It's possible the government wants to ratify a broken bill to satisfy their treaty rights to the WTO, with the hope and expectation it will be squashed by the courts soon after. Canada gets the law that makes sense without the associated trade sanctions. The cost is several years and several million dollars fighting it out in court.
The thing is, we don't need a blanket ban on digital lock breaking to satisfy the WIPO treaty (I assume that's what you mean). The C-11 model of 'balance' leans heavily on:
* Content owners voluntarily making their content available (e.g. the 'permission culture' among academics);
* Content available in multiple formats, some of which may not have digital locks;
* The ability for government apparatus to regulate exceptions on the fly; and
* The government's insistence that it would be highly unlikely for a digital lock violation based on fair dealing to result in damages.
Essentially, the government's position is: trust us! I don't.
Other countries have passed laws that put them into compliance with WIPO and still maintain reasonable exceptions to break digital locks for valid reasons of fair use/dealing, privacy and so on.
Note: I've seen legal arguments suggesting that C-11 forbids breaking digital locks that function as access controls but does not forbid breaking digital locks that function as copy controls. In other words, it's illegal to hack a paywall so that you can read protected content, but it's not illegal to enable right-clicking to copy content to which you have legal access.
IANAL but I can already see a problem with this: if the same digital lock serves both functions, it is impossible to carry out the latter without also violating the former.
