minister for Public Safety Peter Van Loan Opposition critics to : Federal Liberal Critic Mark Holland Public Safety and National Security NDP Don Davies

put down the cardiac poutine and fire a few e-mails off, guys.

here are email links to Federal Minister for Public Safety Peter Van Loan Opposition critics to : Federal Liberal Critic Mark Holland Public Safety and National Security NDP Don Davies

Contact info here.

While what you write is a little sensationalist, I get where you're going with it. You should note the Liberals are not against an overly broad and heavy-handed Copyright bill.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=bill&doc=c-60&parl=38&ses=1&language=E

Don't expect a lot of support in the current parliment for a balanced Copyright bill.

Write your MP, phone him (long distance rates are TOO cheap).
Do the same to the Prime Minister
Locate them here.
Write your newspaper. Sign up in the consultation.
Talk to others who care.

Be respectful and clear. Here are some potential talking points:
1. The levy should be enough.
2. Ordinary citizens keep opposing this, don't keep re-introducing it.
3. If a politician wants to reverse alienation of young voters, come out vocally against bills like this.

Maybe one day this will stop coming back?

Please read the following website before you flap your gums:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=bill&doc=c-60&parl=38&ses=1&language=E

This was the bill introduced into parliment by the Liberal party which (fortunately) died on the floor with the confidence vote and subsequent election. In many ways Bill C-60 was significantly more draconian than bill C-61 http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3570473&file=4.

If you think any Canadian politician has your personal interests in mind, guess again.

Please read the following website before you flap your gums:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=bill&doc=c-60&parl=38&ses=1&language=E

This was the bill introduced into parliment by the Liberal party which (fortunately) died on the floor with the confidence vote and subsequent election. In many ways Bill C-60 was significantly more draconian than bill C-61 http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3570473&file=4.

If you think any Canadian politician has your personal interests in mind, guess again.

The only problem is, it doesn't matter what's in the constitution, they can just use section 33 (the Notwithstanding clause) to override it. The only down side for them is that they have to renew it every once in a while.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm

It's not so much a constitution in practice. It is more like a set of recommendations.

Now the voters will actually represent what the public really thinks. Actually going and voting is so insecure any hack can show up and say he is somebody else. The 80 yr old guy that does the "security" check is a joke.

You’re obviously a young squirt that went to vote once, and got turned-off by having to wait 5 minute in line behind some geezers, and once inside, was sufficiently pissed-off from the wait to not observe the process, which is there to insure that there is no fraud.

And you obviously never worked at elections so you have no idea of the process. (I have; I occupied most positions in polling places, so I know what I’m talking about).

As of security, well, granted, until about 5 years ago, federal election officials were actually **PROHIBITED** by law from asking ID. This was changed following Québec doing the same after uncovering significant electoral fraud ($10 being paid for people for each ballot they cast, impersonating someone else, to the benefit of, of course, the liberal party of Québec).

Maybe it was the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications meeting that Geist was speaking with?
Transcript Link

The actual text of the bill is at C-47.

Like all bills, there are some interesting bits to it. For example, requests of service providers can be made by (for the purposes of carrying out the duties of) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or the Commissioner of Competition under the Competition Act (Section 16.2). Federal police body, intelligence body ... I can see why they might have a desire to get subscriber information, but the competition commissioner? What kind of competition requires particular subscriber data - other than maybe the RCMP and CSIS competing for liberty-trampling-jackboot-thug-of-the-year.

It isn't -quite- as ridiculous as the summary makes it out to be. Section 17 outlines the circumstances under which police may request subscriber information, and while it falls short of requiring a warrant be issued, it is allegedly limited to circumstances of imminent harm by or to the subscriber. Section 17 also requires reporting by the police to the applicable agency who would normally make a request, listed in section 16. Section 18 refers to records which must be kept when requests are made. Section 19 restricts the use of requested information to the matter about which the request was made (no fishing expeditions or tying subscriber information into other matters). Section 20 outlines auditing and reporting by the bodies making requests, the privacy commissioner, and the Minister responsible for the requesting body.