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 242: Sukesh Kamra on Law Firm Adoption of Artificial Intelligence and Innovative Technologies
byMichael Geist
July 28, 2025
Michael Geist
July 21, 2025
Michael Geist
June 30, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
Privacy Lost: How the Government Deleted Bill C-11’s Key Privacy Principle Just Two Months After Passing it Into Law
Out of Nowhere: TIFF Undermines Artistic Freedom of Expression With Forced Name Change of October 7th Documentary
TIFF Removes October 7th Documentary Film From Schedule Citing Implausible Copyright Clearance Concerns From Hamas Terror Footage
Carney’s Digital Recalibration: How the Government is Trending Away from Justin Trudeau’s Digital Policy
Let Competition Be the Guide: Why the Government and CRTC Got It Right on Wholesale Fibre Broadband Access