It did not attract much media attention other than a few tweets, but perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the Ministerial news conference on Wednesday launching Bill C-32 was the comments from Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore on the possibility on bringing a three-strikes and you're out (or "graduated response") system to Canada. While some have encouraged the government to move in that direction in recent months, Moore slammed the door shut on that possibility. According to Moore:
One of the proposals that was suggested was the idea that Canada would have a three strikes rule, which is what they have in France. We don’t agree with that. I don’t think a three strikes rule is in the best interests of consumers. Which is what, consumers would receive three notices or three allegations of impropriety and then their internet would be cut off. It would be devastating for individual Canadians, bad for consumers, because now, access to the internet is part of our everyday lives, not just for movies and for songs, but for doing banking, for taking care of your mortgage, for communicating with your kids, for communicating with family across the country. This is an essential part of our economy, so we disagreed with the idea of a three strikes rule.
This is good news, particularly given comments this week from Bloc MP Carole Lavallée, who seemingly thinks three strikes is too generous. She urged the government to adopt a two strikes and you're out policy.
Update: I received an email from Ms. Lavallée this afternoon indicating that the Canoe story did not fully capture her views. She says that three strikes is an option that should be discussed, but that she did not put it forward as a firm solution.