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.

Copyright Act

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, right to repair is definitely a very important topic. When most people envision right to repair, they are thinking about their cellphones, TVs and trying to get smaller parts and knickknacks repaired. One part of the member's speech I found particularly interesting was with respect to farmers and the repair of machinery. On our farm, it quite often meant a four- or five-hour drive one way to get a part or to find somebody from a specific dealership or manufacturer who had the special ability to repair. That is a very important part to bring up.

However, there is one element that needs to be addressed. I wonder if the member has thought about the potential safety impacts, which are concerns within the industry, of allowing non-OEM-certified repairmen to repair machinery. I am wondering if you have any comments on that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I want to remind the member I did not allude to anything. I know the member was talking about the bill.

The hon. member for Richmond Centre has the floor.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses the right to repair for diagnosis and maintenance. It is important for us to carry out this framework so that we can help farmers in rural areas and allow them to have their equipment repaired within a close proximity so they do not need to travel far distances. Concerning safety, it would be difficult for farmers to not repair the expensive equipment they have purchased.

I look forward to this bill moving forward to committee, where we can further discuss this topic and hear the member's recommendations.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, my French is not very good at the moment, so I will answer in English.

As we all know, the bill was tabled previously by the member for Cambridge, and it was unanimously moved forward to committee before the House rose. I look forward to the support of the members of the House for the bill so that we can further study this topic and, if necessary, create amendments to the bill to perfect it, so that we can carry out the right to repair for all Canadians.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Windsor West, has done a lot of work in this regard. In fact, he is the dean of the NDP and, prior to my time in the House, he moved forward the right to repair in the automobile sector. Ever since, we have been pushing to bring the right to repair to other products as well. In fact, we campaigned on this in the last election.

To that end, I am curious why people would be against this. I can only think of the industry, which wants to oppose the right to repair for its own profit margins. Is that the sense of the member as well, that this is the key reason why there is opposition to the right to repair by consumers?

[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.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, based on my study of copyright over the years, it tends to be a zero-sum game, someone wins and someone loses, unless they hit the sweet spot, in which case it is a win-win for everyone. We can see how the bill will probably create a new industry, a new repair industry employing some people with important skills.

Could the member comment on how the bill might also spur innovation at the level of the original equipment manufacturers?

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill actually addresses and creates a lot of economic opportunities in our nation. It would also expand on a new industry with repairs, spare parts and aftermarket parts, potentially OEM products. This is why it is important for us to discuss the bill together to see how we can fine-tune it to that sweet spot so that all Canadians can benefit from the bill.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Once again, I wish everyone a happy Easter, and a happy Passover as well. Enjoy your two weeks reconnecting with constituents and we will see you here in a couple of weeks.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 25, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1) and 28(2).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from April 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Framework on Cancers Linked to Firefighting Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it truly is an honour to participate in the debate on Bill C-224. I thank the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne for bringing this important legislation to the House. We may disagree on a lot of things, but I know that she is equally passionate about serving and fighting for those brave men and women who serve our communities and our country.

If members will indulge me for just a moment, I would like to recognize a friend of mine and a champion in my hometown of Williams Lake, whom we lost far too soon last week. Des Webster served in the Williams Lake fire department for over 24 years. He retired as fire chief in 2018, after leading our community through the worst fire season and the largest mass evacuation our province had experienced during the 2017 wildfires. Des had literally just become a grandfather. My condolences go out to his family and friends back at the fire hall in Williams Lake. Des will be missed.

We are losing far too many of the men and women who serve our communities, either due to moral and mental trauma they experience or from exposure to the deadly substances and related cancers that they develop through their service to our community. I want to thank the over 26,000 Canadian men and women in the IAFF for their service to their communities and to our country. I would also like to thank the IAFF 1372 back home in Prince George.

All firefighters truly are heroes. They put their uniforms on every day, knowing full well they will experience human tragedy and may have to make the ultimate sacrifice. These brave men and women run into burning buildings. Let us think about that for a moment: They run into burning buildings. When every fibre of their being is screaming at them to find safety, they run toward danger. When people try to escape the tangled wreckage of car accidents, they dive straight in to save lives. They hold our hand as we take our last breath.

I believe we must fight for those who fight for us. I have dedicated the last seven years of my elected service to ensuring that we are fighting for those who fight for us, our silent sentinels who stand. They leave their families each and every day, not knowing whether they are going to return. Sadly, their families are far too often forgotten and left to pick up the pieces.

When I see legislation like this, it makes me proud to know that we can actually make a difference in someone's life. Simply put, Bill C-224 will save lives. More than 85% of all line-of-duty deaths among firefighters in Canada are due to occupational cancers. Can members imagine getting up every day and going to work knowing that there is an 85% chance they will die of cancer? How many members of this chamber would want to come to work if they were told they had an 85% chance of contracting cancer from our work in the chamber? Awareness and education are essential to help firefighters detect the early signs so that they can get screening early and treatment as soon as possible.

The increased use of plastics and resins in modern building materials means that the work environment for firefighters becomes more toxic with each passing year. While the average Canadian has a one-in-three chance of being diagnosed with cancer, firefighters are diagnosed with several types of cancers at rates that are statistically higher than in other occupations. Firefighters are exposed to both known and suspected carcinogens during their work. Although exposure is often for short periods of time, exposure levels can be high. Studies in fire chemistry show toxic levels of hazardous substances such formaldehyde, sulphur dioxide, benzene, toluene, and ethyl benzene, among other substances, in the smoke during the knock-down and overhaul firefighting phases, in structure fires as well as vehicle fires. With exposure, these hazardous chemicals coat their protective gear as well. They seep into every fibre. Incredibly, the gear that is designed to save their lives can also contribute to the exposure to these carcinogenic substances.

