Bill C-272 (Historical)

An Act to Amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance or repair)

This enactment amends the Copyright Act in order to allow the circumvention of a technological protection measure in a computer program if the circumvention is solely for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance or repair of a product in which the program is embedded. It also allows the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale, renting and provision of technologies, devices or components used for diagnosis, maintenance or repair of such products.

Copyright Act

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand today and speak to Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act.

This bill is pretty much the same bill that Parliament expressed a majority opinion in favour of in the last Parliament, with Bill C-272. Copyright law is something I have worked with professionally since my time as a lawyer in the private sector. It is an important part of our intellectual property regime. All of these laws should make sure to keep pace with technology, with change and with consumer need. That is why I am in favour of this private member's bill going to committee and being studied.

The short form for this bill is enshrining the right of repair. Why is that important? There are two fundamental areas in which it is critically important for us to modernize our approach to repairing technology. The first is for consumers. We use intellectual property to grant extraordinary commercial rights, almost monopoly-like protections, and we do this to encourage innovation and to make sure we have smart phones and technology that make our lives easier and our economy more productive.

However, that monopoly protection, for a period of time, will also lead to higher prices and less competition. In the case of technology that cannot be repaired because of digital locks, technology manuals and other things that are being kept secret, that is providing a monopoly protection for that technology, thereby not allowing someone to have a device repaired. When we have spent a lot of money on a device, we are then going to be forced to either buy a new one or have the repair done only by an authorized dealer. What does that mean? It means higher prices for consumers.

The biggest thing we will see a lot of parties in this House supporting Bill C-244 on is this consumer protection. In the previous Parliament, that is why the official opposition and I supported it. It is for consumers to have more choice and have that right to repair something themselves. I doubt there is an MP in here who is technologically proficient enough to fix their smart phone or anything else. I am sure everyone would agree. However, we can have a third party do that for us, an agent we take our device to. They can fix it.

It is important for any Canadians who might be following this debate to know that this is beyond just getting a smart phone fixed. There are so many computer operating systems, semiconductors and chips. We have seen a shortage of them in the last year, causing a backlog in orders from cars to recreational vehicles and farming machinery. These devices are manufactured and we think of them as industrial goods, but they are so heavily dependent on consumer programs. If we then have digital locks on those programs, we will not be able to repair them, and when there is a supply chain shortage, we will have trouble replacing an item.

The first reason I think Bill C-244 should go to committee is this consumer protection, small business, and the ability to have lower prices and reuse materials. We are going to hear that some industry players in the automotive field, in farming implements and in computer devices are opposed to this. If someone has an intellectual property monopoly, of course they are not going to want more competition and they are going to say we should not allow a digital lock to be opened to allow someone to repair something.

Our society needs this, because this is now the state of the consumer. Every large purchase we make, like that of a home, vehicle or business, will be impacted by these intellectual property provisions, and it is time for industry to get with the program. We have to encourage an ability to repair for the consumer and more competition on the repair space. Industry will adjust to this change, which is necessary after a few decades of rapid technological advancement.

The second reason the right to repair is so important, and I think we will hear a lot of advocacy groups around the country talk about the environment, is if we are not repairing items, they will often be discarded. Therefore, not only is the consumer or small business paying more, but piles and piles of electronic waste are being created, which are far too often finding their way to jurisdictions in China, or other parts of the developing world, where they are not really being recycled.

They are just paying to destroy or dispose of these items. It is out of sight, out of mind for us, and we go on to the next purchase, but this is then allowing our waste to be a problem in an area of the world that certainly does not have the ability to deal with it. The developed world has to get in line with the philosophy behind the right to repair, not just for the consumer, as I said, but also for the environment.

We are also seeing our friends do this. Of our friends and trading partners, there is no bigger one than the United States. Updates it made to its Digital Millennium Copyright Act are providing the ability for a right to repair. Right now, the United States is limiting that to the consumer level, so if it sees a large company buy a large manufacturing CNC type of machine, it is not providing that right of repair in the industrial commercial setting, but it is providing it for the consumers. It is extending in copyright what is known as fair use rights, allowing fair use to include the diagnosis, repair or maintenance of operating systems within a device or some sort of machinery. A consumer has that right, the fair use of copyrighted material, to diagnose a problem and fix it.

That is what should be done with our copyright regime to allow fair-dealing exceptions at the consumer level. This bill really does not tackle the right to repair from the standpoint that the Americans have, but at least it is a start. This private member's bill would actually define or redefine what it means to circumvent a computer operating system, thereby making sure that the right to repair does not attract violations of the Copyright Act. At committee, one of the things that would be explored is whether we should be in line with western countries that respect intellectual property rights and create this right to diagnose and repair as a fair-dealing exception.

I must note for fun, having done copyright work when I was legal counsel to Proctor & Gamble and with two large law firms, that copyright and fair use have always been areas that I have watched, including fighting counterfeit goods, which is people using trademarks and copyrighted material to trade off the goodwill of other brands when they are selling phoney products.

