Bill C-244

An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair)

This enactment amends the Copyright Act in order to allow the circumvention of a technological protection measure if the circumvention is solely for the purpose of the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of certain types of products.

[Samir Chhabra]

The issue raised in C-244 and C-294 was related to the circumvention of technological protection measures. In the case of the United States, the approaches were different in terms of what cause or what rationale enables the circumvention of a technological production measure. That was the reason for the flag that was provided and raised at committee. In this instance, we do not see the same issue.

Perhaps my colleague is interested in jumping in with—

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I want to get some clarification from the officials on this. During the new committee study of Bill C-244, the right to repair, and Bill C-294, the department raised some serious issues about the inclusion of diagnosis, maintaining and repairing and the right to repair as potentially being in violation of CUSMA.

Could the officials clarify a little more that we're not going to be looking at any trading conflicts with the U.S. in regard to this amendment or anything with the right to repair?

[David Adams, President, Global Automakers of Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to appear before you today.

My name is David Adams. I'm the president and CEO of Global Automakers of Canada, which is a national trade association whose members include 15 of the world's most recognized automakers, representing 25 different brands, including Canada's two largest vehicle producers: Toyota and Honda.

I would particularly like to thank MP Michaud for bringing forward the motion to undertake this important study.

It's important to keep in mind that what we're really talking about here is, in fact, organized crime in Canada, with auto theft being one of its most visible symptoms. Given the complex nature of this issue, Global Automakers of Canada has been advocating for this committee to undertake a study of this issue for some time, as well as advocating for a national summit on auto theft to bring together all relevant stakeholders and experts, which we participated in on behalf of our members earlier this month.

When we think back over the last two years and about why this issue has grown so rapidly, it's clear that theft has become increasingly highly lucrative for organized crime groups in this country. Indeed Canada has been, as you have heard, identified by Interpol as a source nation for stolen vehicles.

You're all well aware of the statistics. I won't go into those or repeat them, but the reality is that across Canada one vehicle is stolen every five minutes. In the hardest-hit parts of the country, Ontario and Quebec, we're seeing criminals increasingly resorting to violent crimes like carjackings and home invasions to steal vehicles.

We applaud the Government of Canada's recent announcements of increased funding for law enforcement resources, including for CBSA at Canada's ports; of starting to tackle the availability of car theft tools in Canada; and of the need for better coordination between various law enforcement agencies, both domestically and internationally.

We're seeing first-hand the impact of the $51 million committed by the Ontario government last year to establish a provincial auto theft task force with respect to both busts and recoveries, highlighting that resources, while not the only solution, do make a huge difference.

To support that work, we think the Government of Canada should consider setting up a national task force on auto theft to coordinate these efforts and to help cut through jurisdictional barriers to co-operation.

We also need to ensure that government policies don't undermine our efforts. While automakers are working to make their vehicles ever-more secure, we're also being asked by “right to repair” advocates to make more of our vehicle systems open to third parties. Legislation like Bill C-244, which is currently before the Senate, will make it easier for bad actors to find ways to bypass the technologies that automakers are constantly introducing to make it more difficult to steal vehicles. Collectively, we need to be smart. We need to be coordinated, and we need to be comprehensive.

Canada's automakers have been closely engaged in this issue for years and are ready and willing to co-operate with those who share our desire to mitigate auto theft.

What are we doing about the issue? Automakers are constantly reviewing and updating the security systems in our vehicles but are facing increasing odds against sophisticated, international organized crime rings that have identified Canada as a market opportunity for their crimes. Vehicles with similar security systems in other countries aren't facing the same kinds of challenges to the same degree from auto theft.

We're convening monthly meetings with other key industry trade associations, police authorities and auto theft task forces to share intelligence and map out advocacy initiatives on auto theft to determine how we can better knit together law enforcement with automakers to assist in interdicting vehicles immediately after they have been reported stolen.

We have been developing a website, which will soon be launched, focused on providing awareness on auto theft to consumers and auto theft prevention, and informational assistance to those who have had their vehicles stolen.

We've been meeting with Amazon and other online platforms to discuss the reality that tools and devices with apparently no legitimate purpose other than to facilitate auto theft are readily available on their platforms. Other jurisdictions like the U.K. are already moving to ban such devices.

We've also been encouraging all of our members to meet with police teams when vehicles are recovered to better understand how thieves have compromised vehicles to steal them so that this information can be supplied to global engineering teams.

We don’t have all the answers by any means, and auto theft is a very complex problem for which there are no quick fixes or silver bullets. However, we do believe there are some short-, medium- and longer-term initiatives that could be undertaken to address the auto theft problem plaguing our country right now.

We look forward to working with the committee to identify and implement these solutions.

Thank you very much for your time.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I welcome and thank all the witnesses for being here today.

Mark, it's good to see you. Happy agriculture day to all the farmers and members of the agriculture sector in Canada who put food on our table.

I also had the pleasure of visiting Cereals Canada in Winnipeg last summer to talk about the importance of my private member's bill, Bill C-244, to our agriculture sector in Canada. I know that Cereals Canada provides services to cereal producers across Canada, from advocacy to market support. If anyone has a chance to visit it, your lab is very impressive.

I understand that cereals are important in our agricultural exports with an annual export value of over $10 billion. In terms of Ecuador, cereals were ranked the highest-value Canadian export in 2022. When I visited the wheat fields in the Prairies over the summer, some of the farmers shared with me the damage that climate change has caused to them, especially on the harvesting side and on the agriculture and agri-food sector as a whole. While we are advancing and building a more climate-resilient economy, diversification is also very important.

Mark, could you share with the committee the importance of trade diversification to our cereals sector?

[Colin Hornby, Manager, Communications and Stakeholder Relations, Keystone Agricultural Producers]

We're just going to tag off here.

The third recommendation we have is ensuring that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA, is appropriately resourced and improves their internal processes in support of timely, transparent and science-based decisions that will help Canadian producers remain competitive in a global market. The PMRA must ensure that they maintain a science-based approach to all decision-making and not allow external motivations to impact any decisions.

One example we would raise would be the recent re-evaluation of lambda-cyhalothrin for the 2023-24 growing season, which has impacted many farmers and their ability to combat grasshoppers and other pests in the field.

The fourth recommendation we would like to highlight is building on budget 2023's extended interswitching pilot by further expanding the distance beyond 160 kilometres and extending the pilot past the current 18-month period. Expanding access to competitive rail services means that Canadian shippers will have the option to achieve efficiencies, reduce costs and enhance connectivity through market competition.

This improvement is vital for grain farmers and businesses of all sizes, enabling them to deliver their products and services more effectively to Canadian and international customers. The temporary nature of the extended interswitching pilot inhibits long-term planning and investment, which are crucial for the growth and stability of the industry.

Other areas from the CFA briefs you would have received that we would also endorse and highlight would be ensuring that the launch of a sustainable agriculture strategy is inclusive of all agriculture commodities; increasing AgriStability coverage to 85% of the reference margin; implementing measures to support farmers' right to repair their own farm machinery, as we have seen in Bill C-244; increasing the capital gains exemption threshold above $1 million to be more in line with current land values; and making changes to the Income Tax Act regarding the expanded definition of a child for passing on non-controlling shares of ownership to the next generation.

The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), be read the third time and passed.

Copyright Act

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise in the House to conclude this thoughtful debate on my private member's bill.

I want to emphasize again the impact this bill would bring to Canadians, from leading the movement for a right to repair framework in Canada to reducing waste in our landfills to giving the right to repair back to consumers in Canada. By amending the Copyright Act for the sole purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair, not having to worry about potential legal consequences will become a reality for all Canadians.

I am proud to be a member of this chamber, and I was pleased to see all of my hon. colleagues from all parties support my private member's bill to get to this stage. With this joint effort, Canada can join its allies in the right to repair movement and promote the consumerism we are all proud of. After all, this bill would amend the Copyright Act for the creation of a right to repair framework in Canada, and all levels of government, indigenous people, industry, private sectors and consumers across Canada can join the effort in developing this framework.

As a legislator, I have listened to and heard Canadians calling for a right to repair framework in Canada. Bill C-244 would empower us as lawmakers on federal, provincial and territorial levels to make this policy reform for consumers across Canada.

As a consumer, we all like to have a choice to repair the products we purchase and own. This is a fundamental right, and Bill C-244 would ensure that consumers in Canada have this right.

As a Canadian, I lament the waste in our landfills across Canada, and the numbers continue to increase. This waste, especially electronic waste, is harmful to our environment.

We all have a shared responsibility to protect our environment and combat climate change together. Bill C-244 would help reduce planned obsolescence, waste and our carbon footprint to protect our environment. We as Canadians need to do our part to contribute toward Canada's sustainable future, to combat climate change from coast to coast to coast and to protect the interests of our future generations.

Canada is a great democratic nation. It is a nation that is at the forefront of building a future of sustainable consumerism. To end this debate, I would like to invite all my hon. colleagues to continue working together on delivering a real result in the right to repair for Canadians and to continue to make Canada the envy of the world.

I thank members and witnesses from the standing committees and stakeholders for the work and input they have shared along this journey of my private member's bill.

I want to thank the people of Richmond Centre for all of their continued trust and support for the past two years. Without them, I would not have had this opportunity to work on my private member's bill, which would bring such an impact to them and to consumers across Canada.

I would also like to thank our House administration and clerks of the House for all the work and support to every parliamentarian. I am grateful to have the privilege of presenting my private member's bill early on the list.

Last but never least, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my family for walking alongside me every moment of this journey, for their continued sacrifice and for being so understanding when I cannot be there with them on various occasions. I also would like to congratulate my youngest sister, who recently married my now brother-in-law Carlos, on their recent marriage.

I would like to wish everyone here a happy Thanksgiving, and it is with great gratitude that I present this bill to the chamber.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the important bill.

I want to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, the member for Richmond Centre, for the tremendous effort he has put into making the bill come to this place today. He has travelled across the country; he has talked to stakeholders from coast to coast to coast; and he has put in the work that is required, in partnership with many others in this place, so that we can be here today doing something that is in the interest of affordability and in the interest of protecting the rights of Canadians.

It was wonderful to hear the member opposite talk about how this is a social justice issue, because it is. It is important for us to pass legislation that makes life more affordable and allows Canadians to have access to, and to use, the very things they buy. The bill seeks to remove an important barrier to repair, as we have heard, in the copyright framework. It is a necessary response to the digitization of our everyday lives and our everyday products, which rely more and more on functionalities enabled by copyright-protected software.

We all know that software is important. There are benefits that it gives the products we buy. Software allows smart phones and computers to connect people across the globe. It is what transforms coffee machines into great baristas, much to the chagrin of many.

However, the digitization of our products comes with downsides. Manufacturers are using TPMs, technical protection measures, to protect the software that is incorporated within products. They reduce the ability we would ordinarily have to repair these items. They reduce our ability to modify them. Only when they malfunction must we go to the manufacturers and seek their help to repair them and to make sure the products can work.

The Copyright Act currently prohibits the circumvention of these TPMs that protect copyright-protected content. It is being used as a barrier to Canadians who want to repair the products they own. Protections for TPMs were originally promoted as tools to encourage the creative industries to offer their works, whether they were songs, books or movies, in digital form, but they were never intended to prevent the repair of physical products that include embedded software.

The bill proposes to remove that barrier by ensuring there is an exception permitting the circumvention of TPMs for the purpose of repair and maintenance so that the copyright framework does not prevent Canadians from repairing the products they have paid for.

Over past years, much effort has been made to remove this barrier in the copyright framework. Bill C-244 was introduced in February 2022 by my colleague from Richmond Centre. It received unanimous support at second reading, and at this time the committee has completed its study. I want to acknowledge the members of that committee, who have done tremendous work and all those who have appeared as witnesses to help improve the important bill.

The study of the bill was exhaustive and thorough. The committee heard from 29 witnesses, including representatives from different industries, public interest groups and government officials. Ultimately, the committee reported the bill with amendments that I believe will help make it better achieve its objective while aligning it with Canada's international obligations.

The amendments would do three things. First, they would make the repair exception permitting the circumvention of TPMs more effective by making it clear that they would apply to third parties making repairs on behalf of product owners. The technical capacity required to circumvent the TPM and repair products is likely beyond the knowledge of average consumers, at least speaking for myself.

Second, in order to prevent any abuse and protect creative industries, the amendments would add a new safeguard that provides that the repair exception applies only if there is no infringement of copyright.

Third, the amendments would remove the exception in Bill C-244 allowing the trade of tools to circumvent a TPM for the purposes of repair in order to mitigate risks of non-compliance with Canada's international obligations. CUSMA, which includes Canada's strictest TPM obligations, only allows the trade of circumvention tools in very limited situations, and repair is not one of them.

Now that I have touched a bit on what these amendments are doing, I also want to highlight what they are not doing. Some witnesses raised concerns over health and safety, cybersecurity and environmental risks that may result in the circumvention of TPMs and the repair of products. They asked for the exclusion of certain categories of products from the application of Bill C-244. The committee, in its work, did not report any amendments excluding certain product categories from the application of Bill C-244 or providing the means to do so, and I believe the committee took the right approach.

I agree with the witnesses that these concerns are real and justified, but the Copyright Act is not designed to deal with these risks. The Copyright Act is a law of general application, the purpose of which is to grant exclusive rights over creative works. It is preferable that these concerns be addressed in those regimes that already regulate those products. Bill C-244 would not prevent these regimes regulating repairs and addressing issues that may arise in the repair of certain products. It is, however, worth noting that Bill C-244 would remove one critical barrier to repair, but it is only one element of how Canadians can enjoy a positive right to repair. Other elements of a comprehensive right to repair could include a number of dimensions, including ensuring access to repair parts and manuals.

This important measure supports the Government of Canada's commitment to providing Canadians with the right to repair. Our efforts to move forward with this bill would ensure that Canadians will face fewer obstacles when repairing the products they own.

I was pleased to second this bill. It is an important piece of legislation for us to all get behind. Let us think about the many costs that Canadians incur during the course of their lives every single day. We talk about affordability in this place all the time, and this is a tangible way to increase the longevity of products. It would make it easier for Canadians to use the products they have paid for with their hard-earned money.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in this chamber on the right to repair. I thank the member for introducing Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act, diagnosis, maintenance and repair, also known as the right to repair act. I congratulate the member for Richmond Centre for bringing it forward.

One of the things that is interesting about this is that an evolution is taking place. I originally had legislation in this chamber that passed. It was related to the right to repair, specific to the auto industry, because that was the first time we tackled this.

A common theme within Canada is that we are often treated as a colony when it comes to consumer rights. What I mean by that is the European Union and the United States often enjoy better auto recall, consumer rights, returns and other policies than we do here because we are lax, and our Competition Bureau needs reformation. We see some bills coming forth in this chamber, including from my leader, who also has a bill reforming the Competition Act, Bill C-56, and others that would improve things. Until that time, we still need to work on issues like this.

The right to repair became interesting for me because of the auto town I am in. Even representing auto companies, we still found that we were not getting treated fairly at that time. In Windsor, Ontario, we are across from Detroit, Michigan, and that is only a 2.5-kilometre distance across the border.

In Windsor, I could not get my minivan fixed aftermarket at the time, but I could drive it over the border and get it fixed in the aftermarket in Detroit, Michigan. That is because its environmental protection act and other right to repair legislation protected them much better than our Canadian system protected us.

I went across the country, back and forth a few times, and worked with a number of people. A good example is Scott Smith, who is now with the Chamber of Commerce, and others in the AIA. I worked with them for a legislative change for the automotive aftermarket. We knew that it was deficient in the overall issue, but just touching on that first point was really important because a lot of Canadians did not realize they were getting ripped off and getting treated as secondary citizens. It was unacceptable.

I remember having meetings with the auto companies. One of the executives was testing the waters about this issue, and it was really important. It was in the chamber of the other House before it closed down for renovations. I remember the CEO, after I told him what was going on, asked if it was happening in the United States. They said no, and he told his team to fix it. From that time, we got better players in the automotive aftermarket from some of the large automotive dealers.

Tony Clement was the minister at that time. The bill was going to go to the Senate. We had enough votes. It was a real fight, as is usual in this place, but that is okay. Then there was a decision made by all those involved that they would rather try a voluntary system, which we now have today and was put in place to provide the information for the aftermarket.

Why is that important? The aftermarket provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and is worth billions of dollars. It is also an issue of public safety because vehicles were being driven on the road for longer than they should not have been. Vehicles were emitting things, so it was an environmental issue because they were not tuned the way that they should have been. It was a competition issue because we had people who could not get the service they needed from the garages they wanted to use.

It was also a fairness issue because there were people working in those establishments who were trained. In those places, often some of the more marginalized workers in the industry were going to lose their jobs, not because they were not qualified or did not do all the things that were necessary, but because the industry and greed spoke louder than the people did at that time.

To credit most of those in the industry, they got their act together and created the voluntary agreement. There have been ups and downs all along the way. Even Tesla finally came onto that agreement, I am told. However, until that time, it was voluntary, so we had ebbs and flows all the time about what was taking place. That is why we are seeing legislation come back.

It is not just New Democrats this time. We see Liberals and Conservatives with aftermarket legislation, and that is because it has become habitual. I know the Bloc has also talked about this quite extensively. My colleague who spoke before me has been very effective at committee on this.

We have all grappled with this. We have seen the really stupid stuff with regard to how many plug-in cords we have to have with access to different devices for no technological reason whatsoever, and it is junk that is piling up in our landfills. Aside from the environmental part, there is a cost, and it has nothing to do with innovation whatsoever. It is about dependancy, and those are some of the things taking place.

The aftermarket to fix the different problems we are talking about here is not about taking shortcuts. There is information that needs to be provided to those people, and it would be done with terms and conditions that would be legislated and followed through on.

When my bill went through, we were not asking for shortcuts or interventions; we were asking for the proper training to be made available. What was happening was unbelievable. When there was an update on software, which could literally be a simple and minor thing, it would cripple a vehicle, and it could not be fixed in the aftermarket. Sometimes, after the physical repairs, the vehicle was being towed to another garage just to get a download of a program. It makes no sense.

It does not make sense for the environment, public safety or competition, and it hurts some of the men and women who work in those shops. Again, they are not asking for this information for free. They want a system in place so they can buy the equipment, get the necessary downloads, pay for them and service their customers in a reasonable way.

There are many different ways the voluntary agreement has basically fallen on the edge of a precipice of being ineffective. There can be intentional issues, where some companies do not want to provide information in a reasonable time, or they play games if they want. It might not even be that. It could just be that it is not their priority, because they want to do something else.

This is dangerous. If we look at the auto sector, particularly in rural and other areas, we could not service all our vehicles with dealerships. We would cripple our economy. If we lose the aftermarket for the auto sector, then we are going to lose our capabilities to be effectively moving in transportation, which is changing with the electrification of vehicles.

The problem with my bill is that it did not involve heavy equipment, farm equipment or other things like that. We knew it was a problem in the bill, but we had to at least touch on this and bring an awareness that had not been there. It is why I went across the country on this, because people were just accepting it.

We always hear fake arguments that it is about safety, that people are going to wreck their stuff and other people's stuff. We hear all these different things. Imagine if we had the same attitude when we let the screwdriver go to the public sector and people were able to use a screwdriver at home. What if we could never use a wrench or a hammer at home because it was too dangerous? It is outrageous.

We have been fixing vehicles, electronic equipment and a number of different things, as we have moved from manual to electric and to all the different technologies with computers and so forth. It has been the normal process for consumers with the devices they own, but what is happening and changing is the building in of obstacles.

There is an obstacle when a device is created where one needs a special tool for it. An obstacle is when one puts a type of system in place where one cannot fix a device because there is a technological impediment, such as to performing a simple update on the software.

Bill C-244 is married, in many respects, to my bill, Bill C-231, an act to amend the Competition Act for vehicle repair. There are some problems with the bill, such as that it does not go far enough in terms of the tribunal, as well as a few other elements. However, it sets us in the right direction. I would like to see it amended. I hope the Senate takes a look at more of the possibilities.

We are just simply not keeping up with the rest of the world when it comes to aftermarket connections. There is mounting pressure. We have just seen with Apple that it is finally to make a more standardized version of its cord, which it did not even have in its own products. This is outrageous. Now it is going to move to that. Why is it doing so? It is because the European Union is moving toward forcing these things.

These are the reasons I will be supporting this bill. New Democrats have been supporting the right to repair. As much as it is a consumer issue and an environmental issue, it is also a social justice issue, because many people have spent their time and money to be educated to have careers in the aftermarket in order to provide resources for their families. That opportunity is being denied, not by choice or by their deficiency of skills, but by the greed of large corporations that want to protect it for pure profit at the expense of everyone else. That balance has to be restored, and that is why this is a good bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that is vital to residents of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Quebec, and that is Bill C‑244, which was introduced by the hon. member for Richmond Centre.

Bill C‑244 amends the Copyright Act in order to allow a person to circumvent a technological protection measure, or TPM, if the circumvention is solely for the purpose of diagnosing, maintaining or repairing a product.

This bill was examined at almost the same time as Bill C‑294 on interoperability. What is interesting is that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology was able to look at the issue from different angles and improve the bill's content to allow for the right to repair, to fight waste and to better protect the jobs of repair people, mechanics and technicians in the regions.

Over the past few years, it has become a lot more complicated to repair objects. Our vehicles are turning into motorized computers, and access to programming codes is needed to diagnose problems with them. Unfortunately, more and more manufacturers are refusing to share those codes or are charging independent mechanics exorbitant fees to get them, supposedly for security reasons. This situation is jeopardizing these small businesses and threatening their survival.

How are we to manage when our brand new smart phones get a cracked screen or some other defect? What do we do when our high-end, front-loading washing machine suddenly stops working? What about our three-year-old farm machinery in need of repair?

Let us consider Apple's policy on repairing its products, for example. All Apple products must be repaired at Apple stores, if the parts are available.

By patenting the majority of these parts, Apple holds on to its monopoly, while the electronic locks created by its operating software, protected under the Copyright Act, make counterfeiting liable to prosecution. For a resident of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the situation is even more troublesome considering that the region has no Apple store. To get the service they are entitled to as consumers, these residents have to ship their product by mail or travel more than 600 kilometres to a large urban centre. Incidentally, the situation is practically the same for passports. That needs to change.

Manufacturers are increasingly choosing the answer for us: toss it out and buy a new one. Tight grips on replacement parts, restrictive design, the use of digital locks and other legal protections have all contributed to the difficulty in repairing and maintaining the increasingly high-tech things that surround us.

Bill C-244 presents a solution to the calls from many individuals who support the right to repair in Quebec. Their message is consistent: The government must make legislative changes that will give us both the right and the ability to repair the objects we own without violating intellectual property laws and other laws.

Although the purpose of the Copyright Act is to protect creators and intellectual property, the way companies have been using it to impede repairs over the last few decades is harmful to society as a whole. It impedes the second-hand market and harms small businesses specializing in repairs.

By supporting this bill, the Bloc Québécois is also supporting Quebec's small businesses that are committed to becoming repair centres, mechanics, computer specialists and artisans who have acquired the skills to repair our everyday products. This industry plays a key role in our energy transition and supports jobs throughout Quebec. Even though repair people are becoming increasingly rare in our communities, this bill lends direct support to their work. It will provide a living for many Quebeckers.

It is not just consumer electronics that are under the microscope. The bill also targets industrial equipment, agricultural equipment, medical devices, electric cars and many other machines that are becoming notoriously difficult for independent technicians to repair and maintain. This increases businesses' operational costs, curtails market competition and discourages follow-on innovation.

The costs of our increasing inability to repair things go beyond pocketbook issues. It is imperative that we consider the environmental impact as well. My colleague from Repentigny will be happy to hear me mention this. The manufacture of new devices generates considerable electronic waste and consumes precious resources. It is therefore crucial to give consumers the right to repair their products. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a new law in Quebec that is along the same lines as this one. It reminds manufacturers that they have a role to play in this equation.

Quebec has passed a new law on planned obsolescence. We applaud the leadership of the Quebec National Assembly, which recently passed this legislation to ensure that these products operate properly and to prevent the sale of seriously defective vehicles, what we call lemons.

Let me get back to the shameful waste of raw materials. Extraction of raw materials, use of rare earth metals, lead soldering, shipping and packaging are just a few examples of the ecological toll imposed by the short lifespan of many modern devices and equipment. Electronics waste is now globally among the fastest-growing types of waste, increasing at a rate of 3% to 4% each year. As the global microchip shortage reveals, ostensibly every industry is now the electronics industry. The failure of one electronic part often renders things inoperative, making them all the more likely to end up in a landfill prematurely.

I strongly recommended to my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that we study the metals, plastics and electronics recycling ecosystems from a circular economy perspective, because the critical minerals in these electronics are important. We must stop them from ending up in landfills. This study will resume once our consideration of Bill C-27 is complete.

We need to address this shameful waste of resources to reduce our tonne of garbage. Quebeckers have had enough. I urge all parliamentarians to support this bill. By voting in favour of this bill, we are demonstrating our commitment to our local businesses, we are contributing to the fight against waste and we are meeting a fundamental need to repair for all our constituents. By supporting this bill, we are sending a strong, united message about our determination to promote a more sustainable and accessible future for all. This is an opportunity for us, as legislators, to make a positive difference in the lives of our constituents and to work in favour of an economy that is more environmentally friendly.

Let us make sure that the right to repair becomes a reality for everyone.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak at third reading of this important legislation, Bill C-244, otherwise known as the right to repair bill, which was introduced by the member for Richmond Centre.

Conservatives support this legislation and are happy to see its return at third reading. It is not common in the House to find legislation that all parties can come together on and, for the most part, we agree on the principles of the bill, so I send my congratulations to the member.

Bill C-244 seeks to amend the Copyright Act to allow individuals and businesses to repair a technology with copyright material without infringing on the rights set out in the Copyright Act. When someone has a copyright for a work they created, the Copyright Act enables that creator to be the sole entity to reap the financial rewards from that creation for a set period of time. This is a good thing. Exclusive financial rewards of invention and creation is what drives progress in our society.

These days, everything includes software: cars, fridges, phones, and any manufactured equipment. All software, therefore, in those devices and things that we utilize day to day have copyright protection. Manufactured goods now have proprietary designs and structures, along with specialized tools to repair these goods. They are designed that way. Why is that? It is because repair and maintenance of manufactured goods is as profitable or more profitable than the sale of the good itself.

Copyright is being used now, in my view, as an anti-competitive tool to keep the customer tied to the manufacturer and unable to use less expensive providers of repair and maintenance. This is causing great frustration for the consumer. Only the car dealer, not one's local garage, can repair one's car. Only the manufacturer can repair farm equipment because the specialized tools and codes are only available from an authorized dealer.

The Copyright Act would be amended by this bill to provide for instances when the rights of copyright can be infringed upon, or what is known as circumvention. In other words, this bill would allow individuals or small businesses to repair technologies themselves without fear of repercussions.

Many of my Conservative colleagues from the Prairies have previously spoken about how this legislation would impact our agricultural sector in particular. Today, I would like my comments to also focus on this critical industry, which provides the food we eat.

For those who are unfamiliar, farmers are often required to pay enormous costs upfront to buy and maintain the equipment they use in operating a farm. These costs are often in the millions and include purchasing the land, the appropriate seed and fertilizer, and the equipment necessary to harvest and plant a crop. Often, large tractors, such as those from John Deere, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, as do the attachment pieces that go with them. These tractors contain complex electrical systems that require specific tools to access them, which are protected by Canada's robust copyright laws.

As is the case in every industry, the equipment farmers use often breaks down and requires either repair or a complete replacement, given enough time. This breakdown usually happens at the worst time, when speed of repair is essential. At one time, this was never a big issue.

Farmers have historically been makeshift mechanics. They have been able and expected to demonstrate that, if some engine or computer system was not working, they could find a way to fix it, jury-rig it, to get the repair done immediately so they could continue with their essential work. That was especially important, given how the harvesting season typically last only a few weeks and time lost waiting for an authorized repairman to fix an engine could cost a business their annual livelihood.

As technology has progressed and farming has become more computerized over the past two decades, including some equipment now that is self-driving in harvesting and planting, the ability to repair equipment has increasingly become more and more difficult for our farmers. Today, farmers rely heavily on technology to assist them in their harvest. These technologies can sometimes cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and have these complex systems.

