Along with this PDF I received the following note:
The author of this literary and artistic work exercises his or her moral right to remain anonymous! ;)
It's a riff off the old Reform Party/anti-gun-control campaign from 1996, "Remember Bill C-68 When You Vote"
The irony is not lost on me. Bill C-68: An Act respecting firearms and other weapons created a registry that was an IT boondoggle, but for a true property-rights protecting conservative should be considered a minor issue compared to Bill C-61. Bill C-61 doesn't provide legal incentives and protection for people having to "register" their communications technology, but for people other than the owners being able to lock them down and set arbitrary limits (largely unrelated to "copyright" or other alleged third-party rights) on what can be done with this technology.
The reasonable comparison would be a C-68 that provided incentives and legal protection for the third-party locking down of all firearms and required permission from an animal rights activist group (or some other group that least wants the technology to exist at all) before it would be unlocked. And if you unlock your own gun, that would be considered a circumvention of the protection measure and any animal rights activist could sue you (not for actually killing an animal unlawfully, but unlocking your gun such that you might be able to do so). If you provide a service to unlock guns, and you "aught to know" (in that animal rights activists opinion I suspect) that the person might use it for anything unlawful, then you are also guilty. And don't traffic, import, etc in technologies that people might use to unlock this technology.
The problem is -- do enough alleged conservatives actually understand what C-61 says as far as information technology owners are concerned, and how it attacks the property rights of technology owners to a degree that goes *FAR* beyond the silliness of C-68?