The blank media levy treats anyone who purchases blank media for any reason as a "pirate". Even if you buy the media to share family photos or copy music that you legally purchased, you pay.

This is disrespectful to consumers. Can consumers have a little respect, too?

I disagree that it is "disrespectful to comsumers". Everyone is being treated equally and nobody is saying you're a pirate.
Are you saying there is no problem?
There are many, much more severe consequences "on the books" for real "pirates."
But they're hard to enforce. Thus, this imperfect solution that at least acknowledges there's a problem that need some action.
I agree the Media levy may not be perfect, but it speads the "social responsibility" very thin… to only a few cents/disc over all consumers. Do we have a collective social responsibility to victims of intellectual property theft?
I think we do.
Is this really too high a price to pay to avoid intrusive technologies that might rifle through your commuter, track and report your every move and report your tiniest infractions, with mandated co-operation from your ISP? Such technologies already exist… It's not going to be your local musician or writer that will send lobbyist to push legislation in this direction. It will be the Microsofts, Macromedias, and Hollywoods of the world who could use inaction as a justification for such measures.
It's very disheartening to hear people say that artists aren't worth a couple of cents on a media purchase… when almost everyone's life would be grossly degraded without the stream of quality content, we've all come to take for granted.

There is no reason that we will automatically get invasive technologies in our ISPs, computers and devices if we get rid of the black media levy. Unfortunately there are powerful players lobbying for all kinds of invasive measures despite the levy. The media conglomerates will keep pushing for these kinds of things no matter what.

Do we have a collective social responsibility to victims of intellectual property theft? I think the responsibility is with the infringers. If we all bear responsibility, then should we all feel ok about infringing? I know some Canadians feel that way but I don't. That is a backwards justification for "pirating" just like the blank media levy is a backwards way of enforcing the law.

jrm…

What improvement do you have in mind?
We need "user pay" to support creative.

Mirco payments?
We need it… what could be fairer?

I'm not sure what argument is exactly. The only improvement I have in mind is to get rid of the levy.

Punish the infringers without punishing everyone who uses a tangentially-related technology and without invading everyone's privacy.

The private copying levy on blank audio recording media, after the CPCC deducts its operating costs, is distributed thusly:
60.1%: SOCAN, SMRRA, and SODRAC.
22.6%: NRCC performers
17.3%: NRCC publishers ("makers")

So if your brother is a member of any of those societies or collectives, he should check with them to see if he is an "eligible". I couldn't find any language in the gazette defining who an eligible author is.

Maybe they've got an account full of cash for him!

Source: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-homologues/copying-copie-e.html

I have watched the CPCC birthed in the mid 90's as a Liberal bureaucracy with two people in a T.O. office to now, where they have just moved into the Shelia Copps building.

You get my meaning. The CPCC spends it's time looking for resources to grow it's administration. It is a classic burecratic excersize. Self profisizing, looking to grow it's infuence. The "artist" is an afterthought, a means to an end.

The CPCC is no model for any new legislation.