For farmers, this means that if a copyrighted computer system or engine for a large tractor breaks down, they cannot simply call a local repairman or fix it themselves. Instead, they are required to call a technician from the manufacturing company or an authorized dealer to come out and fix that specific piece of equipment. This method is very taxing on owners.

Company technicians can sometimes take anywhere from hours to days, even a week or two, to arrive to conduct the necessary repair. When they finally arrive, owners are sometimes presented with an unusually high repair bill. The delay has caused lots of crop harvesting time to be lost, where every day lost is a potential loss in farm income.

My Conservative colleague from Provencher in Manitoba spoke in second reading on this bill with great knowledge and depth about the high level of investment required to keep some of this equipment and the cost associated with replacing a combine for a farmer. He talked about the millions that this costs.

This way of going about these repairs, in my view, is anti-competitive; it is harmful to farmers, small businesses and consumers. Property owners ought to be allowed to repair the piece of equipment they have purchased in the most economical way possible. They should be able to have a variety of resources at their disposal when fixing equipment, not just the pre-approved, monopolistic authorized agent from the manufacturer.

The Copyright Act has become a government-legislated gatekeeper harming consumer choice. It was not intended to be this way.

As I mentioned previously, being able to reap the financial rewards of one's own invention and creation is essential, but when copyright moves into the territory of using these rights as a way to prevent competition and control the whole repair and maintenance ecosystem, then it becomes anti-competitive and monopolistic. It then needs to be fixed, repaired and modernized to reflect the modern state of equipment that we all buy.

Even one’s stove and fridge now have these monopolistic design features in both their software and their hardware. Trying to get repairs done with a computerized fridge is next to impossible. We are soon going to see the world of artificial intelligence placed into these goods that we buy, which will make these things more complex.

This bill seems to have unanimous support from the House for this reason. The legislation seeks to address this issue by ensuring that not all repairs remain proprietary, allowing a diversity of responses when individuals are seeking to repair their equipment. In other words, it would allow competition.

Conservatives look forward to seeing this legislation move forward to the other place. We understand that there would be positive impacts for our rural communities. These issues also apply in my most important industry, the fishery.

I want to thank my colleague for reintroducing this bill. Our party looks forward to seeing how this legislation moves through and is improved in the other place.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

moved that Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in this House today to speak on my private member’s bill, Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act by allowing circumvention solely for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair of a product with technological protection measures, TPMs.

In the world we live in today, our society is surrounded by an Internet of things, where most products are becoming more advanced through innovations and most products we purchase have some type of computer program built into them. Current technologies have made convenient impacts to our daily lives. However, they have also indirectly made the repair process difficult. Certain products that are protected by TPMs, often known as digital locks, might be difficult to circumvent and legally repair.

That is the reason it is important to enact this legislation. Bill C-244 is a crucial step toward the implementation of a right-to-repair framework on federal, provincial and territorial levels. This bill would contribute to our effort toward a more sustainable future by reducing planned obsolescence and reducing waste to be buried. Most importantly, this bill would put the right to repair back in the hands of consumers in Canada, allowing consumers to choose the best options for them without worrying about any legal consequences.

By amending the Copyright Act, Bill C-244 would pave the way for all levels of government to develop legislation on a right-to-repair framework. We have seen examples in Ontario and Quebec, where proposed policies on developing a right-to-repair framework did not succeed partly because of the Copyright Act. That is why Bill C-244 is critical to a right-to-repair policy reform in Canada, as this bill would carve out an exception for the purpose of diagnosing, maintaining and repairing products with an embedded computer program, without imposing significant penalties for unlawful circumvention.

Most products being offered and purchased today are made with planned obsolescence, limiting the lifespan of a product, and sometimes the cost to repair the broken product can cost more than purchasing a new replacement, which sometimes is better or with more upgrades. Also, the time it takes to repair, or simply wait for parts, can discourage consumers from choosing to repair over buying something new. As a result, more waste is in our landfills and more emissions and carbon footprint are generated from the process of manufacturing, transporting, disposing and much more.

With the implementation of Bill C-244, repairing a broken product would no longer be restricted with the amended Copyright Act. The circumvention of the TPMs would be legally allowed only for the sole purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair. It would grant consumers the right to repair and more control over their own purchases, allowing a product to extend its lifespan, reducing and conserving resources by promoting a more sustainable approach to manufacturing and consumption. During this challenging time in an affordability crisis, Bill C-244 can actually help consumers save money.

By reducing their dependence on costly authorized repair services and through the right to repair, broken or malfunctioning products are more likely to be repaired instead of being discarded, reducing the amount of waste that ends up in landfills and building a more environmentally sustainable society. Not only that, the right-to-repair movement can also foster a healthy competition among repair service providers, leading to more competitive and affordable repair options. This would not only support the growth in local small businesses, but promote job creation within the repair industry, growing our local economies.

These are reasons that Bill C-244 is important legislation toward the right to repair. This bill would help lead Canada into a more sustainable future and become a strong champion for consumer rights. This bill is good legislation that is meant for all consumers across Canada.

If Bill C-244 becomes law, it will allow federal, provincial and territorial governments to implement further legislation on developing a right-to-repair framework across Canada. It will empower all of us as lawmakers to further our joint effort in developing good policies that lead to sustainable consumerism.

Please allow me to extend my invitation to all consumers across Canada to join this collective effort to build a more sustainable and climate-resilient future, especially for our future generations. Every Canadian can contribute by choosing repair over a new purchase and sustainability over landfills, by protecting our environment and by supporting communities impacted by climate change from coast to coast to coast.

The Copyright Act, as it stands today, restricts the circumvention of TPMs that protect copyrighted content, making any circumventions illegal. Copyright exists to protect intellectual property and the original work of its creator, not to prevent repairs to copyrighted products, because nothing is being copied or distributed.

TPMs were originally created to encourage artists and creators to share their work in digital form without worrying that their work was being copied. As we advance into this modern world with the Internet of things, many products are embedded with a chip or some type of computer program. Manufacturers will use TPMs to protect the software incorporated within products, preventing modification of the original work. What I have been hearing is that some manufacturers use TPMs to control and limit the use of a product.

TPMs can also restrict access to the basic information needed for diagnosis, maintenance or repair, or can prevent repairs from happening at all. This restriction limits consumers' right to repair, and in many cases, only manufacturers or authorized repair services have the tools and parts to bypass these restrictions.

The intention of the Copyright Act was not to prevent Canadians from repairing products with embedded software. Copyright-protected content, in certain ways, is being used as a barrier to Canadians who want to repair their products. Bill C-244 would remove that barrier by creating a new exemption permitting the circumvention of TPMs for the sole purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair so that the Copyright Act does not prevent Canadians from repairing the products they own or use. The impacts of this bill would be tremendous.

Some witnesses at the standing committee raised concerns over health and safety, cybersecurity and environmental risks that may result from the circumvention of TPMs and the repair of products. They asked for the exclusion of certain categories of products from the application of Bill C-244. I sincerely appreciate that these industry representatives voiced their concern during the study of this bill for our legislative process.

The Copyright Act is a law of general application, the purpose of which is to grant exclusive rights over creative works. It is more desirable that these concerns be addressed in regimes that already regulate those categories of products. Bill C-244 would not prevent these regimes from regulating repairs or addressing issues that may arise in the repair of certain products.

As an example, I was honoured to have the opportunity to meet with some representatives from one of the world's leading medical technology industries. They shared with me that this amendment to the Copyright Act might create a grey area that would legally allow someone to fix medical equipment without oversight. However, Bill C-244 would not override any regulation, such as by Health Canada in this case on medical equipment. Only licensed technicians with relevant training and experience could repair broken or malfunctioning medical equipment, while meeting the standards set out by Health Canada.

How I see this bill impact this industry, and many other industries, is by enacting future right to repair legislation on allowing certified technicians in hospitals and other industries to have access to repair manuals and parts available, which will make a difference as serious as between life and death.

I also had the pleasure of hearing from representatives from the automotive industry. They shared with me that this bill will encourage fair play, create competition and make repair more accessible for Canadians. With Bill C-244, Canadians would be able to drive up to a local repair shop and not be restricted to a dealer's authorized repair shop to have their vehicle serviced and repaired. What we need is to provide the tools for technicians at repair shops to access the data of vehicles that TPMs limit. With this access, technicians can provide quality services for diagnosis, maintenance and repair to vehicle owners.

Over this summer, I travelled to our Prairie provinces. For the first time, I was able to see, in person, the huge combines and tractors that can harvest thousands of acres. It was truly remarkable and just amazing. I had the pleasure of speaking with farmers who shared with me that many farmlands are generationally owned through family legacy. It is this time of the year, the harvesting crop year, that our Prairie farmers are busy at work. They are the hard-working Canadians who help put food on our table and bring the agriculture and agri-food sector of Canada to the international stage. Yet, the harvesting season can vary significantly from year to year, depending on changes in weather pattern. With climate change, we have seen the devastating impacts of droughts, flooding, wildfires and other extreme weather events across Canada. These unexpected conditions can cause severe damage to the yield each year.

For farmers in a more remote area, if their equipment breaks down during the midst of harvesting, travelling to a nearby town can take hours, and that is not even saying how long it would take to go to the nearest authorized dealer for service and repair. During the busy harvesting season, parts for repair can be in demand and not readily available. Let us give our farmers the option to a more accessible right to repair.

I stand in this chamber to wish our farmers across Canada a great harvesting season this year and every year ahead.

I would like to ask every Canadian: Would it not be better if consumers could have the right to repair on products they purchase and own?

With that, I want to thank the House administration for the thorough work and support to all parliamentarians on the work we do in this chamber. I give special thanks to the Library of Parliament and the Clerk of the House.

I would also like to thank the hon. member for Cambridge for all his hard work tabling this bill in the last Parliament and for seconding Bill C-244 during its second reading. As well, I thank the honourable member for Vancouver Granville for seconding my private member's bill at this third reading stage. I also want to take this opportunity to wish him an early happy birthday.

I thank all the witnesses for presenting their views and providing their input and comments on this bill. I also want to thank every hon. member of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for their thoughtful input and study on this bill.

To the stakeholders across Canada who took the time to share their input with me, I thank them for their continued support and championship for the right to repair.

Most importantly, I want to thank all my constituents and the people of Richmond Centre. Without their trust and support, I would not have the privilege to table this important bill.

It is with great gratitude and appreciation to colleagues from all parties and the House that I was able to rise today to speak on my private member’s bill.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in Bill C-244 at report stage.

The House resumed from May 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, be concurred in.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague said that nothing is working here in Canada. The Bloc Québécois also finds that most of the time the government is just treading water, when there is a lot more that could be done for Canadians.

For example, the government launched two consultations focusing on agriculture. With regard to the first consultation, Bill C-294 and Bill C-244 were just examined in committee, so why is this consultation necessary?

With regard to the second consultation, the government wants to consult the provincial and territorial governments to help farmers with urgent financial needs. Why hold another consultation when the government just negotiated the agricultural policy framework?

Does my colleague have a word to describe that? It is as though we are taking one step forward and two steps back.

I will let my colleague come up with a word to describe the government's approach on this.

Industry and Technology

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in relation to Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendment.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in relation to Bill C-288, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendment.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in relation to Bill C-294, an act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House also with amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 63 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday October 5, 2022, we are studying Bill C‑244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair)..

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of Thursday, June 23, 2022.

We will now continue with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑244.

We will resume debate on amendment G-1 of clause 2 in Bill C-244.

I will recognize MP Fillmore.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks.

We're going to have a further conversation, I think, at this committee around ensuring compliance with CUSMA. Obviously, it applies to Bill C-244 as well. It's been a more challenging conversation for this bill as well.

To Mr. Rosborough's point, as I understand it, you mentioned article 20.66(4)(h). However, article 20.66(4)(a) says:

non-infringing reverse engineering activities with regard to a lawfully obtained copy of a computer program,

Okay. Check.

carried out in good faith with respect to particular elements of that computer program that have not been readily available to the person engaged in those activities, for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs

One would think.... The fact is that interoperability is clearly marked out here as an exception. You then have the basket clause in paragraph (h) that you pointed to.

I guess the question is not for you, Mr. Rosborough, but for Ms. Lovrics or your colleague.

Given articles 20.66(4)(a) and 20.66(4)(h), so that I'm better prepared to ask the question when we have a trade expert in front of us, how should I understand a CUSMA objection in the course of Bill C-294?

[John Lawford]

You're right. I don't think planned obsolescence would fit well into this bill, but I do think the obligations that are in the French law to tell people what is replaceable and how long it will be available on the market would be helpful here.

As long as you're not in a monopoly situation like John Deere, where only these guys, or maybe one or two other manufacturers, build what attaches to that equipment, in more consumer product areas, such as the smart home, you might have a choice of three, four or five smart home providers. At the moment, we don't know what they're going to support or how to replace the pieces if they break in these systems. Consumers can't be sure that they won't pick a system that is quickly outdated and doesn't work. Then they have to replace the whole system.

Having a little bit of information at the front end about replacement parts and being allowed to do that would seem to be complementary to what this bill is trying to do, and to some extent Bill C-244.

[Dr. Alissa Centivany]

Maybe I'll go first. Anthony is being polite.

Yes, with regard to supply chain shortages, there are two aspects to that. One is to have the capacity to manufacture at home, so certainly to the extent that this bill would enable secondary markets to emerge for add-on products and add-on innovation, I think this bill is critical to guard against the risks of supply chain disruption, similar to the ways in which Bill C-244 mitigated some of those problems by providing a means by which we could extend the useful life of the things that we already have.

[John Lawford]

The difficulty you have is that all of the bills are trying to slice this in a slightly different way, but they're complementary, I think.

In relation to the one that we're presently speaking about, from a consumer point of view I think it's going to look ridiculous if our average consumer can't go into an independent repair shop to fix their car and instead be told that no, you have to go to Chrysler to do that. That's nonsense and that has to be fixed.

To hear that homegrown editions, such as a manufacturer like Honey Bee, can't operate in Canada and are disadvantaged vis-à-vis the United States because John Deere operates there is also nonsense. That has to be fixed.

The other bill, Bill C-244, which I believe we testified on as well, is taking a bigger scope to try to aim at a general right to repair. I agree that it would be much better done inside a review of the Copyright Act in a holistic manner so that concerns from specialty IP lawyers and trade people could be addressed, but you're trying to do it through Parliament.

I think the bottom line, though, is that you're trying to say that the consumer and small business dissatisfaction with the copyright balance that was struck is strong. The only thing I would add to the mix, which I was trying to say today, is there's a whole consumer protection aspect here that's not being brought into the conversation. It's done in other countries through things like consumer protection codes at a federal level, and we just don't have that in Canada. The best place I can think to put it is in the Competition Act. I don't want to use all of your time, Mr. Masse, but I hope that answers in part your question.

[Dr. Alissa Centivany]

Yes, thank you. It's a very quick point.

I think we can all recognize, both in this discussion and in the discussion on Bill C-244, that there is broad support across Canada, across industries and across partisan affiliations for these kinds of bills. While changes to the copyright law's TPM provisions are not going solve interoperability or right to repair on their own, and there will be other legal considerations at the provincial level that need to be taken into account, I see this as an opportunity for provinces to perhaps distinguish themselves in a way that is pro-innovation, pro-competition, pro-consumer. If we consider the United States, we know that California has more progressive laws and promotes positive shifts, while other states in the country may be more conservative.

I actually see this as being a really promising possibility.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the panellists and witnesses for their interventions. We're having a fascinating conversation.

The conversation about compliance with CUSMA is at the top of my mind, as well, but I understand my colleague already talked about that. Perhaps we'll have further discussion with another set of witnesses later on.

I want to ask you a question about the industry or class of product we should consider exempting. We heard, in previous testimonies, whether they were on Bill C-244 or this particular bill, industry coming forward and saying, “We need to be exempted from these bills.”

I will start with that. It's an open question for anyone who wants to comment on it.

Go ahead, Mr. Rosborough.

[Dr. Alissa Centivany]

Thank you for the question.

I completely disagree. Let me give you a simple example from my own life.

I have three computers at home. I have an Apple computer, a PC and a machine that runs Linux. None of these computers talk to each other. They don't talk to each other because they can't. From a technical perspective, they were designed not to be able to talk to each other. It's the same thing with all the peripherals, connectors and things. Even the software programs don't want to connect to each other. The claim that interoperability is not a problem flies in the face of our common sense, daily experiences with technology.

I could also very quickly respond to the safety and security issues that were raised.

During my testimony on Bill C-244, opponents raised safety and security issues as well. My response with regard to interoperability is roughly the same: To the extent that safety and security are legitimate concerns, copyright law is not the right law to look to for protecting those interests. There are other laws that do that.

In addition, positioning consumers and the third party technicians, providers or follow-on innovators as threats is, I think, blatantly anti-consumer and anti-competition.

Finally, to the extent that safety and security are real issues caused by hacking or malfeasance of some kind, hackers already have sophisticated tools at their disposal to engage in those things. This bill isn't going to change that.

Perhaps I'll stop there. Thank you.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you.

My next question is open for all witnesses.

During the study on Bill C-244, there were opposing views on the bill. OEMs were quite opposed to the right to repair frameworks for a number of reasons, including safety concerns and IP theft.

Are these issues of concern for Bill C-294 as well? What are your thoughts on this?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for making time for this committee.

Ms. Centivany and Mr. Rosborough, thank you again for being here. We really appreciated your testimony on Bill C-244 a few weeks ago. As we understand it, Bill C-294 raises similar concerns around Canada's obligation under CUSMA. Would you agree with this? Are there suggested amendments that you would make or that you want the committee to consider?

[John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre]

Thank you.

Chair and honourable members, my name is John Lawford. I'm the executive director and general counsel at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

PIAC is a national non-profit organization and a registered charity. We provide legal and research services on behalf of consumer interests, in particular vulnerable consumer interests concerning the provision of important public services. We've been active in the field of digital consumer protection and policy for over 20 years.

PIAC supports Bill C-294's goal of the creation of an exception to technical protection measures under the Copyright Act to allow consumers or businesses to circumvent TPMs for the purpose of attaching a further product to enhance the utility of the original consumer or business product in which the TPM is embedded.

The expression of the circumvention right in Bill C-294 covers all software-enabled products, but only to the extent that the TPM circumvention is required to make another product interoperate with the restricted product. It is aiming, therefore, at attachments or aftermarket products.

This aspect of the bill is its strength, as it limits its ambit and perhaps will not tread on the perceived rights of the initial owner's copyright or market. In other words, the primary or parent product must still be purchased by the consumer, and then the attachment or aftermarket product is permitted to read the information from the parent product to be made functional.

What this bill does not do, unlike Bill C-244, is give consumers a right to repair that furthers a number of public interest aim. These include consumer freedom and right to use their legally owned items more flexibly, the extension of useful life of products, the avoidance of consumer costs and environmental harm from needless disposal of otherwise workable products and the toxic and expensive precious minerals that are in them, and an increased control of the timing and expression of consumer demand that can lead to increased competition, consumer choice, lower prices, improved customer service, greater innovation and support of small local repair businesses.

What is not in this bill is a consumer right to be informed of the possibility and availability of replacement parts. This is required in France under their Code de la consommation, under article L111-1, which requires vendors to publicly list a product or service's functionality, compatibility and interoperability with computer programs.

Parliament would also do well to consider, as in article L111-4 of the same French law, stipulating a list of consumer electronic products that must have replacement parts available to any repairer for a period of at least five years after the sale of the last unit of the specified consumer goods.

Finally, subject to provincial jurisdiction, Parliament should consider an offence, perhaps under the Competition Act, of planned obsolescence, which is an offence under the same French law at article L441-2.

PIAC believes that consumers should have access to a wider range of interoperable products. The government's recent copyright consultation stated that interoperability “fosters competition, promotes overall business competitiveness and supports incremental innovation. Interoperability also gives consumers more ability to make the most use of the products they buy.” We agree.

In order to achieve improved access to compatible goods, competing companies must be able to examine each other's software for the purpose of developing interoperable products. Currently, manufacturers use TPMs to deny competitors access to the information, preferring instead to make goods that can only be used in conjunction with other products that they manufacture in a closed loop that encourages anti-competitive lock-in.

PIAC supports adding a definition of “interoperability” in section 41.12 of the Copyright Act. In his paper, Anthony Rosborough argues for adding such a definition to the act, as allowing the term to be used in section 41.12 but leaving it undefined simply empowers original equipment manufacturers to narrowly define interoperability and to leverage the legal uncertainty with third parties to their advantage.

The definition of “interoperability” could parallel that in 17 U.S.C., section 1201(f)(4), which is “the term 'interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.” It should also be extended to include replacement physical parts, interfaces and other compatibilities as well.

In conclusion, we support Bill C-294 as far as it goes, but we want additional consumer protection in the area of consumer product use versus copyright overreach in the digital economy.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[Jamie Pegg, General Manager, Honey Bee Manufacturing Ltd.]

Mr. Chair and committee members, my name is Jamie Pegg and I have the privilege of representing 180 employees and nine area communities as general manager of Honey Bee Manufacturing. I have with me Mr. Scott Smith, our CSI manager.

Greetings are offered by Ms. Donna Boyd and the 240-plus members of the Agricultural Manufacturers of Canada, and by Mr. John Schmeiser and the 4,000 members of the newly developed North American Equipment Dealers Association.

We want to thank you for the opportunity to express our support for Bill C-294.

Three years ago, we sat before this committee with respect to the CUSMA trade agreement. We discussed the need to address the copyright changes Bill C-294 now brings to the table. In 2020, the reasons for changes were based on expected events. Since then, we have felt the impact.

TPMs have disabled technology at normally interoperable intersections between products from Canadian agricultural manufacturers and OEM equipment platforms. The result is a 53% market denial for Honey Bee in Canada alone. The proverbial USB port has been replaced by an OEM-specific connection that is not publicly documented and has no available compatibility parts.

We are a global company, from the people we work with to the 29 countries we export to. Honey Bee sells 50% of its product in North America and exports the remainder to the rest of the world. However, our industry is still placed on an uneven playing field versus our U.S. counterparts. Foreign platforms seek to prevent participation by Canadian brands.

Honey Bee's opportunity to capitalize on intellectual property is based on our ability to interoperate with OEM equipment platforms. Interoperability means that a Honey Bee harvest header can “plug and play” with OEM equipment. Historically, this has been provided in a straightforward and obvious way, like the way a keyboard plugs into a computer.

Today, Canadian industry is technically blocked by some dominant international brands, with the impact being a loss of substantial market participation opportunity. The net result is “authorized use only”. This is controlled by OEM digital locks and keys that are unavailable to manufacturers of implement. Instead of spending our research budget on innovation, we are burning it on adaptation.

It is important to state that in no way should Canadian manufacturers, dealers and—most importantly—farmer customers be at a disadvantage on choice. Historically, we had an integrated farm equipment market in North America and abroad. Honey Bee innovation caters to the specific needs of many markets and considers their unique environments, practices and crops. Meeting these challenges brings Canadian innovation to the world. The impact of technical lockout by OEMs will be the collapse of our Canadian implement manufacturing industry, which will decimate many of our smaller communities.

In Bill C-294, “innovation” is the act of offering improved components or products for use, either as an independent product or used in conjunction with other products. When innovation is applied in conjunction with another product, it is required to interoperate in a compatible way. In Bill C-244, “repair” is the act of restoring a failed device to its original state, as designed and manufactured. Neither of these needs access to internal source code or involves undesired exposure to valued IP. What is needed is the supply of external specifications for protocols, and interfaces to achieve the required functionality result.

Historically, this has been the norm. As this is no longer the case, it is now an industry requirement that companies can legally reverse-engineer a product. This may include circumventing a TPM for the purpose of accessing the required systems in order to develop the information needed for achieving interoperability or repair.

The CUSMA agreement does not place U.S. and Canadian implement manufacturers on the same footing. U.S. copyright law makes exceptions for legally modified, motorized agricultural equipment for the purpose of interoperability. Canadian copyright law does not. This makes it illegal for Honey Bee, or any other Canadian company, to reverse-engineer OEM platforms to achieve the required interoperability. This means products made in Canada cannot be legally adapted in Canada. Canadian manufacturers and farmers are at a huge disadvantage. Why is that? It's a lack of clarifying language.

Bill C-294 solves this problem.

At the start of this testimony, I offered you greetings from our employees, their families and our communities. My desire is to see the number of employees and families increase with company growth because Bill C-294 is passed. If we really want to support Canadian content and innovation, we should support the work of Canadian manufacturing. By passing Bill C-294, we are voting for Canada.

Thank you.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in relation to Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act with regard to diagnosis, maintenance and repair. The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), requests a 30-day extension to consider it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Welcome back, friends and colleagues.

We're now entering the second hour of this meeting, where we are studying Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act regarding diagnosis, maintenance and repair. As you know, it is due to be reported back to the House on Wednesday.

Given the short time frame, I would seek the consent of the committee to agree to a motion asking for a 30-day delay for us to report back to the House.

Is there unanimous consent for such a motion?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I have another quick question.

The highlight is that the FCC.... This is interesting because I've often said that—as consumers—Canada is treated as a colony when it comes to some of the large corporations and the information that we get from the United States and other companies. When you look at the auto sector, we are actually in full regulation compliance with regard to safety, maintenance and emissions. At the same time, when there are recalls.... Some good examples are the Prius and Toyota recalls where the consumers benefited way more and they even had investment in their companies in the United States, because they were treated as a different element.

I don't understand why we would expect Canadians to have less, especially if the government is saying that we can't. With regard to Bill C-244, there were concerns over following CUSMA. In the meantime, we wouldn't have cross-comparison realities over here because it won't actually violate our trade obligations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

If there's still debate, I can't put it to a vote. I had Mr. Dong who wanted to speak.

You, Mr. Perkins, raised your hand earlier.

In any event, we'll have to adjourn. Hopefully there can be discussions amongst the parties during the two weeks of constituency meetings that we will have, and then we can come back and proceed swiftly on Bill C-244.

On that note, thanks to everyone—the analysts, the clerk, the interpreters, the support staff, everyone.

Thank you very much. Have a great two weeks.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

From what I understand, the original intent of Bill C-244 was to somewhat broaden how the Copyright Act applies. Just from reading amendment G-1, it talks a lot more about “performer's performance fixed in a sound recording”. Again, it's talking a lot more about musical works. It's not recognizing or realizing that that's not necessarily what we're talking about here.

The vagueness of the Copyright Act is that a work can be anything. It can be computer code. It can be a musical piece. It can be a book. It can be a museum and archives. That's the vagueness issue with the term “work”.

I think the original intent of Bill C-244 was to try to address that vagueness. I feel that this amendment doesn't fix that problem with regard to what Sébastien was just asking about: “Does this enable somebody to fix a John Deere tractor?” I mentioned this earlier. When you hop in that John Deere tractor and hit “start” on the screen, it's expressly written right there that you do not own a copy of the software. You have a licence to operate it, but that licence does not give you the ability to access that software. What this bill was originally intended to do was to allow a repair shop the ability to import a device that would allow somebody to get the information they'd need to complete the repair on that tractor.

The amendment that's been provided here by Mr. Fillmore.... I feel like it's completely gutting the entire purpose of trying to get a right-to-repair bill because, again, it doesn't address the vagueness of the term “work”.

I'll leave my comments there for now.

I guess the only other thing I would add is this—and this would be my question: Do you, as the experts, have any comments on that? Would you like to comment on that?

The second point I'd like to touch base on is that, obviously, there are 14 or 15 states in the United States that have already passed and implemented right-to-repair legislation. What's stopping those states from...? They're obviously not concerned about CUSMA. Is that because it's done at the state level and not the federal level? If it were a province doing this, would it be at risk of violating the trade deal? If so, what's the difference between an individual state's doing it versus what we're doing here today?

[Patrick Blanar]

Absolutely. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think, ultimately, the objective here is to be as compliant with our international obligations as possible. Ultimately, it is our view that the inclusion of the device, the ability to trade in devices or to provide devices that allow for circumvention is not consistent with our CUSMA obligations.

It's a pretty complicated issue within CUSMA because of the way it's framed across multiple different articles. Ultimately, there are three different types of prohibitions contained in CUSMA. One is a prohibition on access to works protected by TPMs. The second is a prohibition on providing services that are mainly for the purpose of accessing works or circumventing TPMs. The third is to provide devices that allow for the circumvention of TPMs.

