This is a single
speech (committee meeting) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
This is a single
speech (committee meeting) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
{
"time": "2018-02-01 09:30:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Mr. Daniel Therrien",
"fr": "M. Daniel Therrien"
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"5252173\" data-originallang=\"en\"> One of the issues that arises is whether companies faced with a request for de-indexing or takedown must take into consideration the interests of the publisher of the information. The law is currently completely silent about this. In Europe, the interests of the publisher of the information are not normally taken into consideration. That has led to criticism in Canada that the interests of these stakeholders are not considered. That's certainly an issue worth considering. The law doesn't provide for it. One of the things that would add value to your recommendation would be to speak to these issues. What rights should publishers of the information have to have their interests taken into consideration, I would add without making the right to de-indexing moot. If the publisher is made aware of the request for de-indexing, and then publicizes the fact that a request for de-indexing was made, that can make the request of the individual quite moot. The publisher needs to have their interests taken into consideration, but the fact their interests are taken into consideration should not lead to the publication of what the person thinks is inaccurate and should not be in the public domain.</p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"5252173\" data-originallang=\"en\">L'un des probl\u00e8mes qui surviennent est de d\u00e9terminer si les entreprises qui re\u00e7oivent une demande de d\u00e9r\u00e9f\u00e9rencement ou d'effacement doivent tenir compte des int\u00e9r\u00eats de la personne qui a publi\u00e9 l'information. La loi est actuellement compl\u00e8tement muette \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard. En Europe, les int\u00e9r\u00eats de la personne qui a publi\u00e9 l'information ne sont normalement pas pris en compte, ce qui a soulev\u00e9 des critiques au Canada, parce que les int\u00e9r\u00eats de ces intervenants ne sont pas pris en compte. C'est certainement un \u00e9l\u00e9ment qu'il vaut la peine d'examiner. La loi ne le pr\u00e9voit pas. L'un des aspects qui contribueraient \u00e0 votre recommandation serait de traiter de ces enjeux. J'ajouterais que nous devons \u00e9valuer dans quelle mesure les int\u00e9r\u00eats des personnes qui publient de l'information doivent \u00eatre pris en compte sans toutefois faire perdre sa raison d'\u00eatre au droit au d\u00e9r\u00e9f\u00e9rencement. Si la personne qui publie l'information est mise au courant de la demande de d\u00e9r\u00e9f\u00e9rencement et qu'elle diffuse qu'une telle demande a \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e, cela peut passablement faire perdre sa raison d'\u00eatre \u00e0 la demande de l'individu. Il faut tenir compte des int\u00e9r\u00eats de la personne qui publie l'information, mais la prise en compte de ses int\u00e9r\u00eats ne devrait pas mener \u00e0 la publication de l'information que la personne consid\u00e8re comme inexacte ou qu'elle est d'avis qui ne devrait pas \u00eatre du domaine public.</p>"
},
"url": "/committees/ethics/42-1/88/daniel-therrien-28/",
"politician_url": null,
"politician_membership_url": null,
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "9939742",
"document_url": "/committees/ethics/42-1/88/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fcommittees%2Fethics%2F42-1%2F88%2F"
}
}