I've written to MP Charlie Angus (a committee member studying C-32) about the presence yesterday of Barry Sookman, and the mislabeling of Sookman as an academic in the C32 committee hearings. Mr. Sookman shouldn't at this point be claiming academic status (nor should the board be providing him with opportunities to discuss his personal views) while registered as a lobbyist specifically on C-32. I will continue to follow this issue, and report back. Here's the e-mail exchange:
ME:
Hi Charlie,
I’m a journalist covering the copyright committee hearings. Mr. Sookman was invited to the committee hearings as an academic. I think that may have been an error on the part of the committee organizers. It’s impossible to claim to speak as an academic while being registered and lobbying on behalf of clients specifically on copyright reform. Mr. Sookman’s firm has a direct financial stake in the outcome of these proceedings. Is it possible to amend the public record to include his registered lobby status. Possibly also recommend and invitation to Bridget Anderson to appear in place of the CRIA reps who got their representation in committee today. I’m just concerned that the public has been mislead by committee members with respect to Mr. Sookman’s current status. I think honesty and transparency in these proceedings is what the public interest is expecting MPs to fulfill here.
I’m a journalist covering the copyright committee hearings. Mr. Sookman was invited to the committee hearings as an academic. I think that may have been an error on the part of the committee organizers. It’s impossible to claim to speak as an academic while being registered and lobbying on behalf of clients specifically on copyright reform. Mr. Sookman’s firm has a direct financial stake in the outcome of these proceedings. Is it possible to amend the public record to include his registered lobby status. Possibly also recommend and invitation to Bridget Anderson to appear in place of the CRIA reps who got their representation in committee today. I’m just concerned that the public has been mislead by committee members with respect to Mr. Sookman’s current status. I think honesty and transparency in these proceedings is what the public interest is expecting MPs to fulfill here.
MR. ANGUS:
Jason,
Thanks for this. At committee I raised the fact that Mr. Sookman is not a disinterested academic -- he is a hired gun for the entertainment industry. I believe the conservatives wanted to ensure he was on the first panel to push the hardline of industry.
ME:
Hi Charlie,
Is there a way I can get the official transcript of this, or is the video/audio of this hearing been posted on the net somewhere. I think the committee has some explaining to do with respect to Mr. Sookman’s presence yesterday. I’m pretty sure there are laws against committee members and witnesses who deliberately mislead these processes, which is one of the reasons why I’ve only approached you with this, because I know you know what Sookman is all about and would have raised issues about his presence on the panel yesterday, which I’m thankful for. I didn’t hear the responses from the other committee members on your objection. Would like to know exactly what was said.
I’ve also posted a blog post about this as well: http://jasonkoblovsky.blogspot.com/2010/12/clash-of-titans-in-copyright-committee.html
-------
Have a news tip you would like to share, or additional information on the stories posted? E-mail jkobonews at rogers dot com
0 comments:
Post a Comment