One concern that we have is that.... Sorry, I'm just going to take a step back.

There are some specific exclusions that are listed within CUSMA. There's a set of seven of them. Unfortunately, none of those actually address repair. Repair falls under a catch-all provision. That catch-all provision only allows exceptions to circumvention of the first of those three restrictions, which is to access.

The fact that Bill C-244 and, I believe, many of the other motions maintain that device prohibition creates problems for CUSMA compliance.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

As you can see, the title of this amendment is removing the exception to the device prohibition. I want to explain what that's about.

CUSMA features three categories of TPMs, of those measures. The first one is the service prohibition. The second is the device prohibition. The third is the circumvention prohibition.

Now, when you look at those three prohibitions with regard to the diagnosis, maintenance and repair issues that this bill is focused on, CUSMA actually limits Canada to only introducing an exception from one of those three TPM prohibitions that I've just listed, namely, the circumvention prohibition. CUSMA only allows this bill to have a circumvention prohibition.

The challenge this amendment addresses is that Bill C‑244, in clause 2, currently includes an exception to another of the three prohibitions—the device prohibition—and, as I've said, that exception is not permitted under CUSMA. The amendment eliminates that problematic exception, and I will say that the bill's author is supportive of the amendment as well.

If we look at the three proposed paragraphs that we're talking about here, in the first, subsection 41.121(1), this change makes it clear that the exception only applies to a “work”, “performance” or “sound recording” that forms part of a product in need of repair or maintenance. In other words, it applies to the circumvention prohibition.

If we go to the next proposed one, which is 41.121(2), this is called the “for greater certainty” paragraph. It reads:

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.

The purpose of this change is to provide certainty that the exception would apply to owners of products and third party repair assistance. It just supports the exception that we've created in the first part.

The third one is actually a new one: 41.121(3). It's called “the non-application paragraph”. It says:

A person acting in the circumstances referred to in section (1) is not entitled to benefit from the exception under that subsection if the person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright.

In other words, you don't get to have the act apply to you if you're doing the wrong thing. This change clarifies that the exception applies only if it does not constitute an infringement of copyright. This is important, because it not only helps to ensure that the bill is compliant with CUSMA, but it also builds support for Bill C‑244 from copyright owners.

It's a complicated one, but really, it's just about bringing this into alignment with CUSMA, eliminating what I will call the “illegal exception” and putting in place the permitted exception, which is, again, the circumvention prohibition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

There is a proposition by Madame Lapointe to vote down clause 1 of Bill C-244. Do we need to go through a vote, or is there a—?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Honourable members, we are back.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 5, 2022, this is Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair). We are going to go through it clause-by-clause.

I want to highlight that we have with us, from the Department of Industry, Patrick Blanar, director, copyright and trademark policy directorate, joining us by Zoom; and Pierre-Luc Racine, policy adviser, copyright and trademark policy directorate, also with us by Zoom, to answer any questions we may have.

You are all familiar with the process. It's not the first time you have gone through this, and hopefully it will go smoothly as we go through clause-by-clause.

We have gone through this only once, so bear with me. I am still relatively inexperienced.

(On clause 1)

Shall clause 1 carry?

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Part of the reason I'm asking this is that, during the testimony from different witnesses on Bill C-244, we heard quite a bit of concern around warranties and whatnot. Would this void warranties? What's your view on that?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes. Bill C-244 allows you to circumvent a TPM for the purpose of a product that would make something...or allow you to have a device that would diagnose, maintain and repair. There's an ability to circumvent a TPM to accomplish that. With my bill, the circumvention of the TPM is so that you can access the information you need to make your product interoperate. The information you would be getting to make your product interoperate wouldn't be used for right to repair. It would only be to make your product interoperate with another.

Again, it's trying to get the signalling information from a combine to make all the components on your header work. That way, you can change the speeds. Just the way technology has changed, a header is a lot more complex than it used to be. You need that signalling information.

That's what these companies are looking for. This bill enables them to circumvent a TPM to get the signalling information they need to make their product work, whereas right to repair is to get the data you need to be able to diagnose, maintain or repair a product.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

MP Patzer, thank you very much for bringing this forward. Very much like my NDP colleague Mr. Masse, I admire your determination and the energy you're putting into this bill.

Earlier you talked about a comparison or similarities with Bill C-244. Can you break it down a little bit for the audience? What does your bill do that is different from Bill C-244?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

During our study on Bill C-244, there were opposing views on the bill. Original equipment manufacturers have been quite opposed to right-to-repair frameworks for a number of reasons. They cite safety concerns and IP theft.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I definitely appreciate that.

In looking at the trade, again the big thing is that we're playing catch-up here because our laws are behind and outdated. When we have a 10-year review for copyright and then it takes a few years to implement and make those changes, it puts us at risk of being a little bit further behind. I think that's why the committee is seeing Bill C-244, why we're seeing my bill.... I know you drafted one on similar issues around copyright as well. We need to have a bit more agile legislation now as technology grows and advances, and we have to do so in line with our trade agreements.

When we look at CASIS, it's good to get that sharing of information, but when it's voluntary, it makes it tough. That's why we have to do something like this. That way, the manufacturer is trying to build those pieces and have the certainty they need to go forward and get the information they need to just make their product work, and nothing more than that.

I think what this bill does is that it provides certainty for the main OEMs. Again, they can develop proprietary software that's going to work, yet they can't block out the short-line manufacturers from being able to access the information they need to make other products that will work on their platform.

When it comes to the trade side of things, I think this bill is in a good position.... Again, as I alluded to earlier, I am willing to make amendments if there are things that need to be done to make it more compliant when it comes to trade deals and agreements.

This bill came out of a need for change, which we saw in the CUSMA negotiations anyway. Again, we're playing catch-up here to what the U.S. is doing. There shouldn't be an issue, but that's....

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for being here. Thank you, and congratulations for making it this far. As members of Parliament, it's always quite a special thing to be able to get a private member's bill moving through the House and to the committee stage, so congratulations on having the initiative to bring forward a bill that, I think, has a lot of interest from all sides.

The interoperability part, for those who are watching, applies to a wide variety of things. With regard to another private member's bill, Bill C-244, we've been dealing a lot with the impacts on agricultural equipment.

In your work in preparing this bill and making sure that it was achieving what you hoped it would achieve, what are some of the industries you've consulted with, and how do they feel about it?

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

I'll have the same pause that Professor Centivany had. I think the answer would be, “Not really.” I can substantiate that by saying that Canadians are safer when the access to technical knowledge and repairability is not kept secret and the inner workings and functioning of devices can be discerned and understood lawfully.

The fact that device manufacturers see copyright as essential to the health and safety of Canadians should also cause us some concern. If the contention is that devices and products are inherently dangerous and repair activities pose safety risks, we should ask more of manufacturers through amendments to the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act or other regulations.

Again, just as copyright law is not really an appropriate framework for cybersecurity regulation, it is also not the appropriate forum for public safety, in my opinion. If we're talking about the right to repair to the extent that it relates to Bill C-244, I think the answer is no. There aren't really limitations here, in that respect.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Under Bill C-244, circumvention of technological protection measures will be allowed only “for the purpose of the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of a product”, as we've stated.

You touched on this a bit, Mr. Rosborough. How would this limitation be enforced in practice? Can you reiterate a couple of those points for me?

Also, could persons or companies that engage in the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale, renting and provision of technologies, devices or components to circumvent TPMs be held liable where these products are used for other purposes?

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

Do you mean amendments to Bill C-244?

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

Certainly.

I think this question evidences, as I mentioned in the Canadian right to repair Berkeley article that's forthcoming, that federal-provincial co-operation is essential here. This indicates an area where coordinated legislation targeting the consumer protection acts in the provinces is needed.

It would be nice if Bill C-244 also said that if you own a device with an embedded computer program, you have an implied licence to use the program to the extent that circumvention is necessary. We don't have that language in the bill. Obviously, that would conflict with provincial jurisdiction. This is where coordinated federal-provincial effort is needed.

However, again, this bill is starting in the right spot.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

That's helpful. Thank you.

Another question the analysts provided to us is as follows. “Computer programs embedded in products are typically licensed to consumers. To retain the right to use the program, they usually must comply with licence, which may require that they do not circumvent TPMs for any reason. A person could thus breach the licence, losing the right to use the program, even if the Copyright Act otherwise allows them to circumvent the technological protection measure.

“Does Bill C-244 overcome the challenge of licences that restrict the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of a product even if it were allowed under the act?

“Given that provinces have legislative powers over contract law, should the federal government engage with them on the matter of restrictive licences?”

I'll pose that to you again, Professor Centivany.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our panellists today for, likely, the most informative discussion we've had on this subject so far.

One of the analysts' questions, provided to us in advance, number 7, is as follows. Bill C-244 suggests a “do-it-yourself” approach to the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of products in which technological protection measure-protected computer programs are embedded: it would allow a person to circumvent the technological protection measure for these purposes, and to use or offer equipment for these purposes. It would not, however, allow a person to offer or provide services for doing the same.

Professor Centivany, why does Bill C-244 seem to prioritize a do-it-yourself approach, considering that ordinary people may not have enough know-how to repair products such as motorized vehicles and personal electronic devices, and that allowing others to do it for them could bring new revenues to Canadian businesses?

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

We risk fragmentation by having independent provincial strategies that are inconsequential toward sustainability indexes or repairability indexes. To have meaningful effect across Canada, we should have a federal index for repairability. Absolutely, providing consumers with the information they need at the time of sale is essential for achieving the right to repair, because it creates a distinction in the marketplace. Consumers need to have that information.

Again, this allows for repairability, but it doesn't necessarily enable the right or ability to conduct repairs. That's what Bill C-244 looks to do. It starts at the source of the problem rather than looking just to solutions at the far end. This bill is starting at the right place. If we have enough movement in this direction on the IP file, we can move ahead with repair indexes and sustainability indexes and to arming consumers with the information they need at the time of sale.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's very kind.

How much can we rely on these tools to move things forward? If Bill C‑244 were implemented here, Quebec would be one of the places in the world where consumers were most protected against planned obsolescence. There's a keen interest in the issue in Quebec.

Do you think we can move towards that in Canada, or are we too far away?

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

For the purposes of the right to repair, absolutely. I think it may be beyond the scope of this bill, but a system of...maybe like a sustainability index under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. If the government is serious about pursuing the right to repair at the federal level, some sort of system would be essential. We have seen in other jurisdictions similar indexes that have been very successful, France being the main example.

With regard to provincial efforts toward the right to repair, such as the bill proposed by Guy Ouellette, these jurisdictions provincially in Canada are waiting for federal leadership on the IP issue. Bill C-244 and Bill C-294 are the important starting point. These bills are starting at the right place to give provinces the leeway they need to move ahead with those types of systems.

[Paul Fogolin]

Thanks for bringing this up. There's been a lot of talk of manufactured obsolescence throughout the debate on Bill C-244. In our industry, I like to think that we build our products with manufactured longevity. What I mean by that is—

[Dr. Alissa Centivany]

I'll keep it short so that Mr. Rosborough has an opportunity, hopefully, to respond as well.

The process of creation involves iterating on things that already exist. Nothing is created out of whole cloth. This is the way creation and innovation happen—having the opportunity to explore, be curious and learn. In my interviews, what I heard a lot of people say is that actually breaking things was part of the way they learned not only how things were put together, but how to fix them. You're absolutely right. Having this ability to play and tinker is critical.

The other point that I just really want to quickly make is in the case of health care devices, in particular. We have situations where people's mobility depends on the functioning of, let's say, a powered wheelchair. Sometimes they'll even have medical devices implanted in their bodies. These, too, are being restricted by TPMs and repair restrictions.

I just really want to emphasize the fact that we need to have this exemption that Bill C-244 offers.

Anthony.

[Shannon Sereda, Director, Government Relations, Policy and Markets, Alberta Wheat and Barley Commissions; Representative, Grain Growers of Canada]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. It is my pleasure to be here today as a representative of the Grain Growers of Canada.

My name is Shannon Sereda. I am the director of government relations, policy and markets with the Alberta Wheat and Barley Commissions. We represent over 17,000 grain farmers across Alberta and are member organizations of the Grain Growers of Canada.

Canadian farmers continue to be world leaders in their accelerated adoption of technology. Modern farming equipment is increasingly reliant on high-tech automized systems, with complex software design and digitized components. The tools to fix that machinery have also become increasingly complex. A laptop and software now often replace a wrench.

This continual innovation in farm equipment is essential for the sustainable growth, efficiency and competitiveness of the Canadian grain sector, yet studies have shown that farmers are often considering older, less efficient and less digitized equipment that they can repair themselves. This is because when a farmer experiences an equipment failure, in almost all instances they are beholden to one point of service, the OEM dealer, to unlock the equipment, provide the parts and have their technicians diagnose and repair the issue. Given that there are typically few centralized dealers servicing many farmers over a large area, this can often take many hours to many days, and can be further impacted by single-source supply chain disruptions for accessing parts.

Farmers are consistently at the mercy of weather. Any delay during what is already a very short growing season poses a major threat to crop yield and quality, and is a financial risks to farmers. For perspective, in one day a farmer can harvest multiple millions of dollars' worth of crop.

Creating a competitive market for equipment repair will give farmers a choice to safely conduct the repairs themselves, through a qualified third party or through the equipment dealerships, thus reducing both risk and cost. Farmers and other skilled individuals in Canada's rural economy are ready and able to safely contribute to a competitive market for repair.

The current legislative environment in Canada supports equipment repair monopolies by allowing OEMs to prohibit the bypassing of TPMs. This leaves farmers and third party independent mechanics limited in their ability to diagnose or repair many potential technical issues. To restore the competitive environment and market for repairs of farm machinery, legislative change is required. Bill C-244 represents the first step in helping to break the monopolization of repair services and allowing Canadian farmers the right to repair their machinery, putting them on equal footing with farmers in other jurisdictions.

The United States and the European Union have made moves toward modernized legislation and regulations specific to agriculture, and are actively working toward creating a competitive environment for third party repairs, data ownership and interoperability. Both the agricultural right to repair bill that was recently introduced in the U.S.A. and other pressures toward increasing competition in repair services are acting to send the right signals to industry.

John Deere, which previously opposed the notion of allowing farmers to conduct their own repairs, has recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation. This MOU will formalize U.S. farmers' access to diagnostic and repair codes and manuals and product guides, allowing farmers and independent repair shops to purchase John Deere software and other information needed to service their equipment.

While this is a step in the right direction, it remains to be seen how deep the access will be, how it might be enforced or how reasonable pricing will be defined. The availability of these tools should be cost-conducive for both independent technicians and farmers.

To this end, and in conjunction with Bill C-244, there is a necessary role for modernized provincial legislation in order to further restore a competitive market. In Alberta, for example, the Farm Implement and Dealership Act can be revised to ensure access to tools at a reasonable price.

Farmers are innovators. They have a history of making improvements to existing equipment used on their specific farms to boost productivity. The design practices by OEMs limit ingenuity and innovation for farmers and third parties by disallowing interoperability or the full use of telematics. On-board computers on farm equipment report nearly every detail of what a farmer does. Telematics provide a modern method of using this data to monitor farm equipment to ensure that operations remain reliable and timely.

Farmers have become more tech-savvy and can use telematics together with AI and other software to manage their farms from their iPhones. With full access to telematics, they can see pending issues with machinery by observing engine speeds and tire pressure, or even forecast planting stages and harvest timing.

GPS systems allow them to precisely place inputs, such as fertilizer, to maximize efficiency in cost, which in turn creates positive environmental outcomes, such as emissions reductions.

The agriculture community is pleased that the committee has acknowledged and invited agriculture to be a part of its deliberations on Bill C-244. We would like to ensure that the proposed amendments in Bill C-244 remain free of any exemptions that could limit the potential development of the competitive market for diagnosis, repair and maintenance of farm equipment.

On behalf of farmers, I thank you for the invitation to be here today, and thank you for your time.

[Paul Fogolin, Vice-President, Policy and Government Affairs, Entertainment Software Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-244.

My name is Paul Fogolin, and I'm the vice-president of policy and government affairs for the Entertainment Software Association of Canada. We represent major video game console makers, publishers and large and small developers, as well as national distributors.

The video game industry is the largest entertainment industry in the world, plain and simple, with revenues that far exceed those of both film and music. In 2022, the video game industry earned over $170 billion in global revenues.

At ESAC, we're proud to report that Canada is one of the biggest players in the global games business. Home to close to 1000 studios with over 32,000 full-time employees and contributing $5.5 billion to the Canadian economy, we punch far above our weight.

The Copyright Modernization Act, passed in 2012, has helped to drive this growth by protecting the considerable time, investment and creativity that developers put into their games. This empowers them to innovate and create, knowing that legal protections exist to mitigate the risk of piracy and infringement.

While we recognize the good intentions driving this bill, if passed it could result in unintended consequences for both our industry and our players. Permitting the circumvention of TPMs presents a unique risk to our industry. Let me explain why.

The integrity of the entire video game ecosystem relies on TPMs. Not only do they protect intellectual property, but they prevent hacking and cheating, deter unauthorized access to consumer information and help support cybersecurity. They also allow a console to be securely updated, providing players with new content, extended storylines and updates to the game experience.

Before the Copyright Act was passed, the widespread availability of circumvention devices and services in Canada created an environment in which piracy and modding thrived. The act provided the critical measures needed to pursue those who facilitate and engage in piracy.

This is not a theoretical concern. It's been validated through the courts in litigation. In a precedent-setting decision issued in 2017, Nintendo of America v. King, the Canadian Federal Court awarded over $12 million in damages for the circumvention of TPMs and copyright infringement under the act, including that the defendant was liable under section 41.1 for the trafficking and installation of circumvention devices.

Bill C-244 could permit devices such as mod chips and game copiers to be put back on the market under the auspices of repair. We're deeply concerned that this will make it incredibly difficult for rights holders and law enforcement to pursue legal action against those who traffic in these devices. The burden of proof required would be so high that it would be very, very difficult or virtually impossible to establish liability.

It's also clear, watching the debate on Bill C-244 thus far, that game consoles aren't an area of great concern. I think that speaks to the ease of repairability and consumer satisfaction in this regard. Video game consoles are consistently rated highly for their repairability on websites like iFixit. Most common repairs can be addressed without circumventing TPMs. On top of this, our console makers provide easy, fast, reliable and affordable repair services as well as comprehensive online and off-line networks to troubleshoot issues.

This is an all-encompassing piece of legislation. It doesn't distinguish between a tractor, a fridge or a game console. Similar markets that have right to repair legislation, like some of our friends in the States, do classify different classes. Let me give you two examples: New York's Digital Fair Repair Act, which was recently signed into law by the governor; and Washington state's Bill 1392. Both jurisdictions rightly recognized the unique risk that TPM circumvention poses for our industry and chose to exclude game consoles.

In closing, we're very concerned about the risk posed to our industry and our players. To avoid going backward with protections to IP and to ensure we protect the player experience, we respectfully request that this committee adopt our proposed amendment to exclude game consoles, components and peripherals.

Thank you very much.

[Charles Bernard, Lead Economist, Canadian Automobile Dealers Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank all members of the committee for inviting the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association to express its perspective on Bill C-244.

CADA is a federation of provincial and regional dealer associations that represents 3,400 members across the country. Our dealers employ more than 160,000 Canadians and have always been a major component of the social fabric in rural and urban Canadian communities. Not only do dealers help consumers in accessing a vehicle that fits their needs, but they are also heavily involved in procuring repair services and technical expertise to the clients in the years that follow the purchase.

As committee members will know, since 2009 the repair and servicing market has been intrinsically linked to the Canadian Automotive Service Information Standards agreement, known as CASIS. This voluntary agreement helped build an environment where service and repair information could be exchanged between OEMs and the automotive aftermarket industry. Indeed, the CASIS framework increased the competitiveness in the repair services market, and did so while preserving the fragile balance among safety, compliancy and access to repair services.

In fact, that partnership has allowed the aftermarket to grow since its creation. Data from DesRosiers Automotive Consultants show consistently that the aftermarket has achieved phenomenal growth and is positioned for even greater success in 2022. Also in 2022, the numbers placed the aftermarket well above prepandemic levels—more than 20% higher than 2019 numbers.

However, CADA believes that Bill C-244 threatens that balance, which was built through exhaustive co-operation over the last decade, and offers no real alternative to what CASIS has accomplished in terms of maintaining the regulatory compliancy required to ensure the utmost safety for the consumer.

The CASIS agreement is a well-functioning institution where progress in repair access has been supported by the signatories through expertise, transparency and, most importantly, prudence.

It is also important to highlight the significant safety and environmental considerations that have to be taken into account when repair information and tools are being shared among automotive OEMs and representatives of the aftermarket—considerations that are not applicable to the majority of the products that would be covered under this amendment to the Copyright Act. We firmly believe that the risks in areas such as safety, cybersecurity, vehicle theft, personal data protection and intellectual property rights far outweigh the marginal benefits of increasing the aftermarket service offer.

The importance of a different framework for the auto industry also seems to be supported in the December 2021 mandate letter from the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. It specifically mentions that the government should explore the idea of a right to repair for appliances and electronics, with no mention of vehicles.

The problem of vehicle theft in Canada is a concrete example of how Bill C‑244 could lead to significant problems that parallel the general discussion around the right to repair. Full access to this information would ultimately be shared by everyone, be they car dealerships, aftermarket businesses, or even individuals with criminal or negative intent.

We use this example not to spread a climate of fear or anxiety, but to call committee members' attention to the tension between access to repair information, which is one thing in and of itself, and the many related areas where risks are real and currently observable.

To be clear, on the side of the auto industry, the proposed amendment to the Copyright Act is a solution looking for problems. The CASIS agreement has proven itself. Once again, the Pandora's box that this bill may open could very well generate, as much for consumers as for political players, difficulties on a scale that would overshadow the initial motivations behind the amendment.

We recommend that this committee pay closer attention to the underlying risks of this bill. For example, we strongly encourage the committee to increase participation of cyber security experts, as well as those who specialize in the vehicle theft crisis, general vehicle safety, and the challenges of protecting intellectual property.

Additionally, for the reasons I just outlined, we recommend that the committee include a specific exemption for the automotive industry, rather than support further development of the CASIS agreement and attempt to increase its scope.

I want to thank everyone.

I'm ready to answer your questions in French or English. Thank you very much for your attention.

[Dr. Alissa Centivany, Assistant Professor, Western University, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and esteemed members of the committee.

My name is Alissa Centivany. I'm an assistant professor at the Faculty of Information and Media Studies at Western University, where I work on technology policy, law and ethics. I have a JD specializing in intellectual property law and a Ph.D. in information science. I've had research appointments at U of C Berkeley's law school at the Center for Law and Technology, and at the University of Toronto law school's Centre for Innovation Law and Policy.

I'm currently the primary investigator of an SSHRC-funded study on copyright, computerization and the right to repair. I'm grateful for this opportunity to speak to you today.

Repair is impeded by design choices; business strategies; constraints on access, materials and information; various social factors; and laws. By permitting the circumvention of TPMs for diagnosis, maintenance and repair, this bill represents an important, incremental step forward toward reclaiming the right to repair in Canada. For the health of our economy, our planet, our communities and ourselves, repair must be available, affordable and accessible. I'd like to emphasize three points for consideration.

First, the purpose of copyright law is to benefit society by promoting the creation and sharing of creative and artistic works. The purpose of copyright is not to protect business models. Nor is it to ensure that the incumbent beneficiaries of the existing regime reap the rewards of that status in perpetuity. It's absurd that manufacturers of things like tractors, tanks, wheelchairs and washing machines can co-opt copyright law and impede repair, simply by embedding code into their products. This bill carves out a necessary, common-sense exemption to the act's anti-circumvention provisions, while leaving the provision intact for contexts that might bear a legitimate relationship to the overarching purpose of the act.

Opponents of this bill claim that the exemption carries risks to the environment, safety and security. In response, I'd like to say first, “You're barking up the wrong tree.” There are laws that could address those concerns, but they are not copyright laws, which, as just mentioned, are concerned with the production of creative works.

Second, the only way this exemption would impact emissions, safety and security is if the software that governs repair also governed emissions, safety and security. I doubt that this is the case, but if these systems are being bundled together, that is a serious design flaw that manufacturers should remedy.

Third, most consumer devices are insecure for reasons that have nothing to do with repair. The ubiquitous smartening of products through network computerization creates security risks, thus much of this innovation is of questionable benefit to consumers and society.

Fourth, positioning consumers and the repair providers they choose as threats is pretty blatantly anti-consumer.

Finally, whether this exemption is codified or not is irrelevant to risks posed by actual hackers, who have far more sophisticated tools and techniques already at their disposal.

The second big point I'd like to make is that this bill is pro-innovation. In my research, I've interviewed farmers, teachers, engineers, artists, community organizers, health care workers, mechanics, volunteer fixers, schoolchildren, and people living in cities, in the suburbs, in rural areas here in Canada, and also in the U.S., in Europe, and in regions of the global south. A common thread across these differences is that the practice of figuring out what is wrong with something and fixing it is innovative. Our understanding and valuation of innovation in this country has gone astray. We overemphasize novelty, newness and invention, and we underemphasize the work, skill and adaptive situated problem-solving required to keep the things we already have running smoothly. Rather than undermining innovation, as some of the opponents claim, this bill undoubtedly promotes it for the good of workers and the economy.

By the way, this position is shared by our most important trading partner. A brief released two days ago by the White House noted the importance of the right to repair in building a healthy economy. At present, 20 U.S. states have right to repair bills under consideration. Bill C-244 is pro-innovation and is consistent with the actions and interests of our key trading partners.

Finally, repair is not only good for the environment and the economy; it's also good for us as people and as communities. Every act of repair is embedded with important human values. These include productivist values like learning, skill development, self-efficacy, self-determination and digital citizenship, as well as non-productivist values like care, continuity, heritage, hope, mutual support and meaning-making, which together make up the fabric of a richer, more resilient, more livable society and enable us to collectively project a more hospitable, habitable and humane shared future.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about Bill C-244.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 57 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to the order of reference dated Wednesday, October 5, 2022, we are considering Bill C‑244, an Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair).

Today's meeting is in hybrid format, pursuant to the order adopted by the House on June 23, 2022.

Today, the committee has the pleasure of welcoming, as an individual, Dr. Alissa Centivany, assistant professor at Western University, and Mr. Anthony D. Rosborough, researcher at the European University Institute's Department of Law.

Here with us in Ottawa, we have Mr. Charles Bernard, lead economist of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

We also welcome Mr. Paul Fogolin, vice-president of policy and government affairs of the Entertainment Software Association of Canada.

Finally, we welcome Ms. Shannon Sereda, director of government relations, policy and markets for the Grain Growers of Canada.

Welcome to you all.

Before moving on to more serious matters, I'd like to wish a happy birthday to my colleague, Caroline Desbiens, who has the pleasure of joining the committee. Her birthday was well chosen; it is the same as that of your humble servant.

Happy birthday, Ms. Desbiens.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Moving on to paragraph 3(3)(a), we move that Bill C-244, in clause 3, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 2 with the following:

(a) explain and support research on the link between firefighting and certain

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Well, they do, but actually, subsection 1 of article 20.66 is the defining section as to what everything that follows is pursuant to. It's specifically in relation to what authors, performers and producers of phonograms use in connection with the exercise of their rights. To your point, it may be widely expansive, but it doesn't really seem that the right-to-repair legislation, Bill C-244, is really what article 20.66 is driving at.

[Catherine Lovrics]

That is correct. We are concerned that, as currently drafted, Bill C-244 and the approach it takes would not adhere to our treaty obligations.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Your testimony, Ms. Lovrics, was that Bill C-244 may violate our CUSMA and WIPO treaty obligations.

Did I get your testimony right?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses.

Ms. Lovrics, you referenced the importance of the government's putting into place a broader framework for the treatment of TPMs and other related IP, including consumer information. Section 41.21 of the Copyright Act already gives the power to government to effectively make changes to Canada's anti-circumvention rules.

The government, so far, has chosen not too, and has effectively left it to individual MPs, such as messieursMay and Miao, to bring forward specific legislation.

When it comes to setting up a framework, I agree with you that there has to be a broader framework that more comprehensively addresses this challenge. Do you prefer that it be done through legislation as we have before us—Bill C-244—or that it be done through regulation, which the government already has the power to do?

