Mr. Speaker, we recommend that this amendment be rejected because we have problems with it.
First, the new expression would be inconsistent with clauses 2, which includes the definitions of "plate" and "producer", as well as 5.4 and 5.5, which refer to "a record, perforated roll or other contrivance by means of which sounds may be mechanically reproduced". Second, it would therefore be difficult to apply in a consistent manner these provisions, if we were to use the new expression contained in the motion.
I should also point out that Canadian jurisprudence gives a rather wide interpretation to the current wording. Therefore, although the expression is somewhat archaic, it does include new technologies.