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.