[Matthew Hatfield]

Yes. To your point, people are going to make modifications to their devices no matter what we say here. Some of those people are going to be contravening the rules, but we're not stopping the most sophisticated users by denying basic repair rights. We're denying repair rights to ordinary law-abiding folks.

The portion that I think you're speaking to, which goes beyond what we're doing here today but needs to happen, is that we need to reaffirm a reasonable, basic set of consumer rights and expectations over the things we own. It's the same way that if I owned a washer or a car or a phone 40 years ago, I would have had a pretty reasonable set of expectations about what I was entitled to.

That needs to be brought back into the law for the digital age, and part of what we're getting from Bill C-244 and from the broader right to repair is redressing that balance, because things are swinging further and further against an ordinary person around these devices.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

My third question is about computer programs embedded in products, which are typically licensed to consumers because companies can get fees for them every single year. To retain the right to use the program, consumers usually must comply with the licence, which usually requires that they can't circumvent TPMs, for example. A person could thus breach the licence, losing the right to use the program even if the Copyright Act otherwise allows them to circumvent the TPM.

Do you think Bill C-224 goes far enough to overcome the challenge of licence restrictions?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the witnesses for appearing before the committee.

My first questions are for Mr. Lawford. In the previous meeting on Bill C-244, the committee heard from manufacturer representatives about how TPM measures can be circumvented for unauthorized purposes, for example, to improve the performance of vehicles and equipment in a manner that may not be entirely safe. My question is to what extent, if at all, would Bill C-244 make this practice more common?

The reason I ask this question is because there's no way that the Copyright Act is the only thing preventing unauthorized circumvention of TPMs. There have to be other laws and regulations in place as well.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, but I'm having technical problems here.

To Madame Lovrics, you mentioned this law's ability to be in compliance with Canada's agreement with the United States and Mexico. A diagnostic maintenance or repair exception does not appear in the list of technological protection measure exemptions permitted under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. CUSMA would allow Canada to adopt further exemptions, but only for non-infringing uses of specific classes of works and if an actual or likely adverse impact on those infringing uses is demonstrated by substantial evidence in a legislative context.

You mentioned that, in your opinion, Bill C-244 right now doesn't necessarily pass the test, and we might be liable to certain challenges from our trading partners if this legislation is passed. Is that correct?

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

Currently, what are the consequences of not acting? If Bill C‑244 is not passed and the status quo is maintained, what are the consequences for consumers?

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Matt, since you're on the screen now, I went through the survey you did. It's quite extensive. Thank you very much for doing that.

I noticed that over 50% of Canadians said that they have tried to repair their devices or equipment, but they found that the repair was too expensive or not possible. How would Bill C-244 begin to help consumers with that problem?

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming today virtually and in person.

I'm going to start my questions with Mr. Lawford and then Mr. Hatfield. The Competition Bureau has noted that the Competition Act enforcement could complement a right to repair exception under the Copyright Act as proposed by Bill C-244 in promoting competition in product repair markets.

To your knowledge, has the Competition Bureau conducted any investigation related to the right to repair? If so, what was the outcome?

I'll start with Mr. Lawford.

[John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre]

Thank you, Chair.

Honourable members, my name is John Lawford. I'm executive director and general counsel at PIAC, a national not-for-profit and registered charity. We provide legal and research services on behalf of consumers and, in particular, vulnerable consumer interests concerning the provision of important public services. PIAC has been active in the digital consumer protection world for over 20 years.

PIAC supports Bill C-244's creation of an exception to technical protection measures under the Copyright Act to allow consumers and businesses to circumvent TPMs for the purposes of diagnosing, maintaining and repairing a consumer product in which a computer program is embedded. PIAC believes that consumers should have the option to repair their own products or select repair providers of their choosing.

The fact that mechanical or electrical parts have been replaced by software in many consumer goods, such as household appliances, medical devices and vehicles, must not impede that possibility. Currently, consumers cannot legally circumvent TPMs, and as a result they are forced to use manufacturer repair services or manufacturer-endorsed, authorized repair shops when something goes wrong.

This restricted access makes it possible for manufacturers to set inflated prices, extend timelines, disconnect users' access when TPMs are circumvented, prevent users from accessing their own data, and create other unfavourable conditions for product utility and use, which can harm consumers financially, emotionally, and even physically. If the product needing repair is a tool required for work, such as a vehicle or a table saw, then manufacturer-imposed repair restrictions can potentially lead to job insecurity.

Consumer inability to circumvent TPMs can also create life-and-death situations. Under the current regime, many people who own software-integrated medical devices, such as insulin pumps and oxygen machines, cannot fix the medical equipment themselves or have qualified technicians service their devices without authorization from the manufacturer. This inability to seek out quicker or more cost-effective solutions places strain on those consumers and may result in their underservicing or needlessly replacing incredibly vital, expensive medical equipment.

The effects of limited repair options have only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is creating workflow disruptions, supply shortages and reduced access to in-person services.

The expression of the repair right in Bill C-244 indeed covers a wide and generic range of software-enabled products. This aspect of the bill is a strength and is not over-broad. This means it applies to a piece of farm equipment, a thermostat, a medical device or a gaming console. This wide scope is needed to avoid siloing variable consumer rights in particular products.

Diagnosis, maintenance and repair are all related acts that further the public interest, the aims of which are: consumer freedom and the right to use their own, legally owned items; extension of the useful life of these products; avoidance of the consumer costs and the environmental harm from needless disposal of workable products, which often contain, as mentioned, toxic or precious, expensive-to-obtain materials and minerals; and increased control of the timing and expression of consumer demand, which can lead to increased competition, consumer choice, lower prices, improved customer service, greater innovation, and support of small, local repair businesses.

I'll speak briefly to what is missing in the bill—both interoperability, which, as has been mentioned, is the subject of another bill; and consumer manuals.

The bill lacks an exception to copyright infringement that allows consumers to find, reproduce and disseminate information such as diagnostic codes and repair manuals for the purpose of facilitating repair. This exception would be complementary to the TPM exception at issue in this bill and would better support the development of a repair market.

The new repair information right would be a species of fair dealing. Repair information requirements could be limited to personal, non-profit or commercial contexts, depending on where Parliament draws the balance between original equipment manufacturers and repair rights.

Without dealing in detail with interoperability, I'm happy to take questions. It could be either in this bill or in Bill C-294. The scope of interoperability is, I think, the issue, and whether we put a definition of “interoperability” into the Copyright Act in the section under consideration here, or in a different bill or act is something that we can discuss.

In conclusion, PIAC supports Bill C-244 as a necessary consumer protection in the digital economy.

I thank you and look forward to your questions.

[Matthew Hatfield, Campaigns Director, OpenMedia]

Good afternoon. I'm Matt Hatfield and I am the campaigns director of OpenMedia, a grassroots community of nearly 300,000 people in Canada who work together for an open, accessible and surveillance-free Internet.

I am speaking to you from the unceded territory of the Stó꞉lō, Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam nations.

I am thrilled to be here to tell you that Copyright Act amendment Bill C-244 is critical and common-sense legislation that you should pass immediately. Canadians need full ownership of the products we buy, and that means being able to get them diagnosed and appropriately fixed by anyone we choose, including ourselves. Bill C-244 will help us do this.

Digital technology is increasingly built into everything. Not just computers and phones but also cars, appliances and even clothing are now digitally intelligent and connected. We're seeing the birth of the Internet of things, a world in which everything we own can digitally communicate. If we can make citizens and consumers the full owners and primary beneficiaries of that world, we're looking at a very exciting future; but if we allow the Internet of things to wrest control of our possessions from us, leaving us stranded by fridges, farming equipment and everything else that requires constant approval from the original manufacturer's data centres to perform their basic functions, we're on the threshold of a nightmare.

Sound rights-reinforcing legislation like Bill C-244 will make the difference in what comes next.

In the pre-digital world, producing an excellent product and selling lots of it once was considered good business. In the digital world, many companies see that as a fool's game. Why charge a one-time price when you can transform your product into a service and collect perpetual fees for the life of the consumer? Some ways of doing that are relatively benign and consumer-friendly, like most streaming services, but some are plainly unfair and parasitic.

The digital locks that Bill C-244 will prevent are a clear example of parasitic abuse of power by manufacturing companies. Digital locks force consumers out of the competitive market and into a monopoly market in which the manufacturer sets the cost of repair parts and services. Sometimes they even lock customers into a repair market that no longer exists, as the manufacturer goes out of business or stops supporting their devices well ahead of schedule.

Not surprisingly, customers often find that repairs in this system somehow cost nearly as much as a new device and wind up buying a new product rather than repairing the otherwise functional device they have. A public survey we commissioned in 2019 showed that 76% of Canadians had thrown out a digital device that could be repaired to be fully functional due to fixable problems like dead batteries, cracked screens or lack of security software updates. Electronic devices frequently contain rare minerals and compounds—some toxic—and represent a spiralling share of our societal waste, with net global e-waste growing by an estimated three to four per cent a year.

That is bad for the consumer, bad for society at large and bad for the environment—bad for everyone except the manufacturing company in question. Preventing a net social loss due to bad incentives is exactly the kind of problem on which we need the government to intervene.

Bill C-244 isn't going to get us all the way there by itself. I hope our government will also adopt the interoperability changes in Bill C-294 and introduce full right-to-repair legislation soon thereafter. We also agree with the speakers from CFLA, who flagged the importance of archival copyright exceptions.

The big picture is that it isn't enough to stop manufacturers from suing repairers or customers who break their software locks to repair their devices. Much more is needed to right the growing imbalance between what manufacturers choose to provide and what Canadians need for an affordable green future. To name just two common-sense changes, I hope we will soon see an obligation for manufacturers to provide replacement parts, instructions and software security updates for their products for a healthy five to 10 years after purchase, as exists in the EU; and I hope that we will see legislation requiring products to display a repairability score at purchase so that manufacturers are incentivized to compete on durability and long-term performance, not just initial price.

I was privileged this year to work with the environmental non-profit Équiterre on a deeply thoughtful report studying how to implement the right to repair in Quebec and Canada. I encourage all of you who want to see this right fully implemented to give it a close read.

OpenMedia has collected nearly 20,000 petition signatures from our community asking you to fully legislate the right to repair. Passing Bill C-244 is a critical and necessary step to fulfilling that request. We have been truly heartened by the level of bipartisan consensus shown around Bill C-244. It proves that the wheels of democracy continue to turn, and that you, our representatives, can still come together to support measures that are plainly in the public interest. We hope to see that consensus continue to move forward, both on Bill C-244 and on full right-to-repair legislation.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Catherine Lovrics]

Okay.

Since 1997, Canada has recognized that adequate legal protections for TPMs are indispensable to protect copyright. Since then, reliance on TPMs has become integral to the digital economy.

Today, TPMs not only play an important role in IP protection but are relied on for safety and security. For example, TPMs help to ensure health, privacy, safety and environmental standards are maintained once products are in the hands of consumers.

Through various copyright treaties, Canada not only has agreed to protect TPMs but has agreed that any exceptions to TPM protections should be very carefully crafted, supported by evidence and focused narrowly to ensure TPMs remain effective. IPIC believes amendments are needed to comply with our treaty obligations, including the WIPO Internet treaties and CUSMA.

We are concerned with the blanket approach taken in the current bill and unintended consequences that may follow. We heard honourable member Wilson Miao, among other witnesses before the committee, discuss the need to develop a right to repair framework. We agree: A framework is required.

In particular, IPIC supports evidence-based exceptions that permit circumvention of TPMs to enable a right to repair. We recommend that goods that benefit from the exception be specified in regulations, subject to a framework that assesses the specific use case.

We've proposed a regulatory framework that would consider factors including that the TPM is indeed demonstrated to have an adverse impact that warrants circumvention; that enabling access to computer programs would enable repair and not copyright infringement; and that circumvention does not carry risks to health, safety, privacy and security. Such a framework would comply with our treaty obligations, better align with our trading partners and manage other risks, all while aiming to achieve the policy objectives set out in the mandate letters.

Further, and importantly, IPIC is of the view that the exceptions should not enable distribution or trafficking in circumvention tools. We recommend that the bill be amended accordingly to instead enable service providers to exercise the right to repair on behalf of consumers.

Any exception that would permit distribution of circumvention tools raises serious concerns. For example, as stated in the WIPO guide on the Internet treaties, once placed on the market for a specific purpose, such tools would then become available for all to use with impunity. Permitting sale of circumvention tools is not only out of step with our trading partners but also inconsistent with the evidence before this committee.

Many witnesses have discussed the importance of this bill's enabling a robust aftermarket repair service industry. Those comments appear to misunderstand the bill. The bill as drafted does not introduce an exception for service providers, and IPIC proposes that the bill be so amended.

IPIC also recommends amendments to ensure that what constitutes a repair is understood to be the proper functioning of a product according to its approved specifications. We believe it's important to be clear that the bill enables repairs and not modifications. Manufacturers' specifications aim to comply with standards to protect the environment as well as the health, privacy and safety of Canadians.

IPIC also encourages studying the right to repair in the context of the commercial rationale for manufacturers disclaiming liability and voiding warranties if a product is tampered with and/or updated with unauthorized aftermarket parts.

As TPMs are an essential safeguard to the digital and connected economy well beyond IP, circumvention should ensure repairs are safe: that they do not risk health, personal injury or property damage and that they maintain security, such as protecting the personal information of Canadians and preventing interception to gain unauthorized control over a consumer product. This is particularly important given the explosion of the Internet of things and computer-controlled products like self-driving cars, and in a time when hacking and ransomware are pervasive, along with state-sponsored terrorism.

Finally, we also recommend small technical amendments to the bill to address a redundant reference to “computer program” in clause 1 of the bill: A “computer program” is a work.

In sum, our proposed amendments provide a framework for case-by-case assessments that would consider the risks and benefits. IPIC recognizes that Bill C-244 is only one piece of a framework and that a robust framework would involve other areas of law, with provinces at the forefront of facilitating a meaningful right to repair.

I thank all of you for your time, invite any questions you may have and direct you to our brief and proposed amendments, which will follow shortly.

[Catherine Lovrics, Chair, Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada]

Mr. Chair and honourable members, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, thank you for the invitation to appear as part of INDU's study.

IPIC is the professional association of lawyers and patent and trademark agents practising in all areas of intellectual property. My name is Catherine—or Cat—Lovrics, and I am here as the chair of IPIC’s copyright committee and our subcommittee on the right to repair.

IPIC recognizes that the 2021 mandate letters reflect the policy objective of implementing a right to repair to extend the life of home appliances and amending the Copyright Act to allow for the repair of digital devices and systems, a pursuit that led honourable member Wilson Miao to table Bill C-244.

We are pleased to hear the openness to amend the bill, including from MP Wilson Miao himself. IPIC’s written submissions will follow and include specific proposed amendments to the bill for you to consider, which are aimed at helping the government achieve its objectives.

To that end, our subcommittee focused our efforts on the specific wording of Bill C-244, considering the entire scheme of the Copyright Act, a comparison with approaches of our trading partners, as well as compliance with Canada’s treaty obligations. I will provide some highlights today.

From a copyright perspective, the right to repair concerns exceptions that permit technological protection measures—or TPMs—to be circumvented. Since 1997, Canada has recognized that adequate legal protections for TPMs are indispensable to protecting copyright. Since then, reliance on TPMs has become integral—

[Joshua Dickison, Copyright Officer, University of New Brunswick, Canadian Federation of Library Associations]

Good morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Joshua Dickison. I'm a member of the Canadian Federation of Library Associations on the copyright committee, and a copyright officer at the University of New Brunswick. With me here today is Alexandra Kohn, also a member of the CFLA's copyright committee, and a copyright and digital collections librarian at McGill University.

We greatly appreciate this opportunity to meet with you today regarding Bill C-244.

The CFLA is the united, national voice of Canada's library community. We represent the interests of public, academic, school and special libraries, and all of those concerned about enhancing the quality of life for Canadians through access to knowledge and literacy.

The CFLA applauds the Government of Canada for the introduction of Bill C-244, and supports the right to repair. As noted in our brief, the CFLA believes that additional and critical modifications are required if the legislation of technological protection measures—TPMs—is to ultimately succeed in being both balanced and technologically neutral.

Libraries, archives and museums—LAMs—believe that all Canadians should be able to circumvent TPMs for all non-infringing purposes, including the right to repair products. The right to repair should be a user right in Canada. It is essential for preserving balance in the law.

TPMs prevent our communities from fulfilling our socially beneficial mandate to preserve and maintain access over time to our collections. Libraries and archives play an essential role, providing access to many objects and devices that control access to information, such as printers, scanners and digitization equipment, and enable innovators with our maker spaces, tool lending libraries and 3-D printers. Our collections increasingly include software-enabled products, devices and applications, such as e-books, datasets, video games, computers, Wi-Fi hot spots and more.

Without a right to repair, the ability of libraries and archives to provide access to services and collections is threatened. For example, some Canadian academic libraries purchased Espresso Book Machines. It is print-on-demand technology. These machines were over $100,000 apiece. As a result of licensing terms restricting repair to the physical equipment, many of these machines are now rendered useless and sold for parts because of prohibitive software licensing costs and the inability to fix or adapt software for continued use.

Archives need the right to repair software-enabled products, for example, as part of their preservation activities and, in some cases, to simply correctly identify their holding. U of T libraries lost access to 55 discs of purchased case study teaching material due to obsolete file formats and a lack of documentation from the proprietary software source.

Information professionals are concerned that once devices and software are rendered obsolete, are no longer supported or are deemed unprofitable by a vendor, irreplaceable knowledge will be lost or made inaccessible if repairs and modifications cannot be legally made to preserve this content and access.

Canadian TPM legislation goes beyond our international treaty obligations and has far-reaching and detrimental consequences for the preservation of our cultural expression. The current language distorts the intended balance of rights, increasingly stifles access and innovation and is at odds with the principles of technological neutrality. Libraries are stewards of the cultural record and teachers of copyright protection for creators and users. Denying users rights simply because of the medium creates a culture of copyright chill.

The CFLA and the entire library community understand and acknowledge the complexity of the issues related to the right to repair. We also welcome efforts to improve upon the interoperability exception in Bill C-294. We applaud the Government of Canada's attempt to find balance between the concerns of rights-holders and those of users as a key goal of continuing copyright reform.

The library community plays a vital role in providing Canadians access to all forms of material. That access to information is integral to ensuring that Canadians are regular contributors to the economic, social and cultural well-being of our communities.

We would like to thank you once again for this opportunity and we're happy to respond to any questions you might have.

[William Hanvey, President and Chief Executive Officer, Auto Care Association]

I made a mental note not to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, honourable members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak before you on Bill C-244.

My name is Bill Hanvey. I am president and CEO of the Auto Care Association, which is based in Bethesda, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C.

The Auto Care Association is the voice of the approximately $400-billion United States auto care industry. We provide advocacy, education, networking, technology, market intelligence and communication resources to support the collective interests of our members, which are companies that provide quality parts, products, services and repairs for all 290 million vehicles on the United States' roads today.

The vehicle service and repair industry is an essential service that includes the manufacturing of replacement parts, distribution networks, and service and repair shops. Around the world, our industry is responsible for keeping over a billion vehicles on the road in safe condition. Independent auto repair shops are in every jurisdiction and constituency worldwide. These independent shops ensure that motorists in every community, including small and remote ones, have reasonable and timely access to essential vehicle services.

Across the globe, consumers are facing a significant threat to their right to repair their vehicles at the auto repair shop of their choice. Vehicles are increasingly becoming like cellphones, connected wirelessly at all times. These connected vehicles collect thousands of data points on the health of vehicle systems. The automakers then transmit these data to themselves wirelessly, precluding access to the data by independent repair shops.

Without access to these data, there are significant risks to the automotive aftermarket. For example, without access to data, independent auto repair shops cannot service a vehicle. It becomes more difficult to ensure that vehicles are operating as efficiently and safely as possible. Moreover, consumers will lose the right to repair their vehicle at the auto repair shop of their choice. In the United States, approximately 70% of post-warranty repairs are currently handled at independent repair shops. This open, fair and competitive automotive aftermarket needs to be protected to meet consumers' needs.

The Auto Care Association supports the intention and principles behind this bill. Bill C-244 is a step in the right direction when it comes to levelling the playing field for the service and repair of consumer goods, something that is of importance not just to the automotive sector but also to many others. The bill comes at a critical moment, as manufacturers of goods, including vehicles, have become increasingly sophisticated in their ability to create a closed loop for service, diagnostics and repair.

The Auto Care Association supports the proposal to expand exclusions from software circumvention prohibitions for the purpose of repairing or diagnosing a product. While the exemption is similar to one available under its sister law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States, we believe this provision is superior, since the current U.S. law requires industries to seek a product-specific exemption every three years. Further, it appears the exemption in this legislation also includes the availability of circumvention tools used by independent repairers to diagnose and repair a product. The inclusion of this provision should increase the effectiveness of this legislation in preventing manufacturers from using software to impede competition in the repair industry.

In addition, the Auto Care Association recommends that legislative bodies around the globe include unambiguous statutory language that eliminates manufacturers' ability to prevent independent shops from obtaining diagnostic, repair or maintenance information for the purpose of legitimate repair for any devices—cellphones, farm equipment, automobiles or heavy trucks.

To that end, we support the amendments discussed by our sister organization, the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, otherwise known as AIA Canada. These amendments, which include parallel changes to the Competition Act, would help reinforce a manufacturer’s requirement to allow access to diagnostic and repair information.

The right to repair consumer goods, including motor vehicles, is necessary for a truly open, fair, and competitive automotive aftermarket to continue to exist. Right to repair is a global movement. In the state of Massachusetts, 75% of voters supported state legislation for right to repair. In March 2021, the first ever right to repair laws in the European Union came into effect that require manufacturers to make parts and repair information for products available to third parties, and I understand that 83% of Canadians agree that automakers should be required by law to share data with independent auto repair shops.

It is critical that vehicle owners—and not automakers—are the owners of their vehicle data. If our industry is to remain competitive, automakers should be required to provide access to this data so that consumers can continue to choose where to get their vehicle repaired.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present today. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 49 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 5, 2022, today we are considering Bill C‑244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022.

I want to thank the numerous witnesses we have with us today. Thanks for taking the time to join us on this Monday morning.

We have, from the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, Mr. Ian Boxall; and from the Auto Care Association, we have William Hanvey.

We are also hearing from Joshua Dickison and Alexandra Kohn, from the Canadian Federation of Library Associations, as well as Catherine Lovrics, from the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada.

From OpenMedia, we have Matthew Hatfield.

We are also welcoming John Lawford, from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

Without further ado, I give the floor to Mr. Boxall, from the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Boxall, the floor is yours for five minutes.

Copyright Act

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-294, the unlocking innovation act. I was delighted to hear from the member for Winnipeg North just a few moments ago that the Liberal members will be supporting this very important piece of legislation introduced by my Conservative colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands. I want to thank that colleague for all the hard work he has done to bring this important piece of legislation before the House.

The bill would amend the Copyright Act to allow a person, in certain circumstances, to circumvent a technological protection measure to make a computer program interoperable with any device or component, or with a product they manufacture. It would allow the owner of a software-enabled device to bypass the lock in order to make it compatible with other applications, even if they are not developed by the original software developer. It would not allow anyone to break digital locks in order to copy or alter the work of an artist or a copyright holder without their consent. Authors have been protected by the act since 2012.

The bill would allow people to break digital locks solely so the program can be used with another platform. This is called interoperability, and it is a very good thing. The bill results from a loophole in the Copyright Act applying to computer programs, also known as software, which are increasingly found in any number of digitized products imaginable.

The bill would also harmonize our Copyright Act with American legislation, ensuring Canadian innovators and businesses remain competitive with small innovators, not just in the United States but in the European Union and Australia. The American regulation currently views that reverse engineering a computer program for a legitimate reason, such as achieving interoperability, falls under the general copyright exception of fair use.

This is what the bill seeks to extend to Canadian innovators. The bill is also complementary to Bill C-244, addressing the right to repair. Whereas the right to repair tends to focus more on the consumer’s needs, interoperability necessarily carries broad implications for how competitive markets can function. There can be an equal or greater impact on the marketplace than from the right to repair. Specifically, it determines if small innovators and entire areas of industry can exist, let alone succeed, as seen in the Nintendo v. King decision.

This case centred around the expansive use of technological protection measures. Increasingly, content creators and copyright owners have turned to technological protection measures to control how their works are accessed and used. Technological protection measures include technology that provides digital locks, preventing individuals from undertaking a variety of actions, such as printing, making alterations or controlling viewing. However, when a customer buys a product, they should be allowed to make alterations or repair the product themselves if they wish. After purchasing it, they are the owner of that hardware.

In the case of Nintendo v. King, Go Cyber Shopping had advertised and offered for sale devices, referred to in the judgment as “mod chips”, a type of computer chip. Go Cyber Shopping offered mod chip installation services as well, which means it had merely offered to sell and install computer chips, including ones a customer may have bought elsewhere. The Federal Court in Canada found these activities constituted a circumvention of technological protection measures and awarded Nintendo $11.7 million in statutory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

This is why a bill like Bill C-294 is so important. It would allow small businesses who want to assist customers who own a personal technology device to make upgrades, modifications or alterations, or to repair that device. These small businesses would be able to do so without running afoul of overly expansive copyright regulations.

The bill would not only help with consumer technology devices; it would also help many Canadian farmers. As Donna Boyd, president of the Agricultural Manufacturers of Canada, said:

In today’s digital environment, physical product design is increasingly reliant on software, networking and computerization, and farmers must continue to have the freedom of choice to select the equipment that is right for their operations. Canada’s framework for interoperability is outdated and reflective of an era prior to widespread technological advancement, and it is time for meaningful modernization.

By amending Canada’s copyright law, Bill C-294 seeks to provide a clear and limited exemption for consumers and future innovators to enjoy the benefits of interoperability.

A growing number of Canadians believe the Copyright Act is long overdue for an update. Those who deal with copyright and intellectual property, including industry associations, are actively calling for it. This is what Bill C-294 will accomplish, allowing industry to meet modern technological demands.

For the last 10 years, since 2012, Canada’s Copyright Act has enforced technological protection measures to help businesses and creators benefit from their own work, including software. Some companies use this to put digital locks in place, limiting which information their competitors or users can access within their products. Combined with a lack of clarity in copyright law, this can block users from having their machinery or devices interoperate with other equipment, as they were once able to do.

Along with consumers, manufacturers are left with both practical barriers and uncertainty under the current legal precedent if they want to sell their competitive products. This bill will provide a clear, limited exemption for consumers and innovators who simply wish to enable their devices or machinery to interoperate with other equipment, as they were always able to do before.

If passed, Bill C-294 will better support Canadian innovators and consumers to maintain a competitive marketplace while upholding Canada’s copyright framework. I look forward to having the opportunity to vote to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I would like to again congratulate my colleague for bringing forward this important initiative for us to consider. I hope that, as parliamentarians, we can all work together to get this bill passed as soon as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the House is dealing with measures in right to repair legislation and modifications to the Copyright Act. In fact, Bill C-244 was here a bit earlier in the year. It was introduced by the member for Richmond Centre, and we had a fairly healthy debate on that issue. As alluded to earlier, some members had the opportunity to put some comments on the record with respect to that legislation. Many of the things that were said during that debate could also be said for this particular debate. Today, Bill C-244 is still at the committee stage, and I suspect there is going to be a great deal of seriousness in looking at the ways we can improve upon it.

With respect to the member's bill, Bill C-294, the government will be supporting the legislation. More importantly, I think there is a great deal of sympathy from all members on all sides of the House in recognizing the importance of the principles the member is trying to achieve through passing Bill C-294.

Modernizing the Copyright Act is of critical importance. There are certain things one has to take into consideration. Whenever we think of copyright, we like to think it is pretty simple and straightforward. We should be able to do this and that to different products, and there are things in place related to international trade. We can talk about, for example, the trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States. We can talk about international agreements. Copyright does play a very important role in society, and we can look at it from both an economic and a cultural perspective. That is why it is absolutely essential that we have copyright legislation.

The member made reference to modernization, and I think that is, in essence, what we should be looking at, whether it is with Bill C-244 or Bill C-294, the bill we are debating today. They demonstrate that it does not matter what side of the House we are on; there is very much a keen interest in the copyright legislation we have in Canada today. This speaks to the need for us to look at ways to maybe further study the Copyright Act.

