Copyright Watch notes the striking similarity between Industry Minister Jim Prentice's talking points and some letters to the editor from local chambers of commerce."
Copyright Watch on Prentice’s Parrots
July 9, 2008
Share this post
3 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 278: Ben Waldman on Gander Social and the Challenges of Building a Sovereign Social Network
byMichael Geist

August 10, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Unleashing the Trolls: Ontario Court Opens the Door to Liability for Influencers Who Weaponize Their Audiences
Why Ottawa Will Likely Join the U.S. in Opposing the Quebec Online Streaming Law at the Centre of the Trade Battle
Online Harms’ Forgotten Generation: Why the Government Needs to Pay Attention to Protecting Seniors
Culture Off the Table? What the Collapsed Canada-U.S. Trade Talks Reveal About the Carney Government’s Cultural Policy
Digital Trade Alignment: What May Be in Play in the Canada-U.S. Trade Deal

Yeah, I noticed that in the St. Catharines Standard. I thought maybe the local Chamber of Commerce head had political aspirations, but now I don’t know. Why would this happen? Is the Ministry of Industry lobbying the Chambers of Commerce?
It prompted me to write my own letter to the editor, which appeared in today’s Standard, so it probably had the reverse of the desired effect.
Puppeteering
One would hope so for the entire country.
Policy laundering
Classic tactic for controversial legislation: a) refer to vague international obligations requiring passage of invasive law, b) diffuse meaningful public debate by introducing law during \’political downtime\’, c) quietly wait for press coverage to drift, d) use allied interests to present an appearance of consensus, e) enact law quickly by focussing on those interests during final legislative analysis.