INDU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Minutes of Proceedings
Jeremy Patzer made a statement and answered questions.
At 5:33 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 5:39 p.m., the sitting resumed.
The Chair calls Clause 1.
The committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
After debate, Clause 1 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Bernard Généreux, Sébastien Lemire, Brian Masse, Jeremy Patzer, Rick Perkins, Ryan Williams — 6;
NAYS: Han Dong, Brendan Hanley, Iqra Khalid, Viviane Lapointe, Jenna Sudds — 5.
On Clause 2,Andy Fillmore moved, — That Bill C-244, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 1 to line 11 on page 2 with the following:
“41.121 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)(a) does not apply to a person who circumvents a technological protection measure for the sole purpose of maintaining or repairing a product, including any related diagnosing, if the work, performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or sound recording to which the technological protection measure controls access forms a part of the product.
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies to a person who circumvents a technological protection measure in the circumstances referred to in that subsection for another person.
(3) A person acting in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) is not entitled to benefit from the exception under that subsection if the person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 6:02 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 6:12 p.m., the sitting resumed.
Sébastien Lemire moved, — That the amendment be amended
a) by adding after paragraph (1) the following:
“(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to video game consoles or to their components or peripherals.”
b) by adding after paragraph (3) the following:
“(3) Nothing in subsection (2) requires any person, including an original equipment manufacturer or an authorized repairer, to make available the parts, tools or documentation necessary to diagnose, maintain or repair video game consoles or their components or peripherals.
(4) For the purposes of this section, video game console means an electronic device, including a home or portable console or any other device or system, that is primarily designed to execute video games and that may include features to play optical discs or digital video or audio files and to access the Internet.”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment and the result of the vote was announced:
YEAS: Brendan Hanley, Iqra Khalid, Viviane Lapointe, Sébastien Lemire, Jenna Sudds — 5;
NAYS: Bernard Généreux, Brian Masse, Jeremy Patzer, Rick Perkins, Ryan Williams — 5.
Whereupon, the Chair voted in the negative.
Accordingly, the subamendment was negatived.
At 6:35 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.