The nice thing about Bill C-294, and why we will be supporting it, is that ultimately, by going to committee and listening to the different stakeholders, we can make some changes and, at the same time, still abide by those important agreements that allow for our economy and cultural sector to continue to grow and prosper. It is so very important.

I have indicated that things tend to get a bit more complicated and a bit more expensive, and I recall the days when I could buy a car, pop the hood and do all sorts of wonderful things to it. Believe it or not, I even did a motor transplant of sorts back in the late seventies on a 1976 Mustang. Today, if I pop the hood on a 2022 Mustang, I am not going to touch it. I suspect that if we were to investigate it, we would find TPMs on all forms of things that are locked. Some of that no doubt is justifiable, but other aspects, I would suggest, are not. I like simplicity and to think I own something.

This year we are focused a great deal on agriculture. I remember, from many years ago, the farms out in Saskatchewan. It was truly amazing to see the farmers' abilities to fix equipment.

We see a lot of equipment on a farm, from tractors and combines to cultivators. The ingenuity and expertise there is such that farmers can add something to a piece of machinery that would even make it work better. If something breaks down, they do not have the opportunity to call John Deere or whomever else to get them to come out to the field and fix the machinery. There are issues, and we are talking about hundreds of thousands if not going into the millions of dollars' worth of machinery.

There is a great deal of understanding and sympathy that there are certain aspects where we do need to come down a little harder in recognizing that consumer rights are very important. Consumer rights and competition in society is of the utmost importance, which is why I think that, as legislators, we need to be diligent in terms of what comes before us, with the idea of recognizing that we have a responsibility to look at ways in which we can protect consumer rights and encourage, wherever we can, competition. Through that competition, we are able to ensure that there are better price points and better quality products.

Someone earlier made reference to the fact that when we purchase something we like to think that it is ours. Unfortunately, because of things such as the TPMs that are put in place, a lot of things ultimately go in the garbage a little sooner than they should have. Often it is more practical or less expensive to throw something into the garbage and buy something new in some situations. In other situations, if we had the simple solution of having a third party, or better yet a third party part as opposed to having to purchase a manufacturer's part, it could save us a great deal of money. It could also make it that much more accessible in terms of availability when we actually need to use that part.

When we think of it from that perspective and factor in the issue of competition, at end of the day, there is more that we can look at, which is why I am pleased that not only do we have one but now two pieces of legislation. One is from the Conservatives and one is from my colleague and friend from Richmond Centre in the form of Bill C-244 on the right to repair.

When I spoke on the right to repair, one of the examples I used when debating Bill C-244 was something as simple as a washer and dryer. It is amazing what we see when we go to landfill sites now. We can compare to average usage to the ability to repair. These are the types of discussions that I would like to see at committee, with the idea that we keep an open mind and look at ways in which we can make some modifications to the Copyright Act.

However, we do have to take into consideration how important the Copyright Act is. As I said, it does foster creativity and innovation, which is why we have it. There are also obligations through international agreements. After all, Canada is a trading nation, but we are also a nation that cares deeply about consumer rights, which is the primary reason I think it is important that the bill before us be passed.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you that the time went by really fast. I did not think it would be my turn to rise so soon, but I am pleased to do so.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑294. I already spoke in April about Bill C‑244, which has the same objectives. If anyone wants to read the speech I gave in April, they can safely apply my comments mutatis mutandis to Bill C‑294 because they still hold true. Perhaps that is what people refer to as recycling and it is completely in line with the bill before us today.

Bill C‑294 seeks to combat planned obsolescence, but what is planned obsolescence?

I want to remind members that the term “planned obsolescence” was coined by American businessman Bernard London in 1932 in an essay entitled “Ending the depression through planned obsolescence”.

At that time, we were in the midst of the Great Depression following the roaring twenties. Mr. London complained in his writings that, because of the crisis, consumers had taken to using products until they were no longer useful, until they were completely worn out. London said this was hurting the economy. As a result, companies began to create strategies to replace items as quickly and as often as possible in order to boost sales. This has led to a form of disposable culture: manufacture, buy and throw away. It has had a very significant impact on the environment.

The main pillars of planned obsolescence are as follows. First, goods are designed to be less durable. We see this happening more and more these days. For example, my washing machine is older than I am and I will do everything I can to avoid having to replace it, which is what my washing machine repairman suggested to me, because they do not make machines like mine anymore. The last time I tried to fix it, it cost me $5 because it is a simple part, but modern machines are so complicated and fragile that they break after five years.

Second, fashion is another pillar of planned obsolescence. People are urged to buy something new even if the version they already own is still perfectly good.

Third, an item can be designed so it is impossible to repair, forcing us to buy a new one. That is what Bill C‑244 addresses. I am very pleased that it passed at second reading because it allows people to circumvent digital locks in order to repair goods that otherwise could not be repaired because of a technological barrier.

Today, we are looking at the possibility of preventing new functionalities from being embedded in a device and rendering it obsolete more quickly. The bill before us today would amend the Copyright Act. In general, the Copyright Act seeks to make it possible for creators to earn a living from their art and to protect their works from being copied or used in a manner that they would not permit. That is a good thing. However, the problem is that it also applies to digital works. A digital work is protected by a digital lock that the Copyright Act has prohibited users from circumventing since 2012.

The work cannot be altered without the consent of the copyright owner. That is a good thing, generally, but it does have a negative impact. For instance, some companies have decided to invoke the Copyright Act to prevent people who own devices running on the company's software from downloading new apps that would require access to the operating system in order to function. The legislation already includes an exception to address this aspect and, since the bill before us contains only two clauses, I would like to go through the bill and explain a little more about the legal process that applies here, since we do not often take the time to do so in the House.

Under the former section of the Copyright Act, circumventing a technological protection measure was prohibited. Circumventing a digital lock is therefore prohibited. The legislation included an exception to indicate that it does not apply to the owner of the program, who has the right to circumvent the lock if it is for the sole purpose of obtaining information in order to make that program interoperable with another computer program.

For example, the person who creates software to run a device has the right to break the lock on another piece of software to ensure that their software works if they want to use someone else's product on their device.

The lack of a broader exclusion in the law means that the owner of a product that has computer software becomes somewhat of a prisoner of the original software owner, who grants himself or herself exclusivity over any new software or applications that might be installed.

Take cellphones, for example. As we know, there are plenty of apps available to download that make our phone much more interesting. Technically, this could be covered by the Copyright Act. Apple could say that they do not want a software creator to break the lock on the Apple phone to ensure their application is compatible. Obviously, this is unattractive to Apple because it would make its phones virtually useless and uncompetitive on the market. Apple therefore does not invoke the Copyright Act, but the fact remains that it could.

The amendment in the bill would add to the existing interoperability exception in the Copyright Act by saying that it:

does not apply to a person who...manufactures a product and circumvents a technological protection measure that protects a computer program embedded in another product for the sole purpose of allowing the person to make the computer program, or a device in which it is embedded, interoperable with [it]

This means that external individuals who create programs have the right to break locks on devices they want to connect to to make sure they are interoperable.

Agricultural machinery is one example that I talked about during my last speech on Bill C‑244. Take John Deere tractors, for example. The days of tractors like my dad's old 1958 Farmall are long gone. My dad still enjoys puttering around with it to plant a dozen rows of corn behind the house. Today's tractors are much more powerful and are equipped with GPS.

The lack of an exception in the Copyright Act prevents companies from doing things like creating software that could be added to the tractor's computer to help with spreading different kinds of fertilizer. That is impossible because John Deere holds the intellectual property rights to everything on the tractor.

That means external suppliers cannot add anything to improve the device, nor can external software be added that might, say, extend the useful life of the things we own.

Let us be clear, the bill does not seek to abolish software designers' copyright. That is being maintained. It does not allow it to be copied, either. It does not facilitate unfair competition from predatory competitors. It just ensures that we can maximize the lifespan of products we already own by adding external components.

Two bills on this topic are being studied in the House. Bill C‑244 addresses the issue of repair. Today, we hope to address the issue of interoperability through Bill C‑294.

Quebec is addressing the sustainably aspect, which is another pillar of programmed obsolescence, through legislation that would assign a sustainability score to objects. Bills C‑294 and C‑244 would ensure that people could not invoke federal copyright legislation to get around Quebec's measure. That is a good thing. Now we just have to work on planned obsolescence in fashion. We hope this will be a pillar that will allow us to have an impact on social awareness. I do not think we are at the point of legislating fashion in the House, but there is still a bit of work to do.

I hope that all these other bills will be an incentive to finalize, in good conscience, our work to counter programmed obsolescence.

[Dave Carey, Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you for the invitation to appear.

I'm filling in for our farmer chair, Mike Ammeter, who is down the road presiding over a board meeting as we speak.

Global food insecurity is a complex, multi-faceted issue. It involves geopolitics, socio-economic factors and armed conflict. These are forces outside the purview of a farm group and, to a degree, even outside the control of the Canadian government.

Today, I want to talk to you about what I believe we can do from the Canadian farm group perspective to produce more food, feed and fuel to increase our agricultural exports to a hungry world. We have not realized Canadian agriculture's full potential, and many of the greatest barriers to increased productivity are domestic legislation, regulations and infrastructure, items that are within our control as a nation.

In my brief time, I will cover the top five factors that, if addressed, would mean that Canadian farmers would be well positioned to sustainably intensify their production and ultimately grow more products.

One is transportation. We need to increase transparency and confidence in Canada's railways, invest in adaptive and resilient infrastructure and take immediate steps to implement the recently released supply chain task force report.

The top recommendations that would benefit agriculture would be to expand the current 30-kilometre interswitching; to revise the Canadian Transportation Agency's mandate to provide the independence, authority and funding required to deliver on that mandate; to develop a transportation supply chain labour task force with strong agricultural representation; and to increase and improve the supply chain data—it's all for naught if we can't move our products to market.

The second would be around fertilizer. Next to water, nitrogen-based fertilizer is the second most important input to grow canola.

Any reduction in fertilizer emissions must remain voluntary and must focus on incentivizing farmers to adopt additional best practices to improve their already sustainable and efficient operations. Incentives for farmers must be made through the lens of a return on investment to get the best results. Emission reduction must also be measured on an intensity basis as farmers look to increase their yields using the same amount of land to meet current and future demand. We need to support Canada's innovative and sustainable farmers by focusing on increasing productivity, incentivizing best practices and measuring emissions on an intensity and efficiency basis.

Number three is about crop protection products. Canada has a world-class regulatory system and the products that the pest management regulatory agency, or PMRA, regulates have led to significant environmental and economic advancements on farm. These tools protect farmers' crops against pest pressures and disease and play an important role in canola sustainability. Effective weed control paves the way for conservation tillage, increasing soil health, reducing fuel use, sequestering carbon and eliminating up to 750,000 tonnes of GHG emissions per year.

The PMRA transformation agenda has created uncertainty and it challenges Canada's reputation and commitment to science and risk-based assessments. Assessments need to be done in a timely manner based on the best possible science to encourage investment and adoption of the latest technologies to sustainably grow more canola and keep our farmers competitive on the world stage. We need to champion science-based decision-making, restore confidence in Canada's regulatory system and avoid taking a European Union hazard-style approach.

Number four is around plant-breeding innovation. Plant-breeding innovation will play an important role in farmers' responses to global food security and climate change challenges. Farmers need access to the latest seed varieties developed using the latest technologies, such as gene editing. To benefit from these advancements, we need clear, transparent and predictable guidance documents from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to be released as soon as possible.

Number five is around working capital. Like any family business, farmers want to invest in their operations; however, the capital costs of farming are intensive, with most pieces of major farm equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. The CCGA strongly supports Bill C-234 and commends this committee for its work on moving that through committee stage on Monday. With no viable fuel alternatives and infrastructure in place for farmers to replace natural gas and propane, Bill C-234 provides much-needed economic relief on farm and will ultimately help the environment, the footprint of farmers and their economic viability.

The last piece of legislation we will chat about is Bill C-244, or the right to repair, currently in its second reading. Farmers also need their equipment to work in time-sensitive periods such as during seeding and harvest. The CCGA supports Bill C-244, as it will give farmers the choice of who can diagnose and repair their equipment, saving them critical time and money, and it would help reduce prices by allowing for competition.

In conclusion, it's vital that Canada focus on what we can do to sustainably intensify our primary agriculture production. To do that, we need a legislative and regulatory environment that is predictable and science-based and that fosters investment and innovation.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today, Mr. Chair.

[Ian Jack]

That's a very good question. We care a lot about both of those issues. It's a very good question; thank you for it.

I would say a few things. First of all, we've also heard testimony that this is happening anyway, regardless of this legislation. Right now you have people going on the dark web and to various corners of the internet to download pirated pieces of software to do some of this themselves. We think that this legislation would surface that and bring it, hopefully, into the legal market. That's one thing we would say about it.

We think there are, as we've also heard, environmental laws. They should absolutely be enforced. However, these are amendments to the Copyright Act, not to environmental..., and I don't think we want environment.... As Mr. Vis commented, it's already broad enough. I don't think we need to be putting environmental concerns into this bill at the same time. That should be dealt with under environmental legislation.

We are not particularly concerned about road safety aspects of this bill because, again, we're talking about legitimate software that is already being used by legitimate players in the industry to repair vehicles, and just making sure through these amendments, this Bill C-244, that we don't put a new block in place—a new padlock, if you will, on access to that software.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Okay.

Computer programs embedded in products are typically licensed to consumers. To retain the right to use the program, they usually must comply with the licence, which may require that they do not circumvent TPMs for any reason. Thus, a person could breach the licence, losing the right to use the program, even if, in this case, the Copyright Act otherwise allows the person to circumvent the technological protection measure.

Given that provinces have legislative powers over contract law, should the federal government engage with them on the matter of restrictive licences—in the context of Bill C-244, obviously?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be directed toward Mr. Malik and Ms. Spiegelman.

Section 2 of the Copyright Act already and explicitly includes computer programs in the definition of a “literary work”. In your opinion, why does clause 1 of Bill C-244 therefore propose to specify that a computer program is a “work”? What are the implications of that?

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

How do you respond to auto or equipment manufacturers who say that Bill C‑244 could create safety or compliance gaps?

[Ian Jack]

We share that concern, absolutely. That's why we support this legislation. We think it would be, in terms of our industry, a small step forward in making sure that we don't end up in that huis clos of having to go to a dealer that is maybe 200 or 400 kilometres away, depending on the vehicle you've purchased.

As well, I would say that CASIS—and we hear about CASIS—to me is a perfect example of another piège that I would encourage the committee to think about in any amendments that it considers.

What a wonderful story that the automotive industry and the aftermarket voluntarily got together and made an agreement to share information 15 years ago. Well, since then—and it's unfortunate that Mr. Masse is not here today, because he's been on this committee forever and could tell you—year after year, the same story is heard, which is that one side says CASIS is wonderful and working perfectly and the other side says it's irreparably broken.

What is the truth of the matter? We're a third party in this; we don't have line of sight either. However, that voluntary agreement has no review mechanism, no audit mechanism, and there's no third party that looks at it that anybody can go to review it. That's why we've ended up in that situation today.

We have heard talk of—and we could accept—voluntary agreements to potentially share information among industries in order to not be subject to Bill C-244. We think that's where some would like to go with this. We would urge some caution there. If that's where we end up, we think we need to make sure, whether it's ISED or some other body, that there is a regular review.

If a party to a voluntary agreement has an issue with it, what are they supposed to do about it? Again, that's why we don't like what we would consider reverse onus from a previous witness. There's an imbalance here of economic power between an OEM and most in the aftermarket.

Our friends at LKQ may have a bit of money, but they don't have as much money as the multinational auto companies, and anybody else in that industry is going to be even smaller. To us, asking somebody like that to have hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of lawyers and spend years in court to argue about whether they should have access would be a mistake.

[Raj Malik, Vice-President, Federal Affairs and National Strategic Partnerships, Medtech Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the INDU committee.

On behalf of Medtech Canada, we're grateful to have the opportunity to participate in the committee’s review of Bill C-244. My name is Raj Malik. I am the vice-president of federal affairs for Medtech Canada. Joining me today is Mia Spiegelman, Medtech Canada’s vice-president of regulatory affairs.

Medtech Canada is the national association representing Canada's innovative medical technology industry. We represent approximately 120 member companies that range from small emerging med-tech companies to large multinationals serving the Canadian market, collectively employing over 35,000 Canadians. Medical devices range from the smallest technologies, such as pacemakers, to the largest of diagnostic imaging technologies, such as MRIs, and everything in between.

With our time at the committee today, I would like to share some insights on the current regulations under which the med-tech industry operates and how this relates to our recommendations for Bill C-244 to ensure protections for patients and health care providers are upheld.

Our primary concern with the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act in Bill C-244 is that this would allow for the access to highly sensitive medical technology software by unregulated and untrained service providers. In addition, the amendments would allow for the creation of uncontrolled and unregulated service parts for medical devices, leading to potential patient or health care provider harm.

To be clear, our industry continues to support the availability of federally regulated third party entities to service and repair medical devices. We know this is critical to the functioning of the Canadian health care system.

Medical devices in Canada are heavily regulated by our federal government. Most medical devices undergo a rigorous licensing process that ensures the medical devices sold in Canada are safe for use, and this includes any related software and accessories. In addition, most facilities or organizations that handle medical devices throughout the supply chain are also regulated, such as hospitals, manufacturers, importers, distributors and regulated third party service providers that fall under their umbrella. Through this network, we ensure that throughout the life cycle of a medical device, which can range anywhere from seven to 15 years, the device remains as effective and safe as the day it was approved for sale into Canada.

At this time, third party service providers who provide only a service of repair are not covered under any government quality assurance regulations, which leaves very little protection for our patient and health care provider populations.

As an example of federal safeguards, the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law) was passed in 2014. This legislation was brought forward by the Oakville MP at the time, Terence Young, following the death of his 15-year-old daughter Vanessa in 2000 when she used a prescribed therapeutic product as intended but suffered an adverse reaction.

Vanessa’s Law was enacted to further tighten the post-market surveillance and oversight of therapeutic products. As of 2019, manufacturers, importers and other companies across the supply chain are now required to further analyze and/or gather reports on risks and issues identified after the medical device is sold into the Canadian market. Unregulated third party service providers, on the other hand, are not currently captured under these requirements.

Additionally, unregulated service providers today are not required by Health Canada to adhere to any standard procedures such as proper training of personnel, evaluating parts suppliers, calibrating tools, maintaining records of device service and preventive maintenance or maintaining device design.

The current Copyright Act prevents unregulated third party servicers both from circumventing technical protection measures—TPMs—in our medical devices and from replacement of untested or unapproved repair parts. These protection measures ensure that only highly trained and authorized service providers can access this highly sensitive technology to perform the necessary repairs. These protections are in place to lower the risk of impacting device effectiveness and the risk of causing serious medical harm to patients.

When it comes to medical devices, TPMs are vital to the safety of patients and health care providers, as they are an integral part of what Health Canada reviews during the licensing process. TPMs ensure the device functions properly and alarms appropriately and that malicious actors cannot access patient data. If TPMs are bypassed and software modified improperly, serviced medical equipment can malfunction, causing risk to patients and technicians.

In conclusion, as medical devices are heavily regulated products requiring licences and adherence to robust safety standards, including aftermarket surveillance and reporting requirements, allowing access to unregulated third party servicers undermines existing safety measures that protect patients and our health care providers today. On behalf of Canada’s medical technology industry, we strongly recommend that medical devices and technologies regulated for sale by Health Canada be provided a specific exemption in any proposed amendments to the Copyright Act.

Thank you. We will be pleased to take any questions.

[Ian Jack, Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association]

Actually, Mr. Chair, it will be me, Ian Jack, who will be speaking first.

Hello, everyone.

Mr. Chair, honourable members, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to speak about this topic.

As noted, my name is Ian Jack, and I am VP of public affairs. With me is Jason Kerr, our managing director of government relations.

Most of you, of course, will be familiar with our brand, founded in 1913. The Canadian Automobile Association is a federation of eight clubs, providing more than 6.8 million Canadians coast to coast with emergency roadside assistance as well as automotive insurance, rewards and travel services.

Importantly, CAA is also a not-for-profit that has always advocated on issues of concern to its members. Today those issues include road safety, the environment, mobility, infrastructure and consumer protection, which is why we're here today.

Why do we care about digital locks at CAA? The answer is simple: We want Canadians to have access to reasonably priced vehicle repairs. To do that, we need competition in the marketplace. That competition will come from local garages that have been a staple of all of our communities since time immemorial. We need to ensure their future health.

Why do we think vehicles are worth taking note of in a discussion about a law of general applicability? It's because vehicles and vehicle repairs are the most expensive thing most consumers will buy to which digital locks might apply. It's not their iPhone, not their toaster oven; it's their vehicle.

We view this legislation as ensuring technological neutrality, making sure the underlying principles of the existing legislation are respected as technology advances. Time was, mechanics with the proper tools could fix your vehicle. You had options as to where to buy those tools. Now, however, software, including diagnostic software, is king across most industries, including automotive. This has given various industries the opportunity to slap an electronic padlock on their products, to the detriment of consumer choice and price competition on repair.

We don't think this is right, at least not for consumers of vehicle repair. If restrictions are in place that prevent access to a vehicle's software that supports maintaining and servicing that vehicle, Canadians are left with limited options if their vehicle breaks down or is in a collision. They have little choice but to go through their dealership.

That's fine if that's what you as a consumer want, but Canadians should have the right to bring their vehicles to a garage of their choosing. As we've recently been reminded, prices do tend to go up over time. More competition will help with affordability. We'd also point out that not everyone lives a short drive from a dealership. Access to convenient and reasonably priced service should not be limited to those in big cities. In our view, it is important to ensure that those in the aftermarket who are attempting to diagnose, maintain and repair vehicles do not face obstacles such as technological protection measures that could restrict competition.

Indeed, in recent national opinion polling, CAA has found that a significant majority of Canadians agree that independent garages should have guaranteed access to manufacturers' software to diagnose and repair vehicles.

Bill C-244 is attempting to address a potential barrier to repairability, one that will help promote price discipline for consumers. For this reason, we support this bill.

We're further hopeful that passage of the bill would encourage automakers and the aftermarket to come together to outline the gaps in availability of repair data and its accessibility and to address them for today and for the vehicles of the future. That would be good for Canadian vehicle owners by ensuring future convenience, choice and price competition.

Thank you again for inviting us to appear before you today.

We look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you to my colleague.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

My question is for you, Mr. Willshire.

The auto repair industry is present across Canada and is largely made up of small businesses. Take, for example, all the neighbourhood garages. Would Bill C‑244 spell the end to that reality? There's also talk of the labour shortage just about everywhere and the need for local and regional repairers. This applies to the agricultural sector as well as to the automotive sector, for example, and it is beneficial both in terms of the environment and price, among other things.

Will we see the end of that?

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

What do you think could be done to increase the recovery and reuse of automotive and electronic parts?

Can Bill C‑244 be helpful in this respect? What could we improve to do more?

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

Recycling and recovery of electronic materials, known as urban mining, must be done correctly. In this sense, the automotive industry is an important player in the implementation of the circular economy.

How could Bill C‑244 help your industry in this respect?

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

So it's a widespread problem.

How do you respond to vehicle or equipment manufacturers who say that Bill C‑244could also create safety or compliance gaps?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Right now, what's before us today in Bill C-244, as you mentioned, is all-encompassing legislation. What I'm hearing from equipment dealers in my riding is that there are some major consequences to what's at play here.

Have you submitted possible amendments in good faith to this committee?

[John Schmeiser, President, North American Equipment Dealers Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the INDU committee members for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss Bill C-244.

The North American Equipment Dealers Association Canada has represented farm equipment dealers in the country since 1927. In addition to the over 850 farm equipment dealers across Canada that we represent, we also have many construction, material handling, forestry and outdoor power equipment dealers as members. We're also here today on behalf of our sister organization in Quebec, AMMAQ, which has represented dealers in that province since 1949.

Our farm equipment dealers directly employ over 20,000 people across the country. For the most part, our members are located in rural areas and, in a lot of cases, our equipment dealers are the largest employers in these rural communities.

We want to be very clear that farm equipment dealers in Canada support the customers' right to repair their own equipment, and no one has taken away a farmer's right to repair their own equipment. This is a relationship-based business, and our dealers' success is dependent on our customers' success. This is also a very highly competitive business; if the dealer doesn't take care of the customer, they will take their business elsewhere.

To show how we support a customer's repair, I'd like to share the industry commitment that OEMs and dealers have made to the customer. OEMs offer our farmer customers access to error or fault codes, plus the same repair manuals, diagnostic equipment, special tools, training and parts that are available to dealers. Should a farmer or a third party repair shop wish to purchase them, they are available from all the major manufacturers who have signed on to this industry commitment and, with this industry commitment, 98% of the repairs can be performed by farmers or third party repair shops. The remaining 2% of repairs involve access to safety or emissions criteria or may need a software reset.

Another part of our industry commitment is our “repair done right” initiative, through which we train dealership employees on what is available in the marketplace. This is to ensure that our staff and our customers know what's available to support their repair.

Dealerships invest millions in parts inventory and technician training to support customer repair. Additionally, our association has spent over $3.5 million in the last few years on capital projects for technician training at some of Canada's finest post-secondary institutions, and we have awarded over 1,200 scholarships to dealership technicians to upgrade their training. We do this because it's not only good business; it's also critical that when a machine is down, our dealership staff know what the problem is and can fix it right the first time.

An independent survey showed that 56% of the parts we sell are installed by someone other than the dealership, so we clearly do not have a monopoly on repair. That same survey shows that independent repair shops, in many cases, are the top parts customers of our dealers. What we don't support, though, is modification, and Bill C-244 would open the door to modification that has negative consequences to the environment and safety concerns.

Our dealers report many instances of customers altering the emission systems on their off-road equipment in an effort for better fuel economy and performance. However, this violates the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and there's a lack of enforcement in this area. If Bill C-244 passes in its current form, this will open the door to widespread altering of emission systems, as there will be open access to the software.

Additionally, access to the software will create many safety hazards. As an example, a tractor's brakes are designed for the maximum speed of 40 kilometres per hour; however, with access to the software, that speed can be increased to as high as 70 kilometres per hour. That speed makes the tractor unsafe and creates a hazard to the public. Allowing access to farm equipment software also creates a cybersecurity concern.

Most modern farm equipment has remote access and diagnostic capabilities. Already we have hackers who are boasting about their attempts to remotely shut down tractors. Opening up access to the software will put Canada's food supply chain at risk.

Earlier this year, John Deere was able to remotely disable tractors that were stolen in the Ukraine by Russian troops. If proprietary code is allowed to be accessed, this could put control of the units in the hands of others with possible disastrous consequences and national security risks.

For these reasons, we oppose Bill C-244 in its current form. It doesn't take into consideration the industry commitment that supports customer repair and has unintended safety, environmental and cybersecurity consequences for the Canadian agricultural industry.

We welcome MP Miao's comments that he was willing to entertain amendments to the bill with respect to our industry, and we have submitted draft language that would exempt our construction in agricultural industries.

Our industry has stepped up to support a customer's right to repair their own equipment. I hope you agree that an industry solution is preferable to a legislated solution.

Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.

[Tyler Blake Threadgill, Vice-President, Government Affairs, LKQ Corporation]

Thank you, Derek.

Mr. Chair, honourable committee members, my name is Tyler Threadgill. I'm the vice-president of government affairs for LKQ Corporation, working across Canada and in the United States. Thank you for having us here today to share our thoughts on this important piece of legislation.

Bill C-244 is integral to protecting not only Canadian consumers but Canadian small business owners. Our goal is to develop a framework that allows repair and maintenance data to be shared with the automotive aftermarket and a vehicle owner's repair shop of choice. Specifically, we believe the inclusion of a right-to-repair regime for the automotive diagnostic, repair and service sector is imperative to keeping up with the ever-changing automotive industry.

As Derek alluded to, in 2009, the CASIS agreement was reached, which would allow the automotive aftermarket to access important repair and maintenance information. Similarly, a memorandum of understanding was reached by the same parties in the United States about five years later. However, there were unforeseen flaws in this agreement. They did not account for various technological advances. For instance, when these agreements were signed, in order to access vehicle data, a computer needed to be plugged into a car. Now vehicle data is sent through a telematic system that transmits data wirelessly to a server managed by the manufacturer, a process that was not around when these agreements were signed.

