Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to let the rest of the committee know that I don't share Mr. Easter's negativity about accountability, because our government has actually increased the level of accountability by many factors when you consider the number of crown corporations that currently are subject to access to information.
I have a question for Mr. Perlman.
I apologize for not being here for your presentation, but I have read through it. On page 8 you mention the number of downloads that are done each year, 9.2 million, and next year you expect it to be 10 million. Back on page 5, in relation to the crown copyright part of it, a group of four people receive 1,000 inquiries per year and approximately 4,000 applications per year. Then, a couple of paragraphs later, you talk about “Permission would be denied if the information was intended for....” I won't finish the sentence, because we have all talked about that before.
My question comes to the matter of intention.
If a person applied for a copyright licence for a particular purpose, stating a particular intention, is there anything stopping them from using that material for another purpose after they've been granted permission? For example, if a photo has been requested for an apparently appropriate reason, could it be used for an inappropriate purpose later and, if so, what kind of policing or follow-up would there be to ensure that it was not inappropriately used somewhere down the road?
I don't know if you follow my line of questioning--