In fact, the most leading case in Canada on the fair-dealing exception, the most recent major legal development, was in the case of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Conservative Party of Canada, where the Conservative Party of Canada was successful in defeating the claim by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that television commercials that use clips from CBC's news programs somehow violated its copyright. Certainly a public broadcaster should not really have the same intellectual property strategies as the private broadcasters, but, in any event, the court recognized that criticism, political debate and questioning allowed for a fair-dealing exception to use those clips.

We see now this copyright usage on YouTube videos and a whole range of things, where small clips can be used in someone's production as long as they are just being used for news, commentary and criticism. These are exceptions that have developed within copyright as our society developed, as social media grew and as technology grew. As copyright changes with the times, for the benefit of both the consumer and the environment, we need fair use exceptions or changes to allow a right of reply. That is why it is encouraging that Bill C-244 builds on the work done under Bill C-272 in the last Parliament to give Canadians this right of repair.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my role as critic, I rise today to speak to Bill C-244, which was introduced by the member for Richmond Centre. As we mentioned, this bill is a carbon copy of Bill C‑272, which was introduced in the last Parliament by the member for Cambridge, who sits beside the member for Richmond Centre. The House studied the former bill before the election was called, and members will recall that the Conservatives supported Bill C‑272 up to clause-by-clause consideration.

Therefore, I wish to inform the House that the official opposition will support Bill C‑244 at second reading so that it may be studied clause by clause at a parliamentary committee, where all viewpoints will be heard, which is logical and part of our job. There are some exciting, interesting and appealing views on this bill, as well as other views that provide a different perspective and a better understanding of the situation, and that also reveal flaws that can be corrected by a parliamentary committee, if necessary.

Bill C‑244 is essentially about copyright, but in simpler terms, it is about the right to repair.

We have all developed new habits as consumers. We buy electronics. Usually, if there is a problem, we open the case and try to figure out what is going on. If we cannot figure it out, we throw out the item and buy a new one.

In the not-too-distant past, whenever we ran into a problem with a household device or appliance, such as a toaster or washing machine, we would open it up and, with a little imagination, we might be able to repair it or at least find a solution. Now, though, these things get thrown out.

One positive outcome of Bill C‑244 would be that people would be allowed to repair things themselves. In addition, the bill would prevent broken devices and appliances from being sent to landfill because the owners are not able to repair them themselves. This is an environmentally friendly approach.

The study of Bill C‑244 is part two of the debate that took place in the House two years ago. In preparing for this speech, I read what my colleagues said at that time, and I want to point out that the members for Cypress Hills—Grasslands and Peace River—Westlock made some very good observations based on their own personal experience.

Earlier, my colleague from Saskatchewan, a very young man, reminded the House that he grew up on a farm and that his father, his grandfather and his family worked directly with machinery. When the machinery broke down, they repaired it. In those days, we repaired things. In those days, people helped each other. They would get on the phone and call the local store, which would suggest another local store where the replacement part could be found, and then they would replace the part themselves.

Today, it is much more difficult. When we look under the hood or check out a part, there is often a computer, an integrated circuit or microchips. Not everyone can repair those things themselves or reprogram the equipment.

Many people will bypass this computer or high-tech device and try to repair the item, but doing that could potentially create even more problems.

This is why there must be a good framework surrounding the practice of the right to repair, not only for citizens, for consumers, but also for businesses in our communities. They do not necessarily have a direct connection with the product manufacturer. That is where the nuance lies, and the devil is in the details. This is why we must ensure that Bill C‑244 is drafted properly.

We understand that the digital world of the 21st century presents new challenges, but we must allow people to continue to have the right to repair and not always be held hostage to the original manufacturer by having to send the product back for repair at the consumer's expense. The manufacturer can assume total control by permanently sealing its product, but this choice takes away the consumer's first recourse and hurts regional or local businesses that could help fix the problem.

This is the second time the subject has come up in the House. It is the second time because there was an election. I will not get into that because we are trying to be positive, constructive and non-partisan today.

I should point out that the House of Commons in Ottawa is not the only place people are talking about this. As the member for Richmond Centre, the bill sponsor, said earlier, nearly 20 states in the United States are also bringing in legislation about this and European countries are doing likewise, so Canada really needs to look at the best way legislation can address this issue.

It is also important to understand that right to repair is a provincial matter. That is why it is important to be careful here. We must ensure that we are not interfering in provincial jurisdiction. Rather, we need to make it possible for provinces to change their laws to allow the right to repair if that is what they want to do. We are opening the door for them to do that in accordance with the framework set out in Bill C‑244, so it is important to make sure the bill says exactly that.

Now let us talk about the impact this will have on warranties. By law, when someone buys a product, it must come with a warranty. To what extent does the warranty apply if the consumer takes the item apart, especially if they take the computer apart? We need to ensure that the impact on warranties is carefully considered, that the impact on provincial laws is examined and that there are no adverse effects on people who tinker with the insides of a product.

