It seems clear. It seems like it's a good exception. The problem with it is that when we look at an act, is it nimble or dynamic enough for any exemption? The example I would give is that if there is a trade agreement that is changed, if something were to change with CUSMA or any other trade agreement, you'd have to reopen the act to change the exemptions.
Amendment CPC‑1, which we're going to deal with next may look at a better way to look at exemptions, and what we're trying to do. I brought that question to Mr. Patzer here during interoperability on what other jurisdictions are doing for exemptions that is more nimble or dynamic, meaning that, in the U.S., it's the copyright librarian, and every exemption is reviewed every three years.
There might be a better way to do that. In that case, for this one, because it's not nimble or dynamic, we risk putting fences around any kind of exemption within the bill without having a different method in which we can deal with exemptions. You'll see in the next one. I recommend that it's the minister. Maybe there's a better way we can do that, but in the U.S., when they do look at this, it is reviewed by the copyright librarian every three years. If we put fences on exemptions, like this does.... It's not like they're bad exemptions but if they were to change, you'd have to reopen the bill to change the exemptions, and that's a lengthy process. That is not easy to do.
It's simpler to have a different process. I'm not suggesting a tribunal or anything more cumbersome than maybe having an order in council or having the minister look at exemptions, rather than having it embedded in the bill.
For that, we're going to vote no to this one, perhaps just because I think that there's a better process we can look at.