To remain up to speed in this technologically evolving landscape and safeguard access to vehicle data by the independent aftermarket, Bill C-244 should take into account the following concepts:

Vehicles compile extraordinary amounts of data, such as where you go and how fast you drive. It's a lot of personal information. I want to be very clear: We do not want that information. What we're looking for is the aftermarket having access to vehicle repair and maintenance data that is necessary to repair a car.

Cybersecurity is another key component to consider. This data needs to be sent in a safe, readable format for all technicians to access.

I'd like to reiterate the industry's goal: We are asking for legislation that maintains the historical status quo in the repair and maintenance market.

This is a time of tremendous technological advancement. It is critical that legislation keep pace to ensure that Canadians' choices and rights remain protected.

Thank you again for your time. We welcome any questions and look forward to working with you on this important issue.

[Derek Willshire, Regional Vice-President, Canada, LKQ Corporation]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, my name is Derek Willshire, and I'm the regional vice-president for Canada at LKQ. I'm here today with my colleague, Tyler Threadgill, vice-president and head of Federal Government Affairs.

Thank you for giving LKQ the opportunity to comment on Bill C‑244, an important bill that seeks to improve the right to repair. Comprehensive regulation of the right to repair is urgently needed. Small businesses and consumers, particularly those in rural areas, will suffer significant negative impacts if action is not taken. For more information, we invite you to read the brief that we submitted on Bill C‑244.

LKQ distributes quality automotive replacement parts, whether OEM parts or aftermarket parts, for consumer vehicle repair, as well as a comprehensive diagnostic and calibration services throughout Canada and the United States.

LKQ is also the largest automotive recycler, recycling more than 900,000 end-of-life vehicles per year in North America.

LKQ employs 1,175 people at 37 locations across Canada. I work in office in Lévis, a suburb of Quebec City, alongside 92 men and women I'm very proud to consider my family. Our employees in Canada represent only a small portion of the 491,000 employees in the automotive aftermarket in Canada.

For many Canadians, a car is one of their most important purchases after buying a home. While innovation and technology have allowed for greater mobility, automobiles can be difficult to maintain. What we've seen and heard from the majority of our customers is that consumers have less and less choice in where they can have their vehicles serviced. According to the Auto Care Association, 70% of car repairs are done in the independent aftermarket. We are here today to advocate for the advancement of Bill C‑244 to ensure that Canadians continue to have that choice.

The Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard, or CASIS, a voluntary agreement reached in 2009, is outdated, as vehicle repair professionals now use technology that did not exist in 2009.

Consumers deserve a vibrant aftermarket that allows them to choose how and, above all, where their vehicle is serviced. That's a real need for them. Bill C‑244 does just that.

My colleague Mr. Threadgill will address some of the current obstacles.

[Brian Kingston, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, thanks for the invitation to appear here today as part of the committee's study of Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, CVMA, is the industry association representing Canada's leading manufacturers of light and heavy-duty motor vehicles. Membership includes Ford, General Motors and Stellantis FCA Canada. Canada's auto industry is responsible for over $13 billion in annual economic activity, 117,000 direct jobs and an additional 371,000 jobs in aftermarket services and dealership networks in 2020. The industry is Canada's second-largest export sector, with over $36.5 billion in exports last year.

The CVMA has been a strong supporter of the Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard, CASIS, since its inception 12 years ago. CVMA members are industry leaders, providing vehicle repair information and tools to the aftermarket at a level equivalent to their respective independent authorized dealers to ensure that Canadian vehicles are repaired to OEM specification to the benefit and protection of the consumer. Over the past few months, our members have reviewed and submitted recommended updates to the CASIS website to ensure technicians have up-to-date links to our members' respective technical information portals. Regular CASIS task force meetings provide an opportunity to bring forward details about any issue that is being encountered by the aftermarket for further study and collaboration on solutions.

Safety is automakers' number one priority, and OEMs are responsible to ensure vehicle safety systems comply with the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the MVSA. Vehicle safety technologies provide societal benefit and may save lives, including that of the driver, other passengers and those in the surrounding environment, including other motorists and pedestrians.

Vehicle emissions systems must also comply with federal regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA. Modification to a vehicle's emissions system may put a sensor out of alignment, resulting in compliance issues due to increased emissions, and it may also affect fuel consumption. Allowing unrestricted access to vehicle safety and emissions systems software that is not required to complete a repair introduces significant compliance and safety risks in the event of modification resulting in a system not operating as originally designed. CASIS ensures that repairs are done safely and in compliance with the MVSA and CEPA, among other regulatory frameworks that apply to OEMs.

Cybersecurity is another top priority for industry, and data protection and data privacy are embedded from the earliest stages of product development. OEMs invest and include security measures beginning at the design process and throughout the automotive ecosystem, and abide by rules that govern cybersecurity management.

Circumvention of a vehicle technology protection measure, or a TPM, and the modification of vehicle system firmware may undermine cybersecurity protections, making vehicles more vulnerable to hacking. Automated vehicle and connected vehicle technologies, driver-assist systems and the transition to an electric fleet with charging infrastructure require an increasingly vigilant approach to cybersecurity.

The 2020 Transport Canada report “Canada's Vehicle Cyber Security Guidance” notes that “A cyber security breach—either deliberate or accidental—could have adverse consequences, such as compromising vehicle safety, unauthorized access of confidential information, and vehicle theft, among others.”

Context is critical here. The consequences of allowing unrestricted modification of motor vehicle firmware and certain software are more serious than compared to other consumer goods, which we understand is the intended focus of this bill.

As the committee continues its study of Bill C-244, we strongly recommend the committee hear from a cybersecurity expert to receive a briefing about cybersecurity threats as related to vehicle security safeguards including measures to protect the integrity of vehicle systems. We also recommend inviting an appropriate Transport Canada official who can provide input to the committee from a road safety and motor vehicle regulation perspective as well as an Environment and Climate Change Canada official who could speak to the importance of vehicle system integrity related to fuel consumption and emissions compliance.

In closing, the CVMA remains committed to the CASIS model, which has been working for over a decade and may serve as a model for other industries to adopt. We urge the committee to continue its detailed review, hear from the vehicle cybersecurity and safety experts, and continue to engage with CVMA as this study moves forward.

With that, I'll be pleased to take your questions, and thank you again for the invitation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 43 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 5, 2022, we are studying Bill C‑244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of Thursday, June 23, 2022.

I apologize for chairing the meeting remotely today. I would have preferred to be with you in Ottawa, but that was unfortunately not possible.

I will introduce the witnesses appearing before the committee in the first hour of the meeting.

We have, from the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, Brian Kingston, president and chief executive officer, and Jennifer Steeves, director, industry and consumer affairs; from LKQ Corporation, Tyler Blake Threadgill, vice-president, government affairs, and Derek Willshire, regional vice-president, Canada; and finally, from the North American Equipment Dealers Association, John Schmeiser, president, and Eric Wareham, vice-president, government affairs.

Thanks to all of you for joining us today. It is much appreciated.

Without further ado, I will cede the floor to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

That concludes our second hour of questioning.

I want to thank all our witnesses for joining us today.

Thank you for having taken the time to talk to us about Bill C-244.

I would also very much like to thank the interpreters, the analysts, the clerk and all the support staff.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

This summer we held a round table in Sudbury with the Minister of Agriculture when she came to visit and some of our local farmers. One of the challenges they cited for farmers, especially in rural areas, is the increasing lack of access to mechanics and to mechanical parts for their farming equipment. Is it your view that Bill C-244 could help address this challenge for rural farmers?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Drury.

I'm from Sudbury, a global mining centre. We know that the mining industry uses a vast amount of equipment in their operations. Can you describe for the committee the impact that Bill C-244 would have on this sector? I'm specifically interested in learning about the economic impact as well as the environmental impact on the mining industry.

[Alana Baker]

Sure. We believe there are some amendments that can be made to this bill, Bill C-244, that would strengthen its intention. That would truly pave the way for the right to repair in Canada. Parallel changes to the Competition Act would help to reinforce the manufacturer's requirement to allow access to diagnostic and repair information, which would address some of the systemic issues around data ownership and allow our small and medium-sized businesses to truly compete.

We did see Bill C-231, which was brought forward by MP Brian Masse. I want to thank Mr. Masse for bringing this bill forward in February 2022. That bill contains a number of amendments to the Competition Act that would help to access the data. In particular, we are proposing a new section be added after section 75 of the Competition Act, proposed section75.1, “Vehicles—Access to Information and Service Parts”. I would be happy to provide members of the committee with the specific text after the presentation today.

[David Adams, President and Chief Executive Officer, Global Automakers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the 15 member companies of the Global Automakers of Canada.

Our manufacturing members, Honda and Toyota, represent 55% of the Canadian light-duty vehicle production through September 2022, while all members, as exclusive Canadian distributors of some of the world's largest global automakers, were responsible for 62% of Canadian sales in 2021.

My members recognize the importance of having an open, fair and competitive repair industry while maintaining safety and quality standards for the benefit of consumers. That is what the Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard provides to the automotive industry.

That said, some in the automotive aftermarket have utilized this bill to try to secure more rights, which we have yet to understand. We have serious concerns about Bill C-244 because it exposes vehicles to the prospect of theft, hacking, and compromised vehicle safety and emissions standards on which vehicle manufacturers are stringently regulated before they can put a vehicle on the road and afterward. The bill allows the circumvention of technological protection measures in a computer program if the circumvention is solely for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance or repair of a product. In practical terms, how does an ordinary person circumvent technological protection measures? More importantly, what are the ramifications of anyone's being provided the capability of legally circumventing TPMs for any reason?

For an automobile that operates on public roads at potentially high rates of speed, we believe the risks of injury or death for the user and the general public are obviously exponentially greater than are those from other products when TPMs are removed. Critically, how would a consumer, the manufacturer or potentially the courts know who had circumvented the TPMs and for what reasons? What would be the due diligence undertaken to ensure that the individual undertaking the circumvention of any TPMs had the appropriate certification and training to undertake the diagnostic repairs? Will the circumvention of TPMs be recorded on a consumer's bill of sale so consumers understand their potential consumer protection recourse? Will the repairer also take on the responsibility and liability associated with the circumvention of TPMs? Will the repairer provide a full and complete record of repair work undertaken to the manufacturer, to establish continuity of service in the event liability issues arise with respect to safety or emissions non-compliance or cybersecurity attack?

When MP Bryan May brought forward a previous iteration of this bill, it was made clear that the automotive industry was not the subject of the bill, because we have had a solution in place that has worked since 2010, known as the Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard, or CASIS for short. Under that voluntary agreement, manufacturers are required to provide the service information, training tools and equipment to the aftermarket so that any qualified mechanic can repair a consumer's vehicle. We're proud of the support, expert advice and help desks that our industry makes available to automotive mechanics across the country. We are open to exploring ways to improve upon this.

For the automotive industry, the right to repair clearly exists. Repair statistics bear this out when comparing repairs done by the aftermarket vis-à-vis OEM dealers. Therefore, members have been aggressively lobbied by the automotive aftermarket for so-called “rights” that already exist.

Finally, Bill C-26, an act respecting cybersecurity, is before Parliament. It will introduce more stringent standards and monitoring to ensure that Canadians are protected from cybersecurity risks and threats, yet the bill before this committee would open up opportunities for cybersecurity risks and hacking. It is not only incongruent but also puts consumers at unnecessary risk.

Indeed, consumer protection is at the heart of this issue. Consumers need to be assured that when their vehicle is serviced and repaired, it is done so to OEM service and repair standards, and that those repairing the vehicle are accountable and liable, both to the consumer and to regulatory authorities, for such repairs.

We are on board with right-to-repair solutions. We have been for the last dozen years, since CASIS was established. This solution benefits consumers and the aftermarket without creating dangerous safety and cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[Alana Baker, Senior Director of Government Relations, Automotive Industries Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, honourable members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you to speak to Bill C-244.

I'm going to give my presentation in English, but we'll be happy to answer any questions in French as well.

My name is Alana Baker, and I am the senior director of government relations for the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, otherwise known as AIA Canada.

I am joined today by Sylvain Séguin, president of Fix Network Canada, a global leader in collision, glass and mechanical repair services, operating over 2,000 points of service worldwide.

AIA Canada represents, supports and leads innovation in Canada's $32.2-billion auto care sector. Our more than 4,000 members, located in every riding across Canada, help keep the country's fleet of almost 30 million vehicles on the road. Whether you have been in a collision or require maintenance, our members help vehicles last longer, pollute less and keep drivers safer by offering Canadians any product or service a vehicle may need after it rolls off the dealership's lot.

I want to begin my remarks by making clear the automotive aftermarket support for the intention and principles behind this bill. Bill C-244 is a step in the right direction when it comes to levelling the playing field for service and repair of consumer goods, something that is of importance not just to the automotive sector but to many others.

Having the flexibility to repair your goods or have them maintained by third party providers is critical in a price-conscious market, as it allows Canadians to shop around for competitive pricing. Given persistent levels of inflation, ensuring a competitive marketplace does not just help businesses but consumers as well.

This bill comes at a critical moment when manufacturers of goods, including vehicles, have become increasingly sophisticated in their ability to create a closed loop for service diagnostics and repair. The more complex an item is to repair, the more challenging it is to service. This is increasingly the case for vehicles on our roads, which are effectively computers on wheels.

However, while addressing digital locks is important, there are still loopholes that can be exploited by manufacturers to prevent third parties from repairing or servicing goods. Any legislation that proposes to address this issue should contain clear verbiage that eliminates manufacturers from the ability to circumvent the sharing of data to prevent independent shops from obtaining diagnostic repair or maintenance information for the purposes of legitimate repair.

To that end, we believe that there are some amendments that can be made to this bill that would strengthen its intention and that would truly pave the way for the right to repair in Canada. These amendments, which include parallel changes to the Competition Act, would help reinforce a manufacturer's requirement to allow access to vehicle data. I would be happy to speak about this in greater detail during the question-and-answer session.

Without access to a vehicle's diagnostic data, independent auto repair shops cannot service a vehicle. This makes it harder to make sure vehicles are operating as efficiently as possible, and we expect this problem to grow significantly over the years ahead. Without intervention, automakers will continue to control the terms through which independent auto shops access this data.

Lawmakers around the world have recognized the importance of the right to repair, including through legislation that gives consumers the right to repair their vehicle, and 83% of Canadians agree that automakers should be required by law to share data with independent auto repair shops. Canada cannot afford to be left behind. Government must act quickly to advance right-to-repair principles through forthcoming legislative efforts.

Stories are emerging every day about the inability of our members to service vehicles because manufacturers make it difficult or sometimes impossible to access essential data and information. One example was highlighted during our recent advocacy day by another member of Parliament. The auto repair shop that this member typically goes to purchased brake pads to fix his vehicle, but was unable to access the repair information from the manufacturer, Volvo, to complete the repair. The repair shop then gave the member of Parliament the brake pads they had purchased and had the car towed to the Volvo dealership. The dealership then told the customer that they would not repair the car with aftermarket brake pads, meaning the customer had to pay more money for original equipment manufacturer parts.

Stories like this are all too frequent, and they will become more common without intervention by legislation. It is critical that vehicle owners and not the automakers be the owners of their vehicle data so that they can continue to choose where they bring their vehicle. Addressing this issue will allow our small and medium-sized enterprises to remain competitive and continue to serve as the primary provider of essential vehicle services to Canadians.

I want to thank MP Wilson Miao once again for his work on this bill, and thank committee members for the opportunity to present today.

We look forward to answering your questions.

[Craig Drury, Past Chair, Associated Equipment Distributors]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting the Associated Equipment Distributors to present on Bill C-244. It is an honour to appear before you today as AED's immediate past chair and as vice-president of operations at Vermeer Canada.

AED is an international trade association representing companies that sell, rent, service and manufacture construction, farm, mining, energy, forestry and industrial equipment and related supplies. AED's Canadian members account for more than $8.7 billion in annual sales and services and employ over 27,000 workers at 400 locations across the country.

“Right to repair” is a simple slogan. However, the policy proposals surrounding the issue are complex, with significant consequences.

At the outset, I want to make it clear that AED members support customers' right to repair their machinery and the right of distributors to make available diagnostic tools, repair information, parts and remote customer support. Idle, non-functioning equipment equals lost time and money. Whether it's on a farm during harvest or on a road-building project, there is absolutely zero incentive to not do everything we can as equipment dealers and manufacturers to keep the machine running. That can mean repairs completed by a dealership service technician, the customer or a third party provider. The equipment industry is highly competitive. If Vermeer Canada isn't providing proper and timely service, nothing is stopping the customer from moving to one of my many competitors and their products.

However, we don't support unfettered access to critical on-board software and information pertaining to environmental and safety protections or key operational functions, which is what Bill C-244 would ultimately do. While customers can complete most repairs to their machinery, environmental and safety functions, as well as technological developments that have made equipment more efficient and productive, necessitate restrictions in access to source code and software that ensure that key operational functions aren't modified or disabled.

Manufacturers of equipment rely on a network of independent small and medium-sized companies, many of which are family-owned, to sell, rent and service the equipment. These dealers make significant investments in their employees, including training service technicians to repair and maintain the latest high-technology machinery. Many AED members' facilities are located in rural and underserved areas, creating well-paying jobs and economic opportunities.

The equipment industry has invested significant time and resources to mitigate environmental harm, resulting in a substantial reduction in emissions. Of great concern is that Bill C-244 threatens important environmental gains, as it would permit unfettered access to embedded software to circumvent emissions protections.

Similarly, modern equipment has numerous safety features to protect both equipment operators and the public, the latter oftentimes driving or walking past construction sites and other areas while machinery is in use. Granting access to override safety features, as Bill C-244 would do, poses undue risk for operators and bystanders.

Additionally, equipment dealers invest countless resources to train certified technicians to work on complex machinery. By this mandating of access to embedded source code, unqualified individuals will attempt to repair the world's most advanced and sophisticated equipment at significant risk to themselves, operators and the public.

The aforementioned raises this question: Why would someone want to circumvent emissions or safety protections? The answer is simple: It's for machine performance. Limits on horsepower and other functions that the machine might be able to carry out are necessary to ensure that the equipment is environmentally friendly and safe. A simple Google search yields a plethora of vendors offering products and services to assist equipment owners to modify their machines. Requiring access to source code and embedded software will only proliferate this practice, with significant negative ramifications for the environment and safety.

Proponents of Bill C-244 tout the environmental benefits, because customers won't need to discard products as readily if they are able to fix products themselves. However, heavy equipment is among the most durable manufactured products commercially available. Equipment will oftentimes be sold to a customer, traded in when the customer purchases a new machine and subsequently either resold or rented. Improper maintenance or modifications related to granting unfettered access to source code jeopardize a machine's operation and longevity, which may cause negative environmental and safety impacts and shorten its productive life.

Simply put, for the equipment industry, the right-to-repair proposals are a solution in search of a problem. AED members provide customers and third party repair providers with parts, tools and other resources to complete the overwhelming majority of equipment repairs. It's bad business not to do so. Out-of-service equipment isn't merely an inconvenience; it can ruin a farmer's harvest or delay completion of a bridge or roadway.

Thank you again for the honour of appearing before you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the members of the INDU committee for allowing me to appear today to speak on my private member's bill, Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair.

It would be my honour to see this bill passed unanimously in the House. I would like to take a moment to thank everyone who supported this bill and allowed it to be discussed and studied here today in the standing committee.

This bill was previously tabled in the last Parliament by the member from Cambridge, who is now the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence. I'd like to also take this opportunity to thank him for his work.

It's important to recognize the significance of this bill and understand the potential for it to benefit all consumers across Canada. I cannot stress enough the impact this bill will have for Canadians, consumers and our environment.

The Copyright Act as it stands today is being interpreted in areas beyond its scope. Bill C-244 addresses the concerns that are becoming more frequent in today's world. We are seeing more digital products integrated into our daily lives and relied upon for everyday services. At the same time, the actual lifespan of electronics has been reduced dramatically with planned obsolescence, leading to more cost for consumers and more burden to our environment.

Copyright exists to protect the intellectual property and the original work of its creator, not to prevent the right to repair even when nothing is being copied or distributed. The current Copyright Act contains certain clauses that make it either impossible or extremely difficult for anyone to legally repair a product, or else these clauses prevent any repairs from happening at all. As a result, Canadians are not able to seek repair alternatives and face the dilemma of throwing out their new purchase because of a small malfunction or minor damage to a product.

As technology is becoming more sophisticated, technological protection measures, or TPMs, usually in the form of a technical restriction, are built in as a barrier to prevent access to the original work. TPMs may be a digital lock, an encryption or even a custom screw. These can be found in many products, such as heavy machinery from tractors to electric scooters and everyday devices from mobile phones to health devices that save human lives. These are just a few examples of the many products that have a TPM incorporated.

There are certain exemptions, such as the Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard, which is a voluntary agreement reached in 2009 in the automotive industry that ensures that automakers and aftermarket providers provide access to service and repair information to repair facilities across Canada.

Any circumvention of a TPM is prohibited and would be considered illegal. This bill ensures that any circumvention for the sole purpose of diagnosing, maintaining and repairing a product will not violate the Copyright Act.

In order to address the limitations of the Copyright Act in Canada now, Bill C-244 would change the definition of a technological protection measure by applying it to the software and computer programs within the product, allowing consumers to circumvent a TPM for the sole purposes of diagnosis, maintenance and repair. This gives back control to our Canadian consumers.

This bill is important because it is one part of the federal responsibility that must be addressed before any right-to-repair legislation exists across Canada. Bill C-244 does not rewrite the Copyright Act, but without this change, any other legislation or regulatory changes will not have their desired effect and TPMs could not be bypassed for repair. This means that anyone who decides to circumvent a TPM now could face legal consequences.

It is time to give a measure of control back to Canadians. Canadians should have the right to repair. With this, we're able to promote a greener future by reducing waste to our landfills and extending the lifespan of a product.

I look forward to hearing your comments and to answering any questions you might have.

I'm very happy to discuss any amendments moving forward to prevent unintended consequences and to strengthen the sustainability and efficacy of the legislation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

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

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Wednesday, October 5, Bill C‑244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of Thursday, June 23.

We will now begin the opening remarks with Wilson Miao.

Without further ado, dear colleague, you have the floor. You have five to 10 minutes to tell us about your bill.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, when we have private member's hour and we are debating, we sometimes pay attention and we sometimes do not. This has been a really interesting conversation. I actually want to thank the member for bringing this forward because, while we have had a bill that was very similar with respect to the right to repair, this one seems to narrow in on another aspect of the Copyright Act.

There is, sort of, a loophole that is preventing farmers, in this case, from being able to use the equipment they have rightfully purchased and leverage it and adapt it. I want to thank the member for educating us on this issue, and I think that it is definitely an important concept that merits further study to understand it more.

As the member knows, often when members bring forward private members' business, they will then reach out to members across the aisle to meet with them, to explain the bill and to solicit support, so I do look forward to meeting with the member to learn more about this bill.

The intent of the bill, Bill C-294, is to allow consumers to repair a product on their own without violating the Copyright Act. I think that, with consultations under way right now to inform the modernization of our copyright policy framework, including the facilitation of repair and interoperability, Bill C-294 actually presents a unique opportunity for us to build a strong foundation for the work ahead.

When I hear of interoperability, and I can say it quickly, I always think defence, because I worked in the defence field previously. Therefore, when I think of interoperability, I am always thinking of the defence industry. It has actually been quite interesting for me to hear tonight about the application in the farming industry.

The member opposite and the previous speakers talked about innovation in terms of farming and doing things quicker, smarter, faster, cheaper. I really am interested to hear more about how the change in this legislation could benefit farmers but also other industries. I actually think it would be quite interesting once this goes through the process, if it does get to committee, to see how this can actually apply to other industries as well and benefit other industries that are looking to innovate.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in the last Parliament, I learned that industries have many issues with change.

A lot of industries do not want to change. A lot of industries are not ready to change.

I think that this bill actually brings a unique opportunity for us to do things differently and, as I have said previously, I do look forward to hearing more about this bill. I think it is quite interesting and I think that there is a good complementarity with Bill C-244, the right to repair act, which has been sent to the industry committee.

I will conclude by saying that I am quite interested in hearing more. I am not quite sure what my position is in terms of supporting it or not. I would like to meet with the member and get his perspective on a couple of questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the bill that would amend the Copyright Act. The sponsor of this bill, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, will be pleased to know that the Bloc Québécois supports what is proposed in his bill.

If Bill C-294, which has only two clauses, is passed, the Copyright Act will be amended to “allow a person, in certain circumstances, to circumvent a technological protection measure to make a computer program interoperable with any device or component, or with a product they manufacture”.

In other words, it allows the owner of a software-enabled device to bypass the lock in order to make it compatible with other applications, even if they are not developed by the original software developer. Ultimately, the Copyright Act is essentially about protecting literary and artistic property rights and encouraging fair compensation for the work that is done.

For example, like Bill C‑244, it does not allow anyone to break digital locks in order to copy or alter the work of an artist or a copyright holder without their consent. Authors have been protected by the act since 2012. This bill will allow people to break digital locks solely so the program can be used with another platform. This is called interoperability, and it is a good thing.

This bill is a good thing for consumers because it frees them from the limitations that many companies place on their customers, effectively making them prisoners to whoever holds the original software. I applaud companies that do not use the act and that allow interoperability instead of preventing it. If this bill makes its way through all the stages, that will be the norm for everyone.

Many businesses come to mind as examples of best practices and benefits for consumers. I want to emphasize that interoperability opens the door to infinite opportunities to do better things with the technological tools available to us.

We need to think about the enjoyable and user-friendly tools people want to work with. That is what the bill addresses. Take a cellphone, for example. It is much more than a telephone; it is a pocket computer that can be used for all kinds of activities. To make it even more versatile, we can download many different apps that get added to the operating system and add new functions to it. Without interoperability, would the use of this device be so widespread? The answer is obvious.

In Quebec, many apps have been developed in record time, and because they were interoperable, everyone could use them, no matter what kind of smartphone they used. There is VaxiCode, the vaccine passport app developed by the Quebec government at the height of the pandemic, the Transit app that gives us public transit schedules in real time, or even a financial app that allows us to access our credit union accounts in one click.

Although the operating system designers did not choose to invoke the Copyright Act to prevent us from downloading all these apps, the act would give them the power to do so. Our devices would be less versatile and would become outdated more quickly, and a new technology developer would be excluded from the market, restricting competition and innovation. Fortunately, they understood the benefits of interoperability.

Interoperability is considered to be very important, even critical, in many areas, including information technology, medicine in the broad sense, rail, electromechanics, aerospace, the military and industry in general. The different systems, devices and elements must be able to interact seamlessly.

Even if cellphone designers chose not to invoke their copyright to exclude competitors, other businesses did choose to do so, which is unfortunate. The idea here is to encourage and clarify the option that legislators wanted to put forward in the act, that is interoperability. I salute the member for La Prairie. That is the kind of word that he would have made me repeat and that I would have mispronounced again.

Even though Quebec has not codified the circular economy, it applies the principles of the circular economy in many of its policies, and most of its major industrial strategies are now developed in accordance with the principle of reclaiming the materials and energy used to produce goods.

It is high time we reconsidered the linear economic model and, in conjunction with Bill C‑244, adopted the principle of interoperability for the goods we consume.

The idea is to dissuade businesses from developing products in a vacuum. I will repeat the same message: We need to shift to a new paradigm and stop throwing money away. Repairability and interoperability are principles that need to be enshrined in the Copyright Act. We have to do much more with fewer resources. This realization is already reflected in Quebec's new laws and policies.

Recently, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted Bill 197, which will completely ban planned obsolescence and force companies to label their products with a sustainability and repairability rating. An ambitious update to the Consumer Protection Act is needed to make companies change their practices in ways that benefit consumers.

With the recent election, the Government of Quebec has not yet adopted the order to bring the new legislation into force, but it has clearly indicated its intention to do so swiftly.

Far from interfering in the work of the National Assembly of Quebec, passing Bill C‑294 would prevent manufacturers from invoking federal copyright law to counter the work being done to make Quebec the place where consumers will be best protected against this practice.