Obviously, there are many concerns that need to be clearly defined in this bill. That is why, when we were debating this in the previous Parliament, it got a little heated at times because not everyone agreed, which is just fine. That is a good thing. That is called democracy, and that is what it means to get to the bottom of things to avoid problems in the future. Without wishing to make a pun on the bill before us, once a law is passed and locked down, it has to come back to the House if it needs to be changed or amended. Once it is voted on, we have to live with it, so we have to make sure we do not need to fix it too often along the way.

That is why, over the past few years, some people have spoken out against the approach of the previous bill, Bill C‑272. Representatives from the equipment manufacturers association, a very powerful group in the agricultural sector, said that it was a fundamental issue for them and that the bill was far too vague. I presume that, during clause-by-clause consideration, we will have the opportunity to hear these dissenting voices, which are telling us that the bill is too vague and that there is too much room for interpretation. We will have to fix this and ensure that the bill is not too vague.

I want to quote the CEO of Brandt Tractor. He said that this is a terrible legislation and that this kind of legislation kills all dealers like Brandt Tractor and hurts manufacturers.

Certain industry groups directly affected by this bill have also warned that it is a little too vague and that it will have a direct impact on all the small businesses currently working in this area.

I repeat that the official opposition agrees with the principle of this bill at second reading. We will move forward because we understand that there are positive impacts for Canada's rural communities if farmers, among others, are allowed to continue repairing their equipment without any fear of repercussions. We also understand that this has environmental benefits. It is preferable to repair equipment than to throw it away. This can give an item a second, third or fourth life instead of it being thrown in the garbage right away, with all the environmental impact that can have.

We are also aware of the impact the bill will have on industry, on how things are done and on local businesses, and we must consider that. If we see that certain clauses of the bill need to be amended, added or removed, we will be open to doing that.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Regarding the elections, the ball is in the government's court.

You described Bill C‑272 as a precursor. What other legislation could be reviewed in the same way to promote a longer lifespan for our devices?

At the same time, you said that many bills in the past weren't finalized.

What inspired you, both in the bills that were passed and the bills that weren't finalized?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank you all for the invitation to speak to Bill C-272, my private member's bill. Most importantly, thanks to everyone who voted for the bill at second reading, bringing the bill to the INDU committee. I look forward to hearing your questions and discussing the bill.

As you know, the bill passed second reading with unanimous support in the House, and it has garnered interest and support from individuals, businesses and environmental and technological activists from across the country, and in fact, internationally. I trust that you all recognize the significance of the bill and realize its potential, as I have. I want to say that I'm happy to discuss amendments and ways to strengthen the bill, and I hope there is ample opportunity for me to hear your thoughts on the legislation.

Bill C-272 addresses some concerns that the Copyright Act is being used and interpreted in areas far beyond its scope—in particular, the provisions of copyright that are actually able to prevent the repair of digital devices and systems, even when nothing is being copied or distributed and where the owner actually owns the device.

The Copyright Act contains certain mechanisms that make it impossible—or extremely difficult—for consumers to repair their own goods. Technological protection measures, or TPMs, are used to protect the intellectual property found in devices. TPMs can inadvertently prevent repairs and can shut out independent repair shops, home DIY repairs and replacement of simple parts. This system can even prevent repairs after the company has gone out of business, because breaking TPMs would still be illegal even if the company was no longer making the product and there were literally no other options for repair or replacement.

This goes against everything that Canadians understand, instinctively, when they purchase something. As technology becomes more sophisticated, and with the introduction of digital systems integrated into these products, there are technological protection measures embedded by the Copyright Act that can prevent any repairs, even simple ones that consumers should be able to complete.

If passed into law, this bill could change the repair landscape entirely. Imagine when your smart appliance breaks down. You would not have to wait for a licensed repair person with the TPM bypassing passwords or tools to come to your house. You could order the part yourself, install it yourself or hire another company to do it for you.

This keeps the control of the product in the consumer's hands and reduces the manufacturer's ability to leverage their product long after it has been sold, which is not only inappropriate but also anti-competitive. A case could be made for those acts to be illegal under Canada's Competition Act. As a result, Canadians would not have to face the dilemma of throwing out their quality—and sometimes new—products as a result of a small malfunction. This would have drastic effects on our waste and would increase our ability to work efficiently with our smart devices.

I'm aware that other private members' bills have been brought forward in the past to address concerns about right to repair. Please be aware that this bill is substantially different in structure and design, and that's on purpose. I've aimed to carve out a very specific and limited allowance for consumers to circumvent a TPM, but only for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance or repair.

I am well aware of the legislation that must be moved by the provinces to address some other components of right to repair, including availability of spare parts, mandating repair manual availability, instituting additional measures to protect consumers and regulating the sale of goods that do not allow for repair.

The key here is that Bill C-272 is a precursor to many of these other items. Without a change to the Copyright Act, those other legislative and regulatory changes will not have their desired effect because TPMs cannot be bypassed for repair. This bill is important because it's not a matter of “if” but of “when” this legislation will be required.

Legislation for right to repair has been considered at the provincial level, and it is in place or being written in the EU and across multiple jurisdictions in the United States. With our shared interest in avoiding waste and keeping consumers in control of their own products, we must make room for repair.

