I'm going to very carefully deconstruct your post line for line.
The problem at hand is the US Ambassador to Canada pressuring the Canadian legislature to alter a bill that was moving quickly through the system with essentially universal support and no real cause for delay except for US opposition.
Canada is a sovereign state, with the right to create their legislation as they see fit. Unfortunately, the US is exerting political influence to reshape Canadian legislation to suit their own whims. Business as usual for the US these days, perhaps, but that doesn't make this kind of "Gunboat Diplomacy" less immoral and reprehensible.
Now, the US could of course request their good neighbor and close ally to alter a piece of legislature willingly to better suit both their needs - but that would require basic good will, a willingness to take no for an answer, and a lack of under the table threats and screw-turning.
What does this have to do with theft of video games or movies? The article addresses abuses of anti-counterfeiting laws which involved a pharmacutical company denying the delivery of medication to HIV/AIDS patients who desperately needed the compounds - but it doesn't have any mention of video games or movies.
But let's assume this was merely an ommission - for all I know, in addition to "counterfeit" drugs to combat HIV/AIDS, the bill could very well be concerned with video game and movie discs as well.
Certain questions arise.
Who exactly buys -counterfeit- movies and videogames? If people for whatever reason aren't going to buy the legitimate version, why would they pay -any- amount of money for a counterfeit version instead of just pirating it for free? Who in the world counterfeits such things anyway? Why would they be shipping such counterfeit items through -Canada-, of all places?
Logic suggests "counterfeit" video games and movies passing through Canada to be a complete non-issue, and consequently a massive strawman.
What contortions are we talking about? What practices, exactly, are being defended? Because the only person who seems to be "contorting" to defend something is you, rushing to defend Hollywood.
Again, what does Hollywood have to do with anything? We're back to video games and movies, for some reason? Except Hollywood doesn't make video games, so really just movies then? Or did you mean to defend the games industry as well, but forgot?
But let's run with the Hollywood angle. What do unions have to do with anything? And how does this tie into "counterfeit" goods which do not originate in Canada and which are merely passing through to a completely different destination entirely?
Hollywood's unions are concerned with ensuring fair pay and fair competition for workers in the industry. Basically, they protect all the little guys from the studios who would happily screw them over if given half a chance, and who just so happen to be very interests on whose behalf the US Ambassador is meddling in Canadian legal affairs.
Except piracy isn't the topic here - "counterfeit" goods are. Even if you want to assume that physical bootlegging is a real problem, digital piracy is a completely different thing entirely.
Actually, the argument is that laws should not be so overly broad so as to allow for abuses - not that the law itself should not exist in a less permissive form.
And please remember, the Canadian legislature was about to pass this bill without complaint or opposition in its original form, until the US decided to apply pressure with the specific intent of changing the law to make it easier to abuse.
For a bit of perspective, Canada isn't terribly fond of overly broad laws that allow for potential abuse. Back in the 70s, during the October Crisis, then-president Trudeau was widely criticized for enacting the War Powers Act.
The problem was he needed -some- of the powers that enacting the act would grant to handle the crisis, but he couldn't enact it without granting -all- of the powers it covered. People were furious about it - because they didn't like the idea of giving him all that power, despite his promise that he would only use a portion of it.
In the end Trudeau kept his word and didn't employ the extra powers - but he also then worked to get the laws changed, to make it possible in the future for the government to enact some, but not all, of the powers as needed.
So yeah, when Canada's legislature okays a bill, and then the US steps in to change it to make it more permissive, and grant more powers than are necessary, and make it easier to abuse? Not gonna go over well.