A World Bank report entitled “What a Waste 2.0” identifies several initiatives around the world to reduce the volume of electronic goods ending up in landfills. Members will understand why I am so excited. Very soon, probably in this parliamentary term, great strides will be made in laying the foundation for the circular economy.

I encourage members to follow the work of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, specifically in November, for I am sure they will find our study on the electronics recycling industry very interesting. It will be in November at the earliest, but this subject is very important to me.

The objectives are clear. We have to break free from disposable plastic, better inform consumers, fight waste and promote social enterprise in recycling, take action against planned obsolescence and improve manufacturing quality. This is our future.

I am encouraged, because the movement is taking hold, although several pieces of legislation still need to be modernized. This societal shift is being led by ordinary citizens and is gaining momentum. All levels of government must act, because not only is waste a health issue, but it is also key to the green transition, since the resources needed to produce these goods are not available in infinite quantities.

E-waste is a growing environmental concern, and there are several laws that should be amended to address the issue. Today's debate represents a small part of this burden, but we must redesign our laws to allow interoperability. Slowly but surely, everyone will come to see the benefits.

In conclusion, it makes sense to be able to repair our own belongings, but it does not make sense to keep supporting throwaway culture. The message must be clear: Let us put an end to schemes that encourage consumers to throw items away because they cannot repair them.

Regulatory progress is slow, but I remain convinced that this bill will make its way to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology very soon. I still hope the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry will introduce a bill to modernize the Copyright Act as soon as possible, like this fall. We are running out of time to clean up our manufacturing methods and our consumer habits.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-294 tackles a public policy challenge of importance to Canadians. I believe that we need to do more to facilitate the interoperability of products. An interoperability-friendly environment means empowering Canadians to adapt the products they own to their needs. For example, it means giving the ability to farmers to install different add-ons to their tractors so that they can do a number of different tasks with the same piece of machinery. It also means giving Canadians the ability to render compatible their old electronic devices with new technological standards to address the accumulation of electronic waste on our planet.

Many of the current obstacles to interoperability have arisen as a result of new market dynamics created by digital technologies and the increase of embedded software in products such as smart phones, televisions and vehicles. Removing these obstacles will require a variety of measures in both federal and provincial areas of responsibility. At the federal level, there is one particular marketplace framework that comes into play when discussing interoperability, and that is the Copyright Act, which is the subject of amendments proposed in Bill C-294.

The Copyright Act, as it currently reads, represents an obstacle to the ability of Canadians to extend the life cycles of their software-enabled products protected by digital locks. The Copyright Act prohibits Canadians to circumvent digital locks protecting copyrighted content like software. An exception to this prohibition already allows the circumvention of digital locks for the purpose of interoperability, but it is limited to the making of two computer programs interoperable. Bill C-294 seeks to expand this exception to allow Canadians to also circumvent digital locks to make their software-enabled products interoperable with other devices or components. This bill will work in conjunction with my private member's bill, Bill C-244, which was just voted on, to allow Canadians an increased autonomy over their purchased goods.

Because of the complexity of copyright policies and the issues related to interoperability, it remains that an expanded interoperability exception, such as the one proposed in Bill C-294, should be carefully considered so as to prevent any unintended consequences. Without prejudging the outcome of Bill C-294, I look forward to working with my colleagues to constructively scrutinize this bill.

Last year, the government conducted a number of consultations on copyright, one of which discussed the interoperability issue. The government's consultation on a modern copyright framework for artificial intelligence and the Internet of things highlighted some of the challenges for Canadians in rendering their products protected by digital locks interoperable with other products. The comments provided by stakeholders in response to this consultation are publicly available and they will greatly assist in our work.

First, some stakeholders pointed to the importance of ensuring that exceptions allowing the circumvention of digital locks respect Canada's treaty obligations. Canada must provide legal protections for digital locks that, notably, respect the terms of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Internet treaties. Canada also needs to comply with the additional requirements to protect digital locks that have been integrated into CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, which limits our flexibility to enact new exceptions allowing for the circumvention of digital locks or to expand the existing ones.

It will thus be important to ensure that the measures proposed in Bill C-294 and their effects on the Copyright Act comply with Canada's international obligations.

Second, I urge us to consider the perspective of a broad range of stakeholders in studying Bill C-294. The diversity of views will enrich the policy debate and lead to a more effective balancing of the various interests at play. The stakeholder submissions received in response to the government's consultations attest to this diversity of views.

Particularly, manufacturers have expressed concerns that expanding the scope of exceptions allowing the circumvention of digital locks could introduce personal safety and security risks for consumers. They have also noted potential cybersecurity and privacy risks, especially for products that connect to the Internet. Moreover, copyright holders argue that expanding these exceptions would expose them to piracy of their content and potential economic losses. We need to ensure the amendment sought in Bill C-294 does not negatively impact the ability of manufacturers and copyright holders to market their products and innovate.

Despite these considerations that will need further exploration, I want to reiterate the important issue Bill C-294 brings forward to us as it seeks to remove an important barrier to the interoperability of products. I look forward to continued discussions on this important matter.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for bringing forward this bill. I know that we worked together on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology last Parliament, so I am really interested to hear more about his bill.

I just wanted to know if he could elaborate a little on what the difference is between his bill and Bill C-244, which just passed in the House, in terms of right to repair. It is not clear to me as to the difference between these two pieces of legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred record division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-244 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act, which would allow all Canadians the right to diagnosis, maintenance and repair, and I am very excited to see this bill come up for a vote very soon.

The concerns of this bill impact the lives of Canadians in almost every aspect, from the tools and equipment we rely on in our day-to-day lives, to the transportation we use and commute with and the environment we care a lot about, for now and our future. The most notably impacts would be to Canadians' consumer rights, allowing consumers to gain autonomy over the goods they purchase. The support received for Bill C-244 is commendable, and we all understand that this issue is non-partisan and does not fall within one demographic but to every Canadian from coast to coast to coast.

This piece of legislation spearheads the conversation on the right to repair, and I hope to see it being discussed and studied at the standing committee in the near future. Bill C-244 addresses concerns regarding digital devices that have become increasingly prevalent over the past decade. As digital technology continues to advance, we are more connected than ever, as technology has become a fundamental part of life.

The Copyright Act as it stands today does not account for the right to repair and is preventing repairs from being done on copyrighted products, even when nothing is being copied or distributed, and today we are seeing more and more of the Internet of things in the products we purchased, all of which are protected by copyright through technological protection measures, also known as TPMs, and any circumvention to them would be considered illegal, violating the Copyright Act, and could potentially lead to charges of breaking a federal law.

This is the reason Bill C-244 would create a pathway to a broadened right to repair framework, allowing provincial and territorial governments to create their own right to repair legislation however they see fit and ensure sustainability for future generations to come.

I will give an example. The phone I have costs over $1,000, and members can guess what would happen if I were to break my screen. I would have to go to an authorized dealer repair shop to have it repaired, with an estimated cost of $329, as shown online. What would happen if I were to go to an unauthorized repair store to have it fixed for less than the estimate? The problem I might encounter is that there would be a pop-up on the screen showing that unauthorized or non-genuine parts are detected, possibly voiding any warranties moving forward.

Similar situations would apply when replacing an LED touch screen panel on a refrigerator or maintaining a new electric vehicle that someone just purchased. These technological protection measures can inadvertently prevent repairs and limit the lifespan of a product's useful life.

Canadians should have the option to repair the products they purchase and own. The circumvention of technological protection measures we are discussing, and which would be allowed under Bill C-244, would be for the sole purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair only. Any other circumvention would be considered illegal under the Copyright Act.

Before I end my words, I like to thank the member for Cambridge for the work he has done in the last Parliament and all of those who have shared their comments about Bill C-244 with me, with the hope of seeing this bill pass in the coming vote.

I thank them for their support, and I thank the members for their debate today.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief since I only have four minutes for my speech.

First, I want to recognize the sponsor of this bill, the member for Richmond Centre, as well as the member for Cambridge who preceded him and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who provided some quirky and rather amusing examples. I would have a few of my own to share, but unfortunately, four minutes is not enough time to do so.

The bill we will be voting on is very important. I am quite pleasantly surprised by the unanimous support it is receiving in the House. There are some bills that make so much sense that everyone just lines up behind them. I have a feeling this one will pass unanimously. At least, that is the impression I am getting from this morning's debate.

In the little time I have left, I would like to stress the importance of copyright. It allows artists to make a living off their art, allows creators to continue creating. It is therefore essential, and we must be cautious when studying Bill C‑244.

However, abusing a right is never acceptable. Right now, multinational corporations take advantage of their economic power to control people. Cellphone upgrades are just one example. How many of us have bought a new cellphone, not because the old one was not working, but because it was too slow? The same goes for personal computers. We are constantly updating the darn things. Eventually, two, three, four or five years later, the device still works, but it is sluggish because the inner workings get bogged down over time.

That is all planned. Take home appliances. I myself have fixed a lot of things in my life. For example, a thin, tiny little piece of plastic located below my huge, heavy washer broke when the machine was seven years old. I went to buy a metal one at Aux 1001 pièces d'Électroménager, where the staff give the kind of good advice I appreciate. The washer worked for another 10 years.

That is part of the economic system, and we need a hard reset. The goal is not to break companies' backs; the goal is to enable the reasonable use of goods and to protect our environment, which is also essential. How many tonnes of waste end up in our trash cans every year, even just counting e-waste, which is the most harmful? We need to collect that waste properly and in the right places. In Quebec, everyone knows about the Serpuariens, our very own official e-waste depots. There are other designated e-waste drop-off locations everywhere else.

It looks like my time is up. This bill is good for everyone. Let us send it to committee.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to speak to such an important piece of legislation. I am really encouraged. We often talk about consumer rights and what we can do to help our constituents. The member for Richmond Centre has brought forward a piece of legislation that really makes a difference. I applaud him for his efforts in wanting to make life better for all of us who like to use our hands to fix our products.

That is what this legislation is all about. When we stop and think about it, if we purchase something, as a consumer we should have the ability to play around with it and fix it if it breaks down. That is the essence of this bill. It is very much a consumers' rights piece of legislation. It would give people who purchase a product, should it break down in a month, two months or a year later for whatever reason, the ability to repair it.

I think my colleague from Avalon was in appliance repairs for 20-plus years. We can see how technology changes things. When I was 12 years old and pumping gas, I had a deep admiration for cars. I could pop a hood, change the spark plugs and do an oil change, and I began to understand how a motor worked. I did a lot of things with automobiles through my teenage years and into my twenties. It was simple to understand.

Nowadays, when we pop the hood, we are looking at computer technology. Some of these advancements are good for our environment. For example, I now have a turbo booster as opposed to an eight cylinder. We can do a lot of wonderful things. However, one thing we cannot do as much is the type of repair we could do in the past. Technology changes things. As the member for Richmond Centre emphasized, there are technological protection measures. Those TPMs are put into place by the appliance manufacturer to intentionally prevent people from doing the type of work they would have been able to do in the past.

That is why this important legislation is before us today. Others have attempted to get legislation through. I have a feeling that, given his persistence, the member for Richmond Centre will be successful in getting it through.

I believe the standing committee has a role to play. We understand the importance of the Copyright Act. We want to ensure that there is a creative environment in Canada and that people are investing in technology and other things and feel comfortable knowing their creativity will be supported by the government. It is one of the reasons I think it is important that it go to the standing committee. Based on the discussions and debate I have heard on this legislation, I am expecting it to pass second reading unanimously. Once it gets to the standing committee, I think we need to have a good, healthy discussion. I know the member is open to amendments that might make the legislation healthier for us.

Like the Conservative member who spoke about the agricultural community, a community with which I am so familiar, we also recognize, understand and appreciate the frustration the jacks and janes of all trades feel with respect to these products that are being purchased. Whether it is a cellphone, an automobile, a tractor, a combine or a combination thereof, or any form of consumer product that is out there, there are attempts by manufacturers to prevent those products from being fixed at the local level or, at the very least, to make them very expensive to fix.

As a direct result, we often start to see this “buy and throw out” mentality. I remember when people bought a colour TV back in the day, if something went wrong with it, they would get a TV repair person to come out. Whether it was a tube or the clicker or whatever it might be, it would get fixed and they would continue to use the TV. Nowadays, people buy a 30” flat-screen TV for about $150, because if they shop around they can get some pretty good deals. When that TV breaks down, it is off to the garbage. Hopefully it gets recycled. There is this whole idea of buying something that, when it breaks, costs too much to fix. People just buy a replacement. That happens far too often in our society.

We have heard some members talk about the environment, whether it is our landfill sites or even our recycle depots. Could we be doing a better job? Bill C-244 provides that opportunity to ensure that we have a healthier environment, that our consumers are better protected and that we allow for creativity. The government is not trying to prevent creativity and the protection of copyrights. It is important to recognize that. That is why I believe in having the bill go to the standing committee. It would be nice to hear from industry representatives, to see what they have to say about the products they actually produce. This is not an attempt to go after industry per se as much as it is to ensure that consumer rights are being protected. There is a difference.

Canada is a trading nation. We are very much dependent on and in need of expanding our borders by exporting our products and obviously importing the merchandise that Canadians desire. It is important that we maintain that two-way flow of trade. We have seen a great deal of that trade over the last number of years, and we have reached record numbers of trade agreements being signed.

When we talk about Bill C-244, what we need to keep in mind more than anything else is that it allows consumers to repair a product they own without violating the Copyright Act. That is what the legislation does. We are talking about the right to repair when someone acquires or purchases a widget, so that they are able to do the fixing at a much more affordable cost.

As well, a lot of people like to be able to fix or play around with the products they acquire. If any demonstration of that is needed, all one needs to do is look at social media, maybe by googling “how to” and whatever it is one wants to do. There are videos out there.

We need to encourage this bill all the way through. I look forward to seeing it come back to the House and ultimately get royal assent. It would have a profoundly positive impact on our communities throughout the country, and that is why I will vote in favour of this bill's going to committee at this time.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to speak to this important bill before us, Bill C-244, which deals with the right to repair.

I thought I would direct my remarks perhaps more broadly at this idea of the right to repair. It is an idea that has a lot of resonance for people I speak to, both in northwest B.C. and across the country.

First I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Windsor West, for whom this has been a topic of focus for a number of years, as well as the member for Richmond Centre and the member for Cambridge, who both brought this bill forward. This is a bill that has a lot of support from across party lines, and that is of course always good to see. I hope that in this Parliament this bill is able to progress and pass into law so the very focused approach it represents can start to have an impact and lead to some of the results that have been promised.

I mentioned that this idea of the right to repair has a real resonance. Intuitively, people are drawn to this idea because it speaks to a set of values from a bygone era, which are these ideas, this ethic, around repairing things instead of throwing them out, around conserving and around ensuring that we are not a wasteful society. I am told that my grandmother used to like to say, “Waste not, want not.” That is something she got from her mother, who of course lived through the Great Depression. Many of these ideas come from that generation, which had to do with less and had to make consumer products last longer by repairing them.

In thinking about this idea of the right to repair, I was remembering some of my experiences with repair. They do not have to do with electronics, which I know is the very directed focus of the bill before us, but I thought I would share them very briefly.

I was thinking about my neighbour Ross Van Horn. I had a lawn mower, one of those real mowers from the great Canadian company Lee Valley, and it was a quality product that was very sturdy. My abuse and misuse of it over the years resulted in the handle breaking, and it still kind of worked but I did not fix it and just kind of made do.

Ross lived across the street. Unfortunately, he passed away a couple of years ago, so I pass on this story in his memory. He would look out his front window and watch me struggling with this broken mower, and one day he came over and took it from me. He took it into his basement, took an old piece of a brass curtain rod and mended it in such a beautiful way and with such care and attention to detail that it was better than it was when it was brand new. It really reminded me of these values of the generations that came before us, values that I fear we have lost to some extent.

We have an obsession in North American culture with the new, the unblemished and the unworn. I was made aware of a tradition in Japan called kintsugi, whereby broken pottery is mended using gold instead of transparent glue. This is a way of honouring the life history of the object, of not hiding the fact that it was once broken but mending it in a way that its history is portrayed and shared as part of its beauty. That is something we could learn from in our current throwaway society. I do not know if we can be mending shattered iPhone screens with little bits of gold, but the idea that mending something can actually make it more beautiful is something that can be celebrated.

I was also thinking of an experience I had with a favourite suit of mine. Like many members in this place, I join in a lot of parades in my riding. A couple of years ago, I was mounting an old-fashioned bicycle wearing this suit. For some reason, it was particularly tight at the time, and as I lifted my knee there was a loud ripping sound and a very embarrassing part of the suit burst open. I was forced to ride this bike to the end of the parade in a rather exposed manner. I would show the House the part of the suit in question, but I fear that it may be interpreted as something unparliamentary in this hallowed chamber.

I took the suit back to the retailer and was told by the salesperson that mending the suit in such a way was not the way they wanted their products to be represented out there in the world, which I found a little horrifying. I then took it to a wonderful tailor on, I believe, Queen Street here in Ottawa, and she fixed it up so that it is better than new. I am proud to continue to wear it today.

I am digressing a little from the focus of this bill, but I suppose my point is that if we can embrace this culture and ethic of repairing things, we can create a better society. We can create less waste. We can be a society that really takes care of our resources and acts in a way that is responsible.

I know that many members have cited the amount of electronic waste that makes its way into our landfills every year. This is an issue of great concern for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the impact on our changing climate. So many of the emissions from our consumer products, particularly electronics, are created in the mining and manufacturing processes, rather than in the use over the lifetime of a product.

The statistics I saw showed that for Apple products, 83% of the life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions come from the original manufacturing processes. That was a 2010 statistic so perhaps that has changed, but there is progress to be made in this regard. By fixing things, we can use fewer things, we can extend the lifetime of these products and we can release less emissions.

This bill seeks to make a very specific change to the Copyright Act. It seems that a number of companies are using the Copyright Act in a manner that it was never intended for. Essentially, these processes, called technological protection measures or TPMs, are ways in which electronics companies essentially lock their products and prevent third party repair people from getting into them and fixing what is wrong.

Today, of course, the repairs that we are talking about do not use pieces of brass curtain rod and pop rivets. They are more likely to use lines of code or very specialized electronic parts. It seems like this is an important step, but it is only one step in ensuring that the right to repair and these restrictions on repairability are addressed.

In doing some background reading on this bill, I came across a report by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States. It lists the number of repair restrictions out there that prevent people from repairing products: product designs that complicate or prevent repair, unavailability of parts and repair information, designs that make independent repairs less safe, policies or statements that steer consumers to manufacturer repair networks, application of patents rights and enforcement of trademarks, and disparagement of non-OEM parts and independent repair. The last one they mention, which is the one this bill deals with, is software locks and firmware updates. We have a lot of work to do, and I am hopeful that we will see other legislation that tackles these other barriers to repairability.

Of course, when we talk about the right to repair, the history of these pieces of legislation has seen quite a bit of opposition from the companies that stand to benefit from these mini-monopolies over their user base. If we cannot get into a product to repair it and if we are forced to take that product back to the original manufacturer, that puts a significant amount of power in the hands of those companies. That is power they do not want to lose, so we see push-back from all sorts of companies, whether it is Apple, Panasonic or John Deere, which is of course a very common example in the agricultural sector. In the same study I mentioned, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission looked into these arguments made by companies and found that “there is scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions.”

This is a change that very much needs to be made. I think it could be construed as being against economic growth, but I would offer that the repair economy is, in fact, a very important part of our overall economy. There are so many small businesses that earn a living repairing goods, and that is a part of our economy that we can stimulate through bills like this one, which seeks to expand the right to repair.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today to speak to Bill C-244, which amends the Copyright Act “to allow the circumvention of a technological protection measure in a computer program if the circumvention is solely for the purpose of the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of a product in which the program is embedded.”

If this bill is passed, companies will now be allowed to manufacture, import, distribute, sell or rent technology supplies, devices or components used for diagnostic maintenance or repair.

Ultimately, the Copyright Act is designed to protect literary and artistic property rights and to encourage fair value for the work that is done, and it will continue to do so. Bill C-244 does not allow a person to break the digital locks that prevent copying or altering an artistic work without the consent of the copyright owner. It will allow someone to do so for the sole purpose of repairing the product.

The Bloc Québécois will vote for the bill. Let us not forget that a similar bill was introduced in the last Parliament and it passed unanimously, 330 votes to 0.

I always wonder about bills that pass unanimously. Perhaps we should have acted more swiftly. Members will recall that an election was called and all the bills died on the Order Paper. With the election being called, the analysis of the bill was interrupted right in the middle of its study at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, of which I am a member.

Although Quebec has not codified the circular economy, it applies the principles of the circular economy in many of its policies, and most of its major industrial strategies are now developed in accordance with this principle that seeks to reclaim the materials and energy used to produce goods.

It is high time we reconsidered the linear economic model and went back to repairing the goods we consume. Today, education on the environment and sustainable development, starting as early as elementary school, also includes raising awareness about reducing waste, reusing and recycling products and materials, as well as sorting. Équiterre also invites us to sign a petition on its website. To be consistent, we must adopt a new paradigm and stop throwing money in the garbage.

Our societies are catching on to the downsides of creating waste and cluing in to the economic and energy-producing potential of unwanted objects. New legislation and policy in Quebec reflect that awareness. Quebec's National Assembly is currently debating a bill that would actually ban planned obsolescence and force companies to label their products with a sustainability and repairability rating. An ambitious update to the Consumer Protection Act is needed to make companies change their practices in ways that benefit consumers.

Far from interfering with the work of the National Assembly, Bill C‑244 will prevent manufacturers from using the federal Copyright Act to thwart Quebec's efforts to protect consumers from this practice better than any other jurisdiction in the world.

A World Bank report entitled “What a waste” lists several initiatives from around the world aimed at reducing the quantity of goods that end up in landfills. In Italy, the competition bureau has fined companies for intentionally making old phones obsolete in order to entice people to buy a new one. Here in Canada, meanwhile, there are stories of people being threatened with lawsuits for fixing a broken product without authorization from the retailer. It makes no sense.

In January, France celebrated one year since its legislation came into effect. It is evolving to force companies to be more ethical and transparent about the repairability of their products. In the United States, several states are discussing it or have already started focusing on the issue of repairs.

The objectives are clear. We have to break free from disposable plastic, better inform consumers, fight waste and, in terms of reusing solid waste, take action against planned obsolescence and demand better production. That is where our future lies.

The future looks bright for repair services. Not only are more and more consumers fed up with the “buy-use-toss" cycle and the immense waste it creates, but repair tutorials and DIY support groups have become extremely popular online and across Quebec. There is now an online platform that compiles DIY repair manuals for a host of electronics. I am sure the repair services of this world, such as iFixit, will make consumers very happy.

The movement is taking hold, although several pieces of legislation still need to be modernized. In the meantime, people can still avail themselves of the right to repair by fixing their devices, since they have nothing to lose by trying to repair something that is already broken. Unfortunately, until this right is formally recognized in legislation, consumers will likely resign themselves to the reality of having to throw things away, or at best recycling them, because they were designed and assembled in factories with moulding equipment and parts that cannot be replaced.

This societal shift is being led by ordinary citizens and is gaining momentum. All levels of government must act, because not only is waste a health issue, but it is also key to the green transition, since resources to produce these goods are not available in infinite quantities.

Under section 92.13 of the British North America Act, matters of a private nature are subjects of exclusive provincial legislation. This section has to do with property and civil rights. That is why in Quebec, RECYC-QUÉBEC or the Office de la protection du consommateur programs are invested in this modernization. However, actions under federal law are still possible and this bill is a first step towards limiting them and opening the door to repairing goods. Bill C‑244 respects jurisdictions and leaves it to the provinces to define the right-to-repair principle.

Given that technological waste represents a growing environmental concern, several pieces of legislation should be amended to address the issue. Today's debate concerns a small part of this burden, but we must consider making legislative amendments to allow the repair, diagnostics and maintenance of electronic devices in particular. This definitely needs to be considered.

Bill C-244 is an worthwhile measure that confirms the right to repair products that belong to us or to have them repaired and that the people doing the repairs, whether they be mechanics or computer specialists, will no longer risk being sued for copyright infringement. This will open the door to healthy competition and the development of the SMEs that we are so proud of in Quebec.

As an aside, this is particularly important in the regions, where there is not always access to very specialized services for the repair of tractors or Apple devices, for example.

This measure also confirms that we will have other choices besides a company's authorized retailer. This bill will be particularly useful in the regions, where large corporations do not open stores, which means that it is virtually impossible to get products repaired.

Despite the difficulties facing some companies that want to adopt the principles of the circular economy, we can still make adjustments and promote “repairability”. Little by little, everyone will discover the benefits.

I invite as many people as possible to change their consumer habits before buying a product. I invite them to ask about the availability of parts and whether manufacturers provide repair services. I invite them to choose the manufacturer that can sell them parts and help them have their product repaired. I invite them to encourage businesses that offer repair services for their goods. They could also opt for used or refurbished products that often cost less.

The automobile industry is a model in that regard. Last week, I was able to have a good discussion with representatives of LKQ, who target automotive sites. Automotive manufacturers now own a great deal of strategic data, which is locked. This cuts down on the number of people repairing goods in the regions and also elsewhere. These repair persons are essential and provide services for less. The control device has a repair cost. If the information is so highly controlled, there is a cost that is passed on to the consumer.

I think we also need to modernize the Copyright Act. I am thinking about businesses such as Copibec and Access Copyright, which gave me the opportunity, in meetings last year, to talk about the importance of publishers when it comes to the use of educational materials and the loss of revenue associated with sales in the education sector.

If Minister Champagne is listening, I would encourage him to speed up—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today to speak to this legislation, Bill C-244. This is a good day. It is not a super common day in the House that all parties come together and, for the most part, agree on the generality or principles of a bill, but I think this happens to be one of those days. That is where Canadians are, and we are here to serve Canadians and to be their voice in getting things done.

The bill seeks to amend the Copyright Act. Whenever we do something like that, we have to be careful to protect the rights of producers, artists and inventors of things that have copyrights, so we do this carefully. However, at the same time, we do this keeping in mind the consumer and the taxpayer. I would like to commend my hon. colleague, the member for Richmond Centre, for his fine work on the legislation and for bringing it forward. I am glad we have the opportunity this morning to discuss it.

I hope we are able to, once this has gone through committee and comes back to the House for its final reading, work in the spirit of camaraderie and do other things like Canadians are asking us to do, such as provide tax relief and, more important, affordability. This is something we cannot lose sight of here, the whole aspect of affordability.

Bill C-244 seeks to amend exactly that, and to amend sections of the Copyright Act, chiefly where existing legislation deals with the subjects of diagnosis, maintenance and repair.

I would like to focus my comments this morning on how the legislation would impact the agriculture industry. Serving on the agriculture committee and being in an area that is very heavily centred on agriculture, this is very applicable, I would like to look at the legislation through the lens of affordability, as well as address a few of the concerns brought forward by manufacturers.

If we were to put this bill in a nutshell, into everyday language, we could say that if we buy something, we own it. As an owner of a product, whether it is an electronic device, or a household device like a dishwasher or a stove, or an automobile, or a piece of farm machinery or an implement, or a piece of construction machinery or a highway tractor, we, as the owner, have the right to repair it. Assuming we have the knowledge and the ability to do that, there is always a cost benefit of whether we can repair something more cost-effectively than the dealer that represents the original equipment manufacturer.

If we do not personally have that knowledge, we should be able to travel a reasonable distance to have it repaired by someone who does have that knowledge and expertise, and for a reasonable price. There was a time when farmers were also mechanics. If that tractor or combine was not working for them, they had to find some way to jig it up to repair it. Our seasons for planting are short and they can sometimes be very time-sensitive, and our seasons for harvesting can be short and time-sensitive as well. Farmers need to take the crop off when it is mature, when it is ripe, and when conditions allow them to do that.

I live on a bit of an acreage, so I have a John Deere tractor. I am, for the most part, very happy with my tractor, but my tractor needed a bit of work. I took it to my John Deere dealer this past week and I got him to give it a fall tune up and put it back into proper working order. I picked it up and when I looked at the repair bill, I thought I could have done all the work myself for a lot less money. There is that cost benefit, but I do not have the time to do it.