Thank you for your time today, Madam Chair. I would be happy to answer any of the committee's questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Good morning, everyone. I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 48 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline a few rules to follow. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. As you know, interpretation services are available for the meeting. Please select your preference at the bottom of your screen.

Again, before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. All comments by members should be addressed through the chair. Of course, when you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

As is my normal practice, I will hold up the yellow card for when you have 30 seconds remaining in your intervention, and I will hold up the red card for when your intervention time has expired.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 2, 2021, in the first hour of the INDU committee meeting, we will be meeting to begin our study of Bill C-272, an act to amend the Copyright Act, concerning diagnosis, maintenance or repair.

I'd like to now welcome our witnesses to INDU. We have with us today, Mr. Bryan May, member of Parliament for Cambridge and the sponsor for the bill.

With that, we will allow the member to present his bill for five minutes and [Technical difficulty—Editor].

MP May, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Clearly, I support my colleague Mr. Baldinelli's motion. Yes, tourism is a priority that must be maintained. We could ask questions about the related approaches. It is important, because we are getting to the end of the COVID‑19 situation and, in the spirit of economic recovery, we must take a close look at those approaches.

I would like to point out that Bill C‑272 has just been brought to our attention. I know we had two free days in our preliminary schedule, but I think we will have to be creative.

Madam Chair, I'm curious to see what plan you come up with.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-272 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-272, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance or repair), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak to my private member’s bill, Bill C-272, and I am excited to see this bill will come up for a vote very soon. I became interested in this topic because of how many aspects of our lives that it touches. It touches everything from agriculture and the food we eat, to the environment and how we divert waste away from landfills, to consumer rights and allowing people to do the things they should be able to do with the goods they purchase.

I hope this legislation also kicks off a deeper conversation about the right to repair. This issue is non-partisan and spans the concerns of urban and rural citizens, the young and the old, those who are tech savvy and those who are technophobes. It impacts all of us. I am pleased to see the positive response Bill C-272 has garnered from all parties, and I hope that an in-depth discussion at committee will follow.

Bill C-272 addresses some concerns that have become more frequent over the past decade, concerns that the Copyright Act is being used and interpreted in areas far beyond its scope. In particular, these concerns focus on the provisions of copyright that are actually able to prevent the repair of digital devices and systems, even when nothing is being copied or distributed. As digital technology around us has become less expensive, it has become more integrated into our daily lives, and the Copyright Act governs the software that is found in these systems.

As an example, the technology has not changed dramatically in refrigerators over the past few decades, but now you can get a fridge with a computer inside or digital touch screens on the front. That computer, more specifically the onboard software, is protected under the Copyright Act. That computer runs and manages the refrigerator and the onboard systems.

However, a manufacturer could choose to not allow the repair or replacement of a filter, compressor, or some other part without a specific code, password, or permission entered into the system. They may do this to prevent outsiders from making repairs, to ensure only their approved technicians make the repairs or to prevent the installation of aftermarket parts. However, if someone makes that repair on their own and breaks the technological protection measures in place to force it to accept the repair, they could be violating the Copyright Act, and they could be charged with breaking a federal law.

This need for repair is even more critical for people in rural or remote locations as they likely do not have quick or easy access to dealerships or manufacturers. These technological protection measures, or TPMs, can inadvertently prevent repairs, and they can shut out independent repair shops and home DIY repairs. They can even stop repairs after the company has gone out of business because they would still be breaking the TPMs, even if there are literally no other options for repair. That goes against everything that Canadians understand instinctively when they purchase something. Bill C-272 works to prevent these kinds of issues by carving out a specific and very limited allowance for consumers to circumvent a TPM, but only for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance or repair.

None of these copyright protections are an issue with respect to repairs, and the spirit of the Copyright Act is not intended to speak to the repair of physical devices at all. Interpreting it this way is wildly outside the scope of the intent of copyright, and the legislation is out of date and misused as a result. The circumvention of TPMs discussed and allowed under Bill C-272 are only for repair, maintenance or diagnosis. Any other circumvention would remain illegal under the Copyright Act.

So far I have had the opportunity to hear from constituents, people across Canada and internationally who are all interested in seeing this bill passed. I thank them for their support.

I would also like to thank my staff for all of their hard work on this bill, especially that of Andrew Cowie, without whom we would not be speaking about this today.

My thanks to the hon. members for their debate today and in the first hour. I am also happy to discuss any changes requested by committee, changes that could strengthen the bill and its impact.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, do we have the right to fix the things we buy, or do we have the obligation to bring those things back to the person who sold them to us and pay them to fix them for us? That is a long-standing question.

Many sellers build into their business model or their engineering plans a system that requires buyers to come back to pay for maintenance and repair at the place they bought the product or service. This can generate a stable stream of income for the seller and also allow the seller to continue to improve his or her products. On the other side, it prevents the buyer from shopping around and finding a better deal for repairs. There is a conundrum.

