Evidence of meeting #59 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was copyright.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, could you clarify whether the subamendment is to the proposed government amendment?
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I apologize, Mr. Dong.
I believe Mr. Lemire has not formally proposed the subamendment, but he might at a later stage.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Could I ask Mr. Lemire to clarify that?
Is the subamendment to the government's amendment?
6 p.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I would like to insert our amendment after proposed subsection 41.121(1) in G‑1, so just before subsection 41.121(2). Proposed subsection 41.121(1.1) in BQ‑1 reads as follows: “(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to video game consoles or to their components or peripherals.”
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Is everyone clear on Mr. Lemire's subamendment? It looks like it.
Wait one second, because I see a hand from someone who wants to speak. I am not sure whether he is done. Then, I have Jeremy.
Please hold on.
We just want to clarify how we can properly frame Mr. Lemire's subamendment.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
There is a lot of talking happening among us, and with staff. May I ask for a suspension of about five minutes?
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Okay. We'll suspend for two and a half minutes. That gives you 50%.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Friends and colleagues, let's resume. It's been a longer two and half minutes than I had anticipated.
6:10 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor]
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Yes, I'm liberal with my time. Very good.
Do you want to move your subamendment, Mr. Lemire?
If so, I'm going to ask the analysts to make sure that everyone understands what you're proposing.
6:10 p.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
As I said, my subamendment reuses the language in BQ‑1.
The proposed language in item (a) of BQ‑1 would become subsection 41.121(1.1) and read as follows: “does not apply to video game consoles or to their components or peripherals.”
Furthermore, subsections 41.121(3) and 41.121(4) being proposed in item (b) of BQ‑1 would become subsections 41.121(4) and 41.121(5).
Is that clear?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
It's clear to me.
Is everyone clear on what the subamendment moved by Mr. Lemire is?
I will ask our legislative counsel to explain it again. With his wealth of experience, maybe it will be a little clearer.
6:10 p.m.
Scott McTaggart Committee Researcher
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For Mr. Perkins, who is looking at me, I'm just going to read what amendment BQ-1 by Mr. Lemire would do.
Basically it reads that amendment G-1 be amended by adding after paragraph 1 the following: “(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to video game consoles or to their components or their peripherals”.
That would be the first change.
The second change by BQ-1 would add new subsections (3) and (4) to amendment G-1.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Essentially it incorporates BQ-1 into G-1.
Are there any comments on the subamendment moved by Mr. Lemire?
Mr. Masse, then Mr. Patzer and Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Masse.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't be supporting the subamendment. I understand the intent is to protect the video game industry, which I am well versed in as a player and as a legislator, so I appreciate that. I can understand why it is that we do punch above our weight in the video game industry. I come from the auto sector. We watched it wither away. The video game sector is important.
The bottom line for me is that this essentially would gut the bill. It really would require another piece of legislation to come to the chamber either through a private member's bill or another government bill and we would start all over again.
For those reasons, I will not be supporting the subamendment, because it would go as a package deal with the main amendment which then would make this process not fulsome for Canadians.
Thank you.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I have listened to many of the same concerns, and I've read through all the briefs that the committee has received as well. I don't think it's in the right spirit of the bill to start installing goalposts or setting markers down on certain industries, because then the next industry is going to come in and say they need this, and then the next one is going to come in.
Who else are we going to have to prescribe this for right now if we start picking favourites as to who is and who isn't going to be allowed and exempted from this?
To Brian's point, I see the danger of what adding little bits in like this is going to do the bill. I'm afraid that, yes, it would gut the bill.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I also sympathize what Mr. Lemire is doing. HB Studios, a large gaming company, is in my riding, in Lunenburg. It's an important employer and player in my riding.
As Mr. Patzer said, we heard a lot of testimony, but it wasn't exhaustive from every industry. There are a lot of other industries, I'm sure, that would have enjoyed an opportunity to be before this committee, discussing whether they should or should not be included in a legislated exemption. That's why we've proposed some other amendments further down that deal with giving the government a little more authority and flexibility to explore this a little more. I'm not keen on an individual callout.
I preface this by saying I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not a copyright lawyer, but the third point in this amendment, proposed subsection (3), is the one that's the most bothering. In my reading of it, that's the one that basically says you can't benefit from a right to repair, which means I can't do it. I'm not sure why an amendment counter to the intent of the bill is in order. To me, it appears to run totally contrary to the intent of the bill, which is to allow the right to repair. That paragraph basically says no.
I'll be opposing the amendment, not because I don't support the gaming industry being protected from this, but because I think the broader proposal is a problem.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
Are there any other comments before we vote on Mr. Lemire's subamendment?
I'm giving my colleagues some time to make sure.
There are no more speakers, so we'll move to the vote.
Shall the subamendment proposed by Mr. Lemire carry?
I'll ask the clerk to proceed to the vote.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Mr. Dong, I'm sorry. I offered the opportunity to speak to the subamendment. We are voting now, so the answer we're seeking is yea or nay.
6:20 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Michael MacPherson
It's five and five.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I'm being told that, as chair, I must vote against the subamendment, so that other amendments can be moved.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])