Richmond--Arthabaska

Bill C-11 3'rd reading on Monday May 14.

The order paper for Monday May 14 included C-11 3'rd reading "debate".

There were motions to make amendments in the Order paper: Report Stage of Bills. These were from Mr. Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska) of the Bloc and Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) of the Greens, neither of which had party representatives in the committee studying the bill.

There are many more motions from Ms. May than the earlier list I commented on.

Bill C-11 house debate day 5

On November 24, 2011 we had the fifth time when the House of Commons debated Bill C-11 (at Second Reading).

The debate ended with the speaker asking if the house is ready to vote on the amendment. This vote was deferred until Monday at the end of government orders.

I believe the amendment is the one brought by Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) on the first day of debate which read:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and submitting the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, because it fails to:

(a) uphold the rights of consumers to choose how to enjoy the content that they purchase through overly-restrictive digital lock provisions;

(b) include a clear and strict test for “fair dealing” for education purposes; and

(c) provide any transitional funding to help artists adapt to the loss of revenue streams that the Bill would cause.

Given the Conservatives have a majority this amendment will fail the vote, but it is interesting to see what the focus from the Liberals have been.

Bill C-11 house debate day 4

On November 22, 2011 we had the fourth time when the House of Commons debated Bill C-11 (at Second Reading).

I am glad that Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) included discussion of the constitutional questions raised by Bill C-11.

The problems are in two areas, and I will refer to the first. Briefly, it is constitutional. The constitutional problem is simple to describe. Copyright is clearly an area of federal jurisdiction, whereas property rights are provincial. To the extent that we have intruded into property rights, we have a problem. This has been described in a learned article published by professors Crowne-Mohammed and Rozenszajn, both from the University of Windsor, in the Journal of Information, Law and Technology in which the authors describe the problem this way:

The DRM provisions of Bill C-61 represent a poorly veiled attempt by the Government to strengthen the contractual rights available to copyright owners, in the guise of copyright reform and the implementation of Canada's international obligations.

Let us de-link them. Let us protect the rights and protect copyright reform without acceding to pressure from U.S. interests, which want to have excessively restrictive controls in the form of digital locks. That is setting aside the constitutional issue.

Televised agriculture debate

This Tillsonburg news article by Jeff Helsdon includes:

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture organized the debate Friday at the University of Toronto’s Hart House and it was aired live on CPAC. Diane Finley, Conservative agriculture critic and Haldimand-Norfolk Conservative candidate, sparred off against ag minister Andy Mitchell, NDP ag critic Charlie Angus and Bloc ag critic Andre Bellavance.

Election 2006: Richmond--Arthabaska

Election 2006: Please add comments to discuss riding specific activities, links to candidate information, etc.

Incumbent information


Richmond–Arthabaska / Richmond–Arthabaska
MP: André Bellavance (Parliamentary Internet)

Syndicate content