Sellers typically use two different ways to maintain their exclusive rights over the repair of products. One way is to build it right into the warranty or into the sales agreement that, for example, buyers can buy an automobile at a set price, but for the warranty to apply, buyers must bring it back to the seller and the seller alone for servicing. They can write into the contract, or the purchase agreement, that, if buyers want to buy this tractor, the seller will offer this original price, but customers are obliged by contract to give them the contracts to repair it. That is one way, through the use of contractual arrangements.

The other way is through technological protection measures. This is a particularly new phenomenon in the case of most products because, 30 or 40 years ago, those products did not have a lot of digital technology baked into them that could be encrypted or made exclusive through coding techniques. Today, almost everything we buy has some sort of a technological component to it. The future of automobiles, washer and drying machines, toaster ovens, basically anything we buy will mean less about the hardware, the tin, iron or aluminum in it, and more about the technology that operates it. Therefore, businesses have become very clever in embedding technological protection measures that encrypt the ability to maintain and repair the equipment.

There are two major extreme positions on what to do about this tension between the buyer who wants to repair his own product or the seller who wants to repair it for him. I will go through them very quickly. On the one hand, some argue that the government should force sellers to stop using technological protection measures or exclusivity clauses in sale and maintenance agreements. On the other hand, some argue that the status quo should continue, which forces buyers to respect technological protection measures and continue to go back to the seller in order to have repairs and maintenance done. Both of these solutions require government forcing one side on the other.

I believe in the free enterprise system where government applies as little force as humanly possible. Having read Bill C-272, right of repair, that the member for Cambridge has offered, I conclude that he is of the same view. His bill neither bans technological protection measures nor bans efforts by buyers to circumvent those measures. What he simply does with the bill is that it would legalize the practice of developing technologies to get around those technological protection measures so that buyers have the ability to try and repair a product for themselves.

For example, if someone were to buy a tractor and the tractor manufacturer put in a technology that prevented the buyer upgrading and maintaining that tractor, under the law today, the buyer could not buy a circumvention product that will allow them to get around the protection measure.

That is the way the law is written under the Copyright Act in section 41 today. If one does that, one is breaking the law. However, the bill proposes to remove that prohibition, so the manufacturer of the tractor could still put in a protection to prevent the buyer from maintaining the tractor themselves, but the buyer would have the legal right to buy another product that would allow them to get around that technological protection.

In other words, the bill would basically open the matter up to buyers and sellers to sort out how they are going to arrange their contractual agreements on their own. It would continue to allow companies to put in place measures to try to retain their exclusive right to repair the products they sell, but it would also allow the customer to try to get around and circumvent those protections. I believe this is the right solution, because we should leave, as much as possible, decisions in commerce to the buyers and sellers involved and minimize the involvement of government in between their voluntary decisions.

For example, if a car dealership wants to write in a requirement that a car buyer must come back to the dealership for maintenance as a condition of the warranty, that should be legal. However, if the car buyer does not want to follow that edict, he can go and buy a car somewhere else. That is the genius of the free market system.

A buyer can say, “I do not want to be stuck going back to the dealership for maintenance. I want to go to Jane's Mechanics because she does a better job. I am bringing my car to her, and if the dealership is not going to allow my warranty to stand when she maintains my car, then I will not buy the car from that dealership. I will to go to another dealership where they do not have that requirement as part of their warranty.”

This allows the buyer to make an informed decision about the trade-offs involved when purchasing a product, whether it is a smart phone, an automobile, a washer and dryer, or a farm tractor, the buyer will be able to decide whether or not he or she will buy a product knowing that the seller has a requirement for a product to be maintained at the seller's business.

At the same time, if the seller wants to put some kind of technological method to prevent others from maintaining and repairing the product, well, he or she can do that. There is nothing in this proposed law that would prevent them from doing that. However, if the bill passes, the state would not enforce that technological protection, and I believe that is as it should be.

We should live in a free and open market system where people get ahead by having the best product rather than the best lawyer, and where the voluntary exchange of work for wages, product for payment and investment for interest allows everyone to do well by doing good, which is the genius of the market system. If someone has an apple and wants an orange, and I have an orange and want an apple, we trade, and we still have an apple and orange between us but we are both better off because we each have something worth more to us than what we had before.

What is true of that simple transaction of apples and oranges is also true in more complicated products, such as software-enhanced agricultural equipment, smart phones or other devices. We, as consumers, do our research. We find out the terms involved in buying a given product, and then we decide for ourselves. If we do not like the arrangement that the seller has put into the purchase agreement, then we shop elsewhere.

I congratulate the member for Cambridge. I believe he has found the optimal solution in federal law to allow buyers of goods and services to try to maximize their utility when buying a product, and he removes unnecessary intervention by the state so that the buyers and sellers can do commerce and achieve the best possible outcome for themselves.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

It is timeless, Madam Speaker. I apologize. Compare this situation to what is happening today.

When I was just six, I remember my father buying a used dishwasher for our small hotel. He told me that he was buying a second identical one that was out of order so he could repair the first one if it ever broke down. I will not share how old I am, but believe it or not, that dishwasher has survived my dad. It is still working, and I swear that we have not found a better replacement. Obviously and fortunately, it is not subject to any code of obsolescence, or we would have been fined many times over under the legislation. Since this appliance is still fit for purpose and generally meets commercial standards in terms of water temperature for disinfection, we are keeping it and repairing it. Most importantly, it is not polluting the planet.