With our parliamentary responsibilities, even the times we are in our ridings, we are very busy in the constituency doing constituency work. However, farmers, owners of a product like a John Deere tractor, should be able to fix that equipment themselves, if they have the ability, the time and the knowledge. The legislation seeks to address that. Not all repairs should be proprietary to the original equipment manufacturer, but it should be incumbent upon the owner to repair that piece of equipment in the most economical way possible.

Farmers were, by necessity, jacks of all trades and as a result of this necessity, they possessed the wherewithal and the knowledge to fix and maintain their own equipment.

With the major technological advancements and computerization that we have seen in vehicles, farm equipment and appliances over the past two decades, the ability to repair is becoming more and more difficult for farmers. Progress is sometimes a double-edged sword.

When that tractor or combine breaks down in the field today, one needs the proper diagnosis equipment to plug it into the ECM to get a reading to show what is wrong and what needs to be fixed. Often it is beyond the capability or scope of what farmers are able to do, but they should have the ability to call their local repairmen, who do have the tools to plug into the port to get the proper diagnostics, which would allow them to then repair the equipment and do it in a way that would allow those farmers to expeditiously get their crop off the field. Instead of waiting for a technician, who may be four or five hours away and may be tied up with another customer fixing another urgent need, they should be able to have a variety of resources available at their disposal to fix the equipment.

New technology is great, but it also drives up prices. It makes repairs more difficult, all the more so when farmers have only one option. This legislation seeks to create options and diversity of responses and resources for farmers to access repair for their equipment.

We do not think, through the legislation, and I think all parliamentarians agree, that for the diagnostic, repair and maintenance of a machine, it should be a one-source option for repairs, which is often the case in a lot of situations, especially in the farming community. It is not a practical solution. Farmers are often very far from a repair facility, but in their own community there may be a local mechanic who has the ability and wherewithal to fix their equipment, and they should have the option to do that.

As an MP for a rural riding, I must mention the fact that farming is not cheap. In fact, it is very capital-intensive and requires a huge investment. Speaking with farmers this past summer, the cost of a new combine is upwards of $1 million, and it is loaded with technology. It is good, efficient and productive, but it does cost a lot of money, so farmers need to be very cost-sensitive and able to control their costs.

We know what has happened with the price of seed and now with fertilizer. All of those prices have seemingly skyrocketed in the last two years. There are also taxes, including the carbon tax. I am hoping members on the government side of the House will be able to support Bill C-234 from the member for Huron—Bruce, which would provide a full exemption of the carbon tax for all aspects of farming, including the heating and cooling of livestock facilities, the powering of irrigation pumps and the powering of grain dryers to dry the gain. Those things are missing, and the carbon tax has been a punishing tax for agriculture producers.

On April 2 next year, the Liberal government seeks to triple the carbon tax, which will hit farmers where hurts, and farmers cannot absorb that cost. If they are to absorb the cost, there is only one possible outcome, which is that the cost of food will increase. We need to be very cognizant of the fact that farmers have to pass along the cost of production to the end user, and the end user is all of us. We are the consumer and the people who eat the food. Let us keep this in mind, that the carbon tax, according to the Liberal plan, will be tripling this coming April.

Bill C-234 would exempt agriculture fuels from all carbon tax, and I hope that, as the bill finds its way through committee, it will get broad support, as the bill before us, Bill C-244, is getting in the House today.

I have one more story I want to relate.

I heard from a farmer who crossed the border just recently to pick up parts in the United States. It used to be that CBSA officers would simply log the part and he would be on his way. Now he says that they insist that he have all the product numbers entered online ahead of time. When he said that he did not know where to find that information or how to do that, he was told to get a farm broker to do it. Now he is expected to spend $300 on a trip to see a farm broker for a $10 part. He said that it was just crazy. However, Bill C-244 would allow that farmer to fix his own equipment at home at a reasonable cost.

As Conservatives, Bill C-244 is a bill we want to get behind. We want to support the Liberal member who brought the legislation forward, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to it.

The House resumed from April 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak from the beautiful riding of Don Valley East.

I want to first thank the member for Richmond Centre for bringing forward Bill C-244. It is very timely. The right to repair, as all the speakers have said in the past few speeches, is something that Canadians are looking for. It makes complete sense. Often lawmakers do not keep up with technology changes at the pace that they should, and it is nice to see that everyone who has spoken so far in this House agrees that this piece of legislation is needed.

Recently I got a letter from a gentleman from North Perth. He is an owner of a small independent theatre. He was telling me about the motherboard on the projector. Projectors are around $50,000 to $100,000, and the motherboard is about a $5,000 piece of technology. The technology was built in such a way that when the battery, which is basically a $1 watch battery, dies, the entire motherboard resets and becomes useless unless one pays $5,000 to fix the device.

That was a recent letter, from February 16. It came to me because I introduced a piece of proposed legislation when I was at the Ontario legislature that dealt with the right to repair as well, and to this day people are still calling me about this issue.

There are many Canadians who agree that we need to move forward on making some changes, and I think this proposed piece of legislation, this bill, is exactly what the people of Ontario are looking for. To change the Copyright Act to prohibit the use of technology protection measures or technological protection measures, or what are sometimes referred to as “digital locks”, is a good step in the right direction.

Things are changing so quickly on our planet. It is important for us to be able to fix our devices when necessary. People have talked about agricultural machinery and personal hand-held devices, and from washing machines to fridges, everything is integrated with software today. The technologies speak to each other, and it is important that people have access to fixing those pieces as quickly as possible.

I read a story a while back about people having to put their tractors onto trucks and move them hundreds of miles to get them fixed because they were not given the codes to access the software for updates that were necessary. This slows down production in agriculture, and it does something else: It takes away from the local economy. We should think of repair people in this sector as comparable to a mechanic's shop. If somebody's car is broken, they are not going to travel hundreds of kilometres for a repair. In most cases, if they live in a town, there is access to some type of mechanic who can fix their car.

That is not necessarily the case with technology today. We have cellphones that are very costly to fix. Motherboards are so integrated that the entire piece needs to be replaced, which becomes very expensive.

My first experience with the right to repair was when my cellphone broke. It was a Samsung S8 at the time. My daughter dropped it and the screen broke and I went to go fix it. The bill was $330 plus tax. A replacement phone was just a bit more than that at the time.

I was shocked that a screen could cost so much. The phone was working perfectly. It just had a crack on the top right of the screen. That opened my eyes to the world of right to repair and the advocacy that was out there.

In fact, around the same time, the member for Ottawa Centre, who was not a member of Parliament at the time, sent me a clip from CBC. It talked about the right to repair and the growing concerns in the sector around how companies were protecting their diagnostic software, manuals and schematics, specific tools and parts, and not making them available to people. I thought that we needed to make some changes in order to create more accessibility to these products.

The proposed legislation and working with the provinces is actually the perfect balance to have the right to repair movement continue to grow here in this country. I want to thank the member for Cambridge who, I believe it was in February 2021, brought forward the initial bill, the right to repair, and brought some national profile to this issue. There have been many other members across the country who have been advocating in their provincial legislatures for years, fighting for the right to repair, and I just want to mention a couple of those. I think it is important to recognize the work that is happening at the provincial level because it is complementary to the work that is happening federally, and vice versa.

Daniel Guitard from New Brunswick has been doing some incredible work, as well as Gordon McNeilly from P.E.I. I want to give a special thanks to the work of Guy Ouellette, who I would have to say is probably one of the original legislators across this country and has actually put in a lot of time and effort, not only here in this country but right across the world, in North America and at the international level, fighting for the right to repair. He introduced a bill back in April 2019, Bill 197 that amended the Consumer Protection Act, like my Bill 72 did in Ontario.

His bill focused on planned obsolescence, in addition to those areas like access to parts, schematics, etc. The bill was the first of its kind in Canada that looked at planned obsolescence and really put in place the European model for protection of products by giving them a rating system that allowed people to know exactly what they were buying before they actually purchased it and to see how long it would actually last.

Right to repair is more than just making sure people have the ability to fix their products, like many of the members have said. I am so happy to see that all of the previous members, from the impression I got, are on board to support this proposed legislation. It is very rare to go into a chamber like ours when it seems like everyone is agreeing that this is something that should go forward. Again, I want to compliment the member for Richmond Centre for bringing this forward and having a lot of people support this moving forward.

There is the environmental piece that is connected to this. There is having the ability, the right, to take a product and actually improve it or fix it. I often think about the early days of Microsoft, Apple and all these big tech companies, such as Steve Jobs in his garage taking parts from one computer and putting them into another computer or updating software. If strict right to repair laws were in place back then, we probably would not have a company like Apple today. We would not have companies like Microsoft.

Having the ability to go into a device and actually update the software or replace parts is all about innovation. It helps create a more innovative sector as well. It is important to note that this is not about compromising copyright law. This is about protecting intellectual property while at the same time allowing people to move forward to improve the products that they own.

I will be supporting this bill. I want to thank the member for the work that he has been doing to advocate for this issue. I hope that we can move forward to work with provincial governments to ensure, at the end of the day, that both federal and provincial governments can make the necessary changes to build a better country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill C-244. I was able to leave committee and jump in here. My colleague from the Bloc who spoke prior to me made a very good analysis of the bill, as well as of the efforts of the legislature in Quebec to deal with the situation over the right to repair. Part of what we are doing here is following up on work that needs to be done.

I am really pleased that the member for Richmond Centre has tabled Bill C-244. I had a good conversation with him. The intent of the bill is to make things better, not only for consumers, but for the environment and for competitiveness. In the years I have been in Parliament, I have tabled bills a couple of times on the right to repair for the automotive aftermarket. About 10 years ago, my bill passed through the House of Commons. It went to committee and, at the end of the day, a voluntary agreement was reached that is still in place. That was done by then minister Tony Clement. It is decent, but it has some issues.

I subsequently tabled another bill on the automotive sector because, since that time, automation and electronics information have changed quite significantly and not everyone is participating in this voluntary agreement. A good example is Tesla, which is not providing the information. This bill would amend the Copyright Act to allow consumers to adjust, fix or deal with an electronic device in a state of disrepair. In some instances, young people like to do that for their own innovation and usage. It does not allow for the commercialization of enhanced devices, but it is very serious. I will outline a little about the automotive sector, but one thing that is different about this bill is that it would given the provinces jurisdiction to bring in their own legislation. There is some benefit to that and there is some detraction from that, but it is another process.

I wholeheartedly support this bill going to committee, and so do New Democrats. We have had a long history on the right to repair on many fronts. I focused on automotive because others are looking at this type of legislation that would be done through the provinces. The reason I focused on automotive was because the federal legislation under Transport Canada requires a pan-Canadian strategy.

I am speaking right now from Windsor, Ontario. The situation had become so absurd that my vehicle could not be fixed in the aftermarket because information would not be provided, for example, for a simple software update, tools or equipment. I could drive to Detroit, Michigan, two miles or three kilometres from here, and get the same vehicle that was built in Canada fixed in the aftermarket.

The United States has used environmental protection and other types of legislation to provide a fair system. We are asking for fair competition and an accountable process to share that information, so that technicians can get the proper training and have the proper equipment to fix vehicles. On top of that, there are hundreds of thousands of people employed in this sector, and it would be impossible for dealerships in the general market to service all these vehicles. There are also the consequences of not fixing these devices. I will focus a little on cars in a moment, and I will switch to other devices in a second.

When we think about it, not allowing us to have this type of repair system for cars would cause all kinds of shops and places to close across Canada. Not only that, but people would be required to drive their vehicles, which are not in the best state, for sometimes hundreds of kilometres. There would be higher emissions, there would be greater safety issues and then there would be a number of shenanigans taking place. In one situation, simply updating a computer would stop a car from being fixed at an aftermarket garage, such as Canadian Tire or somewhere else. It would have to be towed to another location to get a simple adjustment to make it a working vehicle.

We also have municipalities and provincial service vehicles that are affected by this. These vehicles, having been amended for public service, actually require different types of servicing from complementary places, whether it be different types of market OEMs or others. It is really important that we have this taken care of.

To be quite frank, since I tabled my bill, some in the automotive sector have reached out to me, and they are looking back at that. The aftermarket organizations are looking at it. Hopefully, the volunteer agreement we have will get a good, thorough review for the automotive sector, so we do not have a further conflict and we can work on operations to be better.

Quite frankly, if we have car companies like Tesla that are opting out of this with no consequences, I do not know how we would go about a voluntary agreement. That is not fair for anyone, let alone the owners of the Tesla vehicle or the other companies that are doing the right thing. Some companies have been very forthright on this and are working very hard and diligently to be supportive and fair, again, in a way that is accountable, but others not so much. That is the challenge we face with a voluntary agreement.

To move specifically to the member's bill, it is much more broad with regards to the consequences that it would have, and I do not mean consequences as a negative thing but as a significant thing, on everything, such as electronic waste, which could be reduced. There is clearly a lack of regulation in Canada when it comes to some of our electronics in general.

Most recently, there has been some movement among some electronic providers to allow for their devices to have a third party fix them. I mean, how many times do we see kids or adults walking around with broken computer screens on their phones? It seems like either a hopeless cause or having to spend hundreds of dollars on a simple fix for something that should be done quite easily. On top of that, sending it in is a process that is so demanding, takes a long time and is basically being predicated upon in terms of pricing.

Now, in my view, a mobile personal device is an essential service. We use it for a number of things, not just as a phone, but for everything from work to play and staying connected to family and loved ones. As well, we pay premium for it, and there is no doubt about that, especially in Canada, as we have some of the highest costs in the developed world for these types of equipment.

There is no doubt that we need to do better on this. The lack of standards for charging these devices worldwide and the amount of electronic waste we have are simple examples to show that there is a real problem.

The member has put forth a number of suggestions here, and we are looking at the possibility of people being able to work through digital locks. These are simple things that can be done to allow people to have the convenience of fixing their devices or experience that it in a different way. Again, there are no commercialization rights to this, and there is no infringement that can take place of the Copyright Act. There are a number of issues, and it will be very helpful when we get to committee to bring them forward.

In conclusion, I want to thank the member for bringing this bill forward. I appreciate my colleague's interest, for many years, on this subject matter as we wrestle through it. The United Kingdom, Europe, the United States and a number of other countries are grappling with how to deal with this right now, and I think that it is very appropriate to bring the bill to committee.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C‑244. Today we are indirectly talking about planned obsolescence, the opposite of which is the circular economy. Funnily enough, we are engaging in a circular economy with this bill since we are recycling it from another Parliament.

As members have mentioned a few times already, the old version of this bill received the unanimous consent of the House. The Bloc Québécois will be no exception this time around and will again support this version of the bill.

To put it simply, this bill seeks to recognize the right to repair.

These days, consumer products contain a lot of electronic components. There are even smart fridges. The problem is that many companies include digital technology in these electronic components that prevents the product from being repaired without approval from the manufacturer and access to the source code. A repair person who circumvents the digital lock placed on the product without the manufacturer's consent would be committing an offence under the Copyright Act. That is what this bill seeks to correct.

I have been talking about planned obsolescence, but what does that mean? Planned obsolescence refers to a series of techniques, including software, employed by manufacturers to deliberately reduce the lifespan of a product. There are many ways to reduce a product's lifespan. This happens in the fashion industry, for instance. An item of clothing that is still wearable can, unfortunately, be considered outdated, even though that is sometimes just psychological. One year, stilettos are all the rage, then chunky heels are in the following year, and so on.

A product that is still usable can be considered outdated. If it breaks, it can easily be repaired. However, products are being rolled out so quickly these days that they are lower quality, which means that they are not kept as long.

Another aspect of this problem is that the goods being manufactured these days are really flimsy, so we end up having less control over what we are buying. Over time, the lifespan of manufactured goods has gotten shorter and shorter, in order to encourage us to buy more. At the turn of the century, it was thought that this would be a good way to get the economy going postwar. Now, however, we need to take the environment into account, since this kind of consumption has a significant impact.

The Quebec National Assembly is already looking at the lifespan of consumer goods. Bill 197, which is still being examined, aims to introduce a sustainability rating for goods indicating the mean time to first failure. A label would be affixed on each good, whether it is offered for sale or rent, and the consumer would know in advance how long it is meant to last.

I will be interested to see how this bill evolves, as it will certainly affect legal warranties. There are two types of warranties when you make a purchase. The legal warranty covers the normal use of a good during its average lifespan, while the conventional warranty is a protection agreed upon between the buyer and the seller.

When I was in high school, I loved reading Garfield comics. This morning, I remembered one particular strip, which I managed to find on the Internet. It shows the gears in Jon's watch popping out, an electric mixer going up in flames and ejecting its beaters, smoke billowing out of the TV and all the appliances exploding at the same time. Garfield runs to the dresser where Jon keeps his papers, starts reading the warranties and discovers that they all expired the day before.

It would be interesting to see how a sustainability rating might affect legal warranties.

Quebec's bill covers all the bases because it will also state that replacement parts, tools, and maintenance and repair services must be made available to consumers. In addition, the bill will prevent retailers and manufacturers from refusing to honour a warranty on the grounds that the item was repaired by someone other than the retailer, as long as the repair was carried out by a repair person certified by Quebec's consumer protection bureau.

That reiterates what I just heard from the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who wanted to make sure that we work with the provinces to ensure that the two bills align. From what I understand, that will already be the case in Quebec. What is more, it is even better that the House is considering this type of bill. These bills are not contradictory. In fact, they are complementary. People in Quebec will not be able to invoke the Copyright Act to thwart the Quebec National Assembly's plans to implement Bill C-244. That is really good, because it is not very often that the two governments complement rather than contradict each other.

I talked about planned obsolescence, which is psychological, as it relates to the fashion industry, and about the lifespan of objects, which we have a little bit less control over. However, the aspect that really interests us is the digital lock that prevents repairs from being done. Sometimes it is not really worth it for consumers to get things repaired because they have to go through the manufacturer, which can easily control how much the repairs will cost since it has a monopoly. In the end, it is sometimes cheaper to just throw the object out and get a new one.

Bill C‑244 states that “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” is not violating the Copyright Act. The same goes for individuals who make a program, tool or device, also allowing them to circumvent the Copyright Act. The aim is therefore to protect these two categories of people, to make it much easier to repair an item without being subject to a form of control and monopoly by the manufacturers.

If we look at this in very concrete terms and think about objects designed for planned obsolescence, it could have an impact. This was mentioned earlier. The member for Windsor West was working on a bill to ensure that cars would not to be subject to the same kind of problem. This was not done through legislation, but it finally worked through an agreement. This is a good example of one way in which repairability was improved.

We know that cars are increasingly incorporating technology. Drivers can now leave their key with the dealer and the mechanic can run diagnostic tests on the car from that key. That is a clear example of getting around the repairability problem.

The Conservative members talked about this. I remember an anecdote I heard in the last Parliament, about a farmer who had to drive four or five hours to get to a specific manufacturer to get a repair done. There is already an environmental cost associated with planned obsolescence. Add to that the travel for getting a part repaired, and it starts to get completely ridiculous.

That is a problem we have seen with John Deere. It has embraced the concept of programmed obsolescence so completely that when it manufactures and sells tractors, it sells the tractor, but not the technology that goes with it. There is a specific clause in the sales contract saying that the farmer is buying the tractor, but not the operating software, which remains the property of the company.

Speaking of John Deere, I want to take a moment to share my four-and-a-half-year-old niece's favourite joke: “Honey, why are John Deere tractors green?” “I don't know. Ask John, Deere.” I want to give a shout-out to my niece Jeanne and her parents, my sister Karine and her partner Alex.

John Deere has this problem, and so does Apple. Almost all of us have a phone, computer or other device from Apple. Not only does Apple have the audacity to prohibit owners from having their devices repaired by a competitor, but it also patented all of its parts and components to ensure that no one could duplicate them to repair an Apple product.

This bill could impact a large number of sectors. Bill C‑244 will help address the unfortunate fact that far too many products are being thrown away instead of repaired.

[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.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-244 addresses the right to repair for all Canadians. I know the member for Windsor West previously tabled a bill similar to this for the auto industry. I understand that it was at a point where voluntarily the automotive industry had exemptions for the right to repair. However, it is not mandatory, and right now the right to repair framework has yet to address this issue further. I look forward to more discussion and also debate with members of the House to better improve the bill.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Richmond Centre for his speech and his Bill C‑244.

I see that he is sitting next to the member for Cambridge, who introduced a similar bill, and I just want to say hi because we both sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence. That member's bill was passed unanimously at second reading. Unfortunately, there was an election, and the bill died on the Order Paper.

Is the member for Richmond Centre hopeful that we will be able to pass this bill quickly, given that members not only reached a consensus about it but were unanimously in favour? Here in the House of Commons, we have to take advantage when that happens.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

moved that Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand here today in the House to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act, which would allow Canadians the right to diagnosis, maintenance and repair. This bill was tabled previously by the member for Cambridge, and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge their work.

It is a great privilege to be drawn so early for Private Members' Business on such an important bill. This bill is part of the mandate letter for the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. In the last Parliament, all parties in the House unanimously supported this bill. It was discussed in the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology before the House rose.

Bill C-244 would fundamentally change the way consumers interact with the products they purchase with their hard-earned money. Introducing the right to repair would allow for wide-ranging solutions to some of the world's most pressing environmental issues. It would better inform Canadians of the environmental impacts coming from the products they purchase. This bill is non-partisan and would benefit all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

It would create a pathway for a right-to-repair framework to be implemented within our provincial and territorial governments. The right-to-repair framework is a multi-dimensional issue. It is an important consideration for consumer protection, for competition and for intellectual property. The right to repair takes a user-friendly approach and responds to some of the most common consumer problems in allowing repairs to be made locally while also driving technological innovation. It is my sincere hope that this bill will be supported by my fellow members of the House.

The lifetime of electronics has diminished dramatically over the past decade, with consumers finding it to be more cost-effective to replace their broken items rather than repair them. This means that Canadians are not only paying more for the products they are using; they are also using them for less time. Ever-increasing numbers of products are ending up in landfills. There are over 20 million tonnes of electronic waste across the world right now as a result of the lifespan of devices being limited by planned obsolescence.

Planned obsolescence refers to the shortening of a product's useful life and making it out of date within a short period of time. This practice is costing thousands of dollars every year for middle-class families, many of whom are already feeling the effects of rising inflation due to the pandemic. This practice is creating a significant environmental impact, which Bill C-244 proposes to address.

This bill would protect consumers, create a positive impact on their savings account and contribute to a sustainable future. By introducing a limited scope of change to allow the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of a product, we would be reducing waste to our landfills and extending the lifespan of a product. The introduction of a right-to-repair framework would reduce the detrimental mining currently required to produce new products and conserve the country's precious natural resources.

Activists and organizations around the world have been advocating adoption of the right to repair. This movement began during the infancy of the computer era in the 1950s. I am pleased to bring forth this bill today in the House.

The Copyright Act prevents repairs to copyrighted products, although nothing is being copied or distributed. This is beyond the scope of the purpose for which the legislation was intended. This practice could be considered anti-competitive in nature, which brings into question the legality of the Copyright Act. Industry players and lobbyists have suggested that intellectual property rights, security and safety concerns should limit a consumer's right to repair, but it should not be that way.

Years ago, products were made with simple parts without the use of smart technologies. Now everything from washing machines to video game consoles are customizable. While this brings a huge advantage to the informed consumer, the cost of repairs associated with smart devices can add up quickly.

This can cost the average Canadian more time and money in the long term. The right to repair can extend the life of a product by allowing manufacturers to supply information and spare parts and to facilitate replication after the part is no longer produced. Without the proposed right to repair amendment, if consumers decided to circumvent a technological protection measure, also known as a TPM, they could face legal consequences, simply for trying to repair their own product.

TPMs are put in place by the manufacturer to control and limit the use of a product, preventing the modification of the original work. Currently, it is illegal to circumvent technological protection measures in Canada. TPMs can restrict access to the basic information needed for diagnosis, maintenance or repair. They can also prevent repairs from being completed at all.

I believe the owner of a product should have the right to repair it. Copyright exists to protect the intellectual property and the original work of its creator. It ensures that programmers, developers and artists are fairly compensated for their contributions. As technology becomes more important in our daily lives, the use of our digital devices will become more relied upon for everyday services. Under the Copyright Act, the costs associated with ownership are significant and reoccurring. The right to repair can provide a road map to address these concerns.

Bill C-244 ensures that everyone has fair access to user manuals and software updates for their products. This bill will pave the way for making more parts and tools available. In the future, products can be designed in a more sustainable way and these repairs can be made easily by a third party. Providing these options is crucial, which we have seen during the pandemic, as Canadians rely on their digital devices to do their jobs and communicate safely with their loved ones.

Within the technology sector, reuse is the best green policy. Some of the most common repairs can cause malfunctions due to TPMs embedded within the product. A local repair shop could be making these repairs with a right to repair framework. Repair shops have access to replacement parts for limited products, but many businesses are avoiding this option due to the legal challenges that are placed on them. This means higher costs for Canadians, with more items being sent to landfills before they need to be. Bill C-244 seeks to avoid future problems with the Copyright Act by ensuring that repairs can be completed safely and efficiently.

Canada employs a voluntary exemption in the automotive industry, and Canadians can bring their vehicles to a local repair shop for this reason, supporting a local business in the process. Within the agriculture sector, farming equipment has different requirements. The Copyright Act can prevent farmers from repairing their equipment safely. As the cost of living continues to increase, this becomes very important to consider. Our country’s farmers have been hit hard by the lack of a right to repair framework. It is my hope to provide Canadians with the replacement parts they need for a fair price and close to home. Offering secure options for repairs will provide peace of mind when something goes wrong.

In the medical sector, equipment became critical for many hospitals. Some of the most expensive equipment can make emergency repairs difficult. Repair technicians have been denied access to repair information and medical equipment since the pandemic began. Technicians should be allowed to repair equipment and perform diagnostic tests. We simply cannot leave hospitals and patients stranded during the worst pandemic we have experienced in our lives. We should allow the repairs hospitals need to care for our friends and family.

Many countries are committed to a sustainable future. The United States government also supported a right to repair framework, and 19 states now have their own right to repair measures. European countries are also legislating in this area as of 2021, where manufacturers can provide spare parts for simple and safe repairs. This legislation also requires that manufacturers can make other parts available to repair shops across Europe.

Clearly, it is time to address the limitations of the Copyright Act in Canada now.

Bill C-244 would change the definition of a technological protection measure; apply it to the software and computer programs within the product; allow circumvention of an encrypted program under section 41 of the Copyright Act; allow for the transfer of devices to service providers solely for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair; and most importantly, allow Canada to be a leader in sustainable consumerism.

Individuals will seek out the most cost-effective option when considering the repair or replacement of a product. The right to repair framework works within the free market system, allowing consumers to choose the best option for them. This provides continued innovation and growth when bringing new products to the market.

Let me be clear on the limitations of this bill, to address any pressing concerns of the members of the House. The circumvention of the TPMs would be allowed for the sole purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair only. Any other circumvention would be considered illegal. This would not rewrite the Copyright Act. The protection of the original work would remain, with legal options available against those who would violate the copyright illegally.

By creating a limited scope of change, Canadians would have the power to repair their own products. This change is designed to put a measure of control back into the hands of Canadians. Let us give hard-working Canadians repair options and save them money in the process. Let us work together in building a greener future for everyone and for our future generations to enjoy.

It is my sincere hope that fellow members in the House see the benefit for Canadians in the proposed amendment and will vote together in support of the right to repair. I urge all members of the House to join me in supporting this bill, and I look forward to any questions and debates from my colleagues.

We must ensure Canada is a global leader in sustainable consumerism and a strong champion for consumer rights.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act, one part of our right to repair system in Canada.

I would like to start off by saying that this bill was previously tabled in February 2021 by my hon. colleague, the member for Cambridge, and made it through the committee studies. It is my honour to bring this bill back in the 44th Parliament because it is still critical to the protection of Canadian consumers and our environment.

The bill is aimed at addressing copyright that is being used to stop Canadians from repairing and maintaining items that have been purchased and are owned by Canadians. It is a targeted bill that creates specific exemptions to copyright. When an individual makes a purchase of an item, the owner should have a right to repair it and not be restricted by the manufacturer. Being able to repair the items we own is critical to the well-being of our environment.

Canada has the ability to be an international leader in sustainable consumerism and act as a model on how to live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle with the things we buy. Canadians work hard to purchase the things they own and should have a right to repair these items as well.

I look forward to the debate and the support of my colleagues in the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)