The perm undermines transparency necessary to protect the public domain in the assessment process --- the assessment has to be narrow

(Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, “Evidence-Based Intellectual Property Policymaking: An Integrated Review of Methods and Conclusions,” pg online @ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jwip.12069 //pa-ef)

The most relevant characteristic of these studies by Canadian government-commissioned or industry-sponsored researchers is their specifity of analysis. They do not purport to make broad claims about the size of IP industries, or cherry-pick statistics to support polemics. The narrower the study, the more likely it seems to provide evidence that relies on transparent methodologies, verifiable data and peer reviewable conclusions. Yet, its own studies are not often cited when Canada makes purportedly justified changes in its IP policies. As in the United Kingdom and EU cases mentioned at the outset of this article, Canada is not alone with this pattern of behaviour.