The Canadian government has launched a public consultation on expanding the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP, formerly TPP) to other countries, specifically citing the UK, Taiwan, South Korea, and Thailand. The consultation could raise significant concerns as the UK would be the first non-Pacific country in the agreement and Taiwan could spark a response from China. Moreover, opening the agreement to new countries must likely factor in the possibility that the U.S. might want to re-enter the agreement if there is a change in administration in 2020.
News
What is the Point of the Broadcast and Telecom Legislative Review if the Government Has Already Decided What It Intends To Do?
The Broadcast and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel released its interim report – What We Heard – yesterday alongside the long-overdue release of the written submissions to the panel. The report doesn’t contain any surprises given that the various positions on key telecom and broadcast issues are well known. While the panel is set to deliver its final report in January 2020, there is increasing reason to suspect that the government (if re-elected) has already decided what it wants to do.
Better Data, Better Results: Comparing the Gap Between the Copyright Review and Heritage Study on the Music Industry’s Policy Proposals
My recent series reviewing the Industry Committee’s copyright review (process, evidence, witness balance, citation) was about more that just why the decision to ignore the Canadian Heritage committee study on artist remuneration was justified. The series provides a data-backed assessment of the quality of the consultation of the respective committees, which is inextricably linked to their final recommendations. The better process is important because when comparing the recommendations from the two committees, the Industry committee consistently provided deeper analysis even in areas where there was agreement. The better analysis is not a coincidence: better process generates better policy and the Industry committee engaged in broader consultations in which it heard both from more creators and more users than Heritage.
Ignoring the Evidence: Why the Copyright Review Was Right To Ignore the Canadian Heritage Committee Study, Part Four
My series on why the Industry committee was right to ignore the Canadian Heritage committee study as part of the national copyright review has previously discussed process (the government vested sole responsibility with the Industry committee), an examination of the witness and brief list that confirms that Industry conducted a much more comprehensive consultation that overlapped with much of Heritage but also included hundreds of additional witnesses and briefs, and the (im)balance among witnesses which indicates that the Industry committee made a greater effort to hear a wide range of perspectives consistent with the diverse views on copyright.
Unbalanced Witness List: Why the Copyright Review Was Right To Ignore the Canadian Heritage Committee Study, Part Three
My series on why the Industry committee was right to ignore the Canadian Heritage committee study as part of the national copyright review has focused on process (the government vested sole responsibility with the Industry committee, its clear assertion as the authoritative copyright review, and an examination of the witness and brief list that confirms that Industry conducted a much more comprehensive consultation that overlapped with much of Heritage but also included hundreds of additional witnesses and briefs.
Recent Posts
“Big Brother Tactics”: Why Bill C-2’s New Warrantless Disclosure Demand Powers Extend Far Beyond Internet and Telecom Providers 
Government Seeks To Exempt Political Parties From Privacy Laws Even As CRTC Reports They Are Leading Source of Spam Complaints 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 236: Robert Diab on the Return of Lawful Access 
Government Remains Silent as it Eviscerates Political Party Privacy in Canada By Fast Tracking Bill C-4 
Quebec’s Streaming Regulation Bill 109: Unconstitutional, Unnecessary, and Unworkable