This story illustrates what Bill C-272 seeks to correct. The Bloc Québécois thinks it is an interesting bill that confirms that we have the right to repair and have repairs done to our belongings. Repair technicians, be they mechanics, computer experts or former schooner captains cum hotel operators, will no longer be liable for copyright infringement.

This bill will be especially helpful in the regions, where companies often do not have dealers, making it downright impossible to repair goods. By correcting a provision in the Copyright Act that manufacturers were using to prevent their products from being repaired, the bill gives substance to the right to repair our own belongings. This will go a long way in protecting the environment, which cannot take any more of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of scrap metal, computer equipment and cellular devices, refrigerators and toasters that have keep piling up. The life span of those items could have been extended were it not for this egregious provision in the act, which is more about money than about common sense or the environment.

The planet is making a green shift that is cannot be denied, and the future of the world absolutely depends on it. Perhaps this legislation will force companies to return to making devices that last. They might be more expensive to manufacture or purchase, but they will be more durable and therefore less polluting. Bill C-272 is a step in the right direction to force companies to adopt this approach, and the Bloc Québécois supports it.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-272. When I saw that this bill had to do with the Copyright Act, I figured I was right in my element. As a songwriter and composer, I speak on behalf of thousands of my peers, and I was pleased to see that we would finally be able to debate the importance of creators, who, in a way, are such a big part of our everyday lives. They entertain our minds and hearts, inspire our dreams and stir our emotions, and challenge us to reflect on our very existence. They create the music that fills our ears with words and messages that influence our priorities and social choices. They play a huge part in how our future progresses and unfolds. I would be remiss if I had not at least mentioned this.

When I read this very important bill introduced by our colleague opposite, I obviously thought it was about something else. It is not at all what I had imagined. This bill does not have to do with protecting copyrights for songs, theatre, music, writing or productions. I want my artist and creator friends to know that I will fight for that as well, because there is a lot to be done in this area, and our creators are suffering financially because this government has been slow to introduce legislation.

That said, let us get back to the bill. The purpose of the Copyright Act is to allow creators to earn a living from their art and to protect their work from unauthorized copying or use. This may come as a surprise, but, as I just recently learned, the Copyright Act also applies to software developers, which brings me to this very important Bill C-272.

Contrary to the fundamental principle of copyright law related to author remuneration further to universal usage, as is the case with songs, for example, the act does not apply when it comes to a refrigerator, washer or dryer or to computer equipment.

The bill therefore proposes that the person circumventing the technological protection measure controlling access to a computer program for the sole purpose of diagnosing, servicing or repairing a product into which it is embedded should not be subject to the current Copyright Act and should not be guilty. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We appeal to common sense, and when something makes sense, we get behind it.

Incidentally, major nuances in the current act absolutely must be considered and corrected as well. When a work is protected from piracy with a digital lock, the act prohibits breaking the lock to reproduce or alter the work without the copyright owner's consent, and that is fine.

The problem is that software is also covered by the Copyright Act, so many companies use the act to prevent repair people from breaking the digital lock, and that makes many devices irreparable. When a consumer product contains electronic components, as most products do these days, many companies include a digital mechanism to prevent repairs from being made unless the company has expressly provided the codes. According to these manufacturers, a repair person who overrides a digital lock to fix a phone, car or tractor without the company's consent commits an offence under the Copyright Act. I do not even know what to say.

That makes it impossible to fix an item that belongs to us, is broken or is not working properly, unless we go to one of the company's dealers. Another problem is that the company has to agree to repair the product. They often refuse, which forces us to buy a new product. That is called planned obsolescence, and it is a terrible financial and environmental waste. It is environmentally disastrous.

Let us look back in time. I do not have to look very far to find examples. My family never wanted for anything. My parents fell in love with a big house by the river and transformed it into a small hotel. To do this, my father and grandfather had to sell their schooner, with some regret, to finance the purchase of the house. I am sharing this story because it allows us to gain a better understanding of what we are talking about today. Times have changed, but have they done so for the better? Not always.

Before running the hotel, my father and grandfather were schooner captains on the St. Lawrence. The role of these invaluable schooners was to deliver goods to the north shore, since, at the time, roads and railroads had not yet reached this area. For northerners, as my father called them, these schooners, these boats that people built and owned, were of the utmost importance. On the St. Lawrence, many of these schooners sailed from Montreal to Sept-Îles, and from there on all the way to St. Pierre and Miquelon.

Their arrival was quite the event, because everyone awaited the delivery of some coveted item, be it sugar or flour, farming implements to ensure their food self-sufficiency or, of course, a refrigerator, a toaster or an electric stove, for those villagers who were lucky enough to have electricity.

