You asked first about translation.
I'm not an expert on the Official Languages Act who would know just how far or how broadly those implications would go. To highlight one of the examples I raised in terms of things like committee proceedings and the like, which are made available in both languages and are being translated right now, I do know that it's already translated material. It's translated work. In this case, it's either audio or video, and it's being translated in real time, so the notion of allowing the public to use that sort of material for alternative purposes strikes me as obvious. The notion that one might be held in contempt of Parliament, so to speak, if one used those materials without permission strikes me as wholly inappropriate.
With respect to Bill C-32, crown copyright isn't touched by that bill. The issue was raised by a number of groups during the copyright consultation held in the summer of 2009. I don't know if that's a huge surprise. I appeared before the committee studying Bill C-32 last week and I spoke of the legislation, in many areas, quite favourably. I think there are issues that ought to be addressed, but in the absence of crown copyright being dealt with in Bill C-32, there is still an opportunity to deal with it outside the legislative framework and to provide, effectively, the same level of access from a public perspective without the need for prior permission.
On its part, Bill C-32 would deal with things such as researchers' notes, let's say, if you were dealing within a legislative or House of Commons committee, and these would also be subject to crown copyright in the same way that almost anything else produced by government would be.