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 178: Bianca Wylie on Canada’s Failing AI Regulatory Process
byMichael Geist

September 26, 2023
Michael Geist
September 18, 2023
Michael Geist
July 24, 2023
Michael Geist
July 17, 2023
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Documents Don’t Lie, Even If It Appears Pablo Rodriguez Does: ATIP Reveals His Office Was Informed Within Minutes of CMAC/Marouf Termination Notice
The Need for Truthful Accountability: What ATIP Records Tell Us About Pablo Rodriguez and Canadian Heritage Funding an Anti-Semite
Why Industry Minister Champagne Broke the Bill C-27 Hearings on Privacy and AI Regulation in Only 12 Minutes
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 178: Bianca Wylie on Canada’s Failing AI Regulatory Process
Why the Government is Quietly Undermining Competition Bureau Independence in Bill C-56