It was therefore essential that all of these appliances have a long life expectancy, since they were not easy to get and supply was never assured. I think members would be happy to see a nice picture of some schooners. There is a bit of a glare, but I believe—

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to virtually rise in the House today to speak on this important bill. However, before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the tragic news we heard last week of the discovery of 215 children's bodies at the Kamloops Indian Residential School. I am saddened by this discovery and my prayers are with the Tk'emlúps te Secwepemc First Nation, as well as all indigenous communities across Canada.

I will now speak to the bill at hand. The increased pace of digitization of our economy and the use of software in more of our everyday consumer products has transformed the ownership and control consumers have over many purchases. Consumer products from kitchen appliances to cars, which were once only mechanical and electrical, are now embedded with software. These technological transformations can make products more useful and responsive for consumers. However, the software that controls the components of the products is protected by copyright. This reduces some abilities consumers have traditionally exercised, including the ability to repair their own purchases when they malfunction.

The Copyright Act provides protection for software to encourage innovation and investment. It further grants copyright holders the ability to use technological protection measures, also called TPMs or digital locks, to protect their software from access, unauthorized copying and infringement. TPMs were originally promoted as a tool to encourage creative industries to offer their work in digital form. TPMs are now being used broadly across the economy to protect software incorporated within products in industries such as manufacturing. While I believe in the importance of legal protection for TPMs, I also believe that the Copyright Act should provide exceptions to these protections when they harm the legitimate interest of consumers to maintain and repair the products they own.

Under current copyright law, it would be a violation for someone to circumvent a product's TPM for the purpose of repairing it. The Copyright Act already includes exceptions that permit TPM circumvention for a number of purposes, including ensuring interoperability of computer programs, conducting encryption research or unlocking a cellphone to change telecommunications services, to name a few examples. I believe adding a new exception to the Copyright Act permitting the circumvention of TPMs for the purpose of repair only makes sense.

The recent parliamentary review of the Copyright Act drew attention to this situation. Recommendation 19 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology’s 2019 report, entitled “Statutory Review of the Copyright Act”, calls for measures to permit Canadians to circumvent TPMs allowed under copyright law for the purpose of repairing, maintaining and adapting their software-embedded devices. Facilitating repair is a multi-faceted public policy challenge that might require additional legislative action. However, I support referring Bill C-272 to committee because it proposes to address the one issue that is clearly in federal jurisdiction: the Copyright Act.

Bill C-272 would not solve all the issues faced by consumers regarding repair, but it is an important step in the right direction. I will vote in favour of referring Bill C-272 to committee because I believe that removing the copyright-related restriction to repair will make any further measures introduced by provinces and territories to support repair more effective.

If Bill C-272 is referred to committee for further study, we as parliamentarians must work to ensure that all information and evidence comes to light on the issue of copyright and repair. This evidence would ensure that the TPM exception for the purpose of repair that Parliament ultimately decides on will be the best possible option. It will be an exception that balances all the varied considerations and interests that come into play on this issue.

We must ensure the exception serves the interests of Canadians who want more choice and ease to make repairs, but we must also ensure the exception has the appropriate safeguards to preserve the safety and security of electronic products.

Removing the copyright-related restriction to repair may enhance competition for independent repair shops. To support the post-pandemic economic recovery, we need any boost to entrepreneurship we can get.

Making it easier for consumers to repair their products, as proposed by Bill C-272, could also contribute to reducing electronic waste. A United Nations report found Canada was responsible for 725,000 tonnes of electronic waste in 2014.

A study commissioned by Open Media found that 75% of Canadians have discarded or replaced a broken device because of a repairable issue. That study also found that one-third of respondents claimed that the repair of the product was prohibitively expensive, forcing them to buy a new one.

All electronic waste is not because of the copyright law; however, a TPM exception such as the one proposed in Bill C-272 would facilitate the repair of products as opposed to their replacement. This could only help toward an overall reduction in electronic waste produced in Canada.

Finally, it is my hope that a TPM exception for the purpose of repair, such as the one proposed in Bill C-272, would help historically marginalized groups to gain better access to repair services and have more repair services become available in rural and remote communities.

In closing, I am in favour of this important change to the Copyright Act in support of repair. I look forward to further discussion on this to make sure we do not introduce unintended consequences at the same time.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, whenever I have had the opportunity to address the House in person or from Longueuil over the past weeks and months, I have typically been unhappy about something. There are all kinds of issues and problems I am not happy about, things we are not moving fast enough on, such as housing, health and seniors. Today, however, I am relatively happy.

I think the bill before us now, Bill C-272, is a step in the right direction. I am pleased to speak to this issue this morning because it is kind of a personal one for me. I am an actor, so copyright issues are important to me. I am here to say that I support the bill because improper use of the Copyright Act to prevent people from fixing electronic devices is immoral. It is also expensive for consumers and has a terrible environmental impact.

Bill C-272 would amend the Copyright Act to ensure that it “does not apply to a person who circumvents a technological protection measure that controls access to a computer program if the person does so for the sole purpose of diagnosing, maintaining or repairing a product in which the computer program is embedded”. What immediately spring to mind are telephones, lawnmowers, washing machines, and even tractors.

