The Industry committee’s clear assertion this week as the authoritative copyright review is grounded in process since the government gave it sole responsibility for conducting the review. While my earlier posts focus on the process and the unprecedented INDU release, the committee justifiably points out that it also heard from far more witnesses through hearings and briefs than the Heritage committee. In fact, it notes that it heard from the “vast majority of stakeholders who contributed to CHPC’s study.” Working with University of Ottawa student Philip Abraham, we reviewed the witness lists, the brief submissions, and the citations by the committees to better assess claims about which committee best reflects the full spectrum of stakeholder views on copyright. This post examines who participated in the committee work and a follow-up posts will highlight the balance in the witness lists and whether the committees were listening.
Archive for June 20th, 2019

Law Bytes
Episode 235: Teresa Scassa on the Alberta Clearview AI Ruling That Could Have a Big Impact on Privacy and Generative AI
byMichael Geist

May 5, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 235: Teresa Scassa on the Alberta Clearview AI Ruling That Could Have a Big Impact on Privacy and Generative AI
What Is With This Government and Privacy?: Political Party Privacy Safeguards Removed in “Affordability Measures” Bill
More Than Just Phone Book Data: Why the Government is Dangerously Misleading on its Warrantless Demands for Internet Subscriber Information
Privacy At Risk: Government Buries Lawful Access Provisions in New Border Bill
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 234: “Solutions Aren’t Going to be Found Through Nostalgia”: Mark Musselman on the CRTC Hearings on Canadian Content Rules