The Copyright Act is intended to allow creators to earn a living from their art and to protect their work from being copied or used in ways they do not approve of. It is important legislation. As I said before, as an actor, I am keenly aware of the need to protect both artists' revenue streams and their rights to their creations, that is to say their art.

Curiously, the Copyright Act also applies to those who write computer programs, particularly when the work is protected from pirates by what is called a digital lock. The law prohibits breaking that lock to reproduce or alter the work without the consent of the copyright owner, which is good. However, since the Copyright Act also covers software, businesses have decided to use it to keep repair professionals from breaking the digital lock. That effectively renders many objects irreparable.

The vast majority of today's products have electronic components, so of course we see this everywhere, but many companies have included a digital device to prevent repairs from being made, unless the company has expressly provided the codes. According to those manufacturers, a repair person who overrides a digital lock to fix a phone, car or tractor without the company's consent is committing an offence under the Copyright Act. This is making it impossible to fix items that we own when they are broken or not working properly, unless we go to one of the company's dealers, and even then, the company has to agree to fix the item.

Companies often refuse to repair their own products, just so customers are forced to purchase new ones. This is what is known as planned obsolescence, which is a terrible source of waste and above all totally unnecessary. It is costly for consumers and obviously disastrous for the environment.

Take Apple as an example. That company has patented all the parts of its phones to ensure that no one can produce replacement parts. That is no joke. It has also locked its operating software to prevent repair people from circumventing the locks, which would make them subject to prosecution under the Copyright Act.

If a consumer has a defective phone, the only way to get it fixed is to take it to an Apple store or an authorized Apple retailer. Even then, the company will fix only a very limited number of parts.

Consumers are often told their phone cannot be repaired and must be replaced because Apple opts not to do the repairs knowing that the consumer does not have the right to do repairs the company refuses to do. It is a kind of repair monopoly.

If a consumer has a problem with their smart phone and chooses to have an unauthorized person open it up to diagnose the problem, the consumer can no longer have it repaired and cannot even have it replaced under warranty because they had it repaired by someone else and that violates Apple's conditions. It is fascinating.

Incidentally, in the last quarter, Apple made a net profit of $28 billion. Members should think about that for a second because planned obsolescence is a particularly unethical concept. The company is manufacturing a product knowing in advance that the product will ultimately break. The company then makes sure that the product cannot be repaired so that it can sell more of the product and make more money. That is unacceptable.

Companies are preventing consumers from repairing their items themselves and from paying someone a small amount of money to repair a product that costs hundreds of dollars. All of that is done with the goal of filling order books and lining shareholders' pockets. This aspect of consumer society is simply not compatible with environmental protection. In a finite world, we cannot encourage infinite consumption that cannot even be mitigated by re-use or repair. The need, and I want to emphasize that word, to protect the environment for future generations makes all acts and initiatives important, whether they be big or small.

This bill does not seek for the elimination of fossil fuels or the oil sands, nor does it seek the adoption of measures that would ensure that greenhouse gas reduction targets are met, even if those targets keep changing. However, that does not change the fact that this is an important bill. Every action truly counts. I encourage my colleagues to quickly pass this bill.

As I said, every action counts no matter how small. I would like to take a minute to remind my colleagues that we can do much more to combat planned obsolescence. For example, across the Atlantic, the European Union introduced a directive requiring its member countries to amend their laws to classify products according to their ability to be repaired. Since January, products in France have been labelled with their repairability index.

For the most part, electronics such as smart phones, computers and televisions, as well as household appliances such as washers, dryers or lawnmowers now display a score out of 10. This rating lets consumers know what options are available to them when the time comes to have a particular item repaired.

Such a measure obviously helps consumers make informed choices. It also makes businesses want to compete in an effort to manufacture more sustainable products, since consumers will finally know the sustainability of the product they are buying. Within the next two years, other European countries are also set to adopt measures similar to the ones taken by France.

The bill to amend the Copyright Act will address a significant loophole and resolve part of the problem of planned obsolescence. We need to do more. Solutions such as the one I just spoke about already exist. Planned obsolescence is a major problem in our society because it creates a lot of pollution. It is very important that we tackle greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore the bill is important.

According to ABI Research, 720 million cellphones are thrown away every year around the world. While people everywhere purchase their first cellphones, about 60% of the 1.2 billion units sold annually are purchased to replace discarded phones. If we do nothing to address planned obsolescence, just imagine what will happen when everyone or almost everyone has a smart phone.

Every year, between 30 million and 55 million tonnes of electronic waste is buried. That is disastrous. As a point of comparison, 55 million tonnes of electronic waste is more than 1,000 times the weight of the Titanic. That is unacceptable.

Therefore, it is urgent that we take action to protect our planet. Almost everyone agrees on that. We cannot go on this way. Let us leave cleaner air, clearer water and more fertile soil and not an immense mountain of waste to our children and grandchildren.

I invite my colleagues to quickly pass the bill. However, we must not stop there. We can do much more. For the future of humanity, every small step must immediately be followed by another.

The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-272, an act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance or repair), be read the second time and referred to a committee.