Cancer-related deaths are a growing concern among the members of the industry, and anything we can do as parliamentarians to mitigate that risk is an important first step. Bill C-224 proposes national standards for firefighting cancers, including measures to explain the link between the disease and the profession. It calls on the government to identify the educational needs of health care and other professionals and to promote research and information sharing.

There are so many things that we take for granted on a daily basis, moments that slip by us unrecognized, people, places, things that impact us without our even noticing. When we get dressed, have breakfast and leave for work, it never, in a million years, occurs to us that this could be the last day we see our loved ones, the last time we hug our wives or children, the last time we tell a friend or family member that we love them.

Firefighters have to live with this realization each and every time they put on their uniform. They go to work knowing that this could be the last time they see their families. They go to work each day to protect us. They go to work to literally save our lives and to fulfill their oath to serve our communities, to protect other families and mine, regardless of the threat to their own personal safety.

I attended the funeral of a fallen firefighter last year and I was given the Firefighter's Prayer. With the indulgence of the House, I will read it into the record:

When I am called to duty, God, wherever flames may rage,
Give me strength to save a life, whatever be its age.
Help me to embrace a little child before it's too late
Or save an older person from the horror of that fate.
Enable me to be alert to hear the weakest shout,
And quickly and efficiently to put the fire out.
I want to fill my calling and to give the best in me,
To guard my neighbor and protect his property.
And if, according to your will, I have to lose my life,
Bless with your protecting hand my loving family from strife.

Passing Bill C-224 and creating a national framework that will raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting seems such a small price to pay, a small price that will have a major impact on this essential profession, a small price that will save lives. I believe it is incumbent on all of us as leaders within our country to do whatever we can to fight for those who fight for us, whether it is fighting for the mental health supports that they desperately need so they can be well and be healthy, or whether it is fighting for legislation such as Bill C-224, which would be life-changing and help those struggling beyond their career.

None of us know what the future will bring, but at the very least, we can provide those mechanisms, put those mechanisms in place to educate health care professionals and provide resources for the families and the firefighters who put their lives on the line every day. I hope that members of all parties will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

Once again, I thank the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne for bringing it forward. She reminded me today that it was five years ago this day that she stood in the House in support of my bill, Bill C-211, making Canada the very first country in the world to develop legislation to fight PTSD for those who fight for us: our frontline heroes.

I thank all members of Parliament in this debate today and all who have come before us. I thank my good colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, who himself is a retired firefighter, as well as the member for Essex. I thank them for their service. I thank those in the gallery today.

God bless.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking to Bill C-224, sponsored by the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne. This bill provides for the development of a national framework designed to raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting and to support improved access for firefighters to cancer prevention and treatment, while also designating the month of January as firefighter cancer awareness month.

This bill has some very good points that we fully agree with, as well as some that are not so good, even though they come from a good place. Since we are at the stage of passing the bill in principle, I would like to say from the outset that we will be voting in favour of the principle of Bill C‑224, so that it can be sent to committee to be studied and improved.

We fully support the idea of officially designating January as firefighter cancer awareness month. Firefighting is considered to be one of the most demanding professions, both physically and psychologically. It is important to recognize that and focus on it.

Ever since childhood, it has been ingrained in our collective imagination that firefighters are real-life superheroes, and for good reason. Firefighters endure extremely difficult working conditions. They are constantly surrounded by hazards such as fire, electricity, chemicals, and toxic fumes. There is the ever-present risk of injury and burns. They often have brushes with death, and some of them even die. They push their bodies to their physical limits. In everything that they do and every move that they make, they are in a race against time, and each passing second wreaks havoc and ratchets up the danger level.

To further complicate matters, a number of recent studies show that firefighters also face invisible threats in the form of toxic chemicals that can cause long-term occupational illnesses, including heart disease, lung damage and cancer, and it is easy to understand why. When firefighters battle a blaze inside and outside a building, they are exposed to dangerous toxic gases. Wearing a respirator helps protect them by minimizing exposure to inhaled chemicals, but particles can stick to and contaminate their protective clothing, mask, boots and gloves, meaning that by touching them, firefighters can become contaminated through their skin. This is a real problem that cannot be ignored and must be addressed quickly. That is why we will vote to accept this bill in principle.

We want firefighters to know that this issue matters to us, that we recognize the amazing work they do and that we are deeply grateful to them. The federal government can play a huge role in many aspects of firefighters' health, and this bill puts forward some very interesting ones, such as the following points that would be in the national framework:

(a) explain the link between firefighting and certain types of cancer;

...

(d) promote research and improve data collection on the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting;

(e) promote information and knowledge sharing in relation to the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting;

It is very important that the federal government fund research on these cancers and their treatments and make that information widely available. That really is an essential part of the equation that goes hand in hand with collecting data on prevention to increase our knowledge about illnesses related to this profession. What did we know 30 years ago about toxic residues being absorbed through the skin and how serious that could be? Very little.

The federal government also contributes through the memorial grant program for first responders, the heavy urban search and rescue program, and the plan to protect firefighters, which is based on managing and authorizing chemicals.

The problem with Bill C‑224 is that the strategy it proposes is flawed. The work of firefighters generally does not fall under federal jurisdiction, yet two of the bill's suggestions are outlined as though the government did have jurisdiction in these matters.

First, paragraph 3(3)(c) requires the strategic framework proposed by the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne to include measures to “provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers linked to firefighting”. The idea that professionals exposed to a cancer risk should have access to periodic cancer screening obviously makes sense. That is clear to us. That should happen. The problem is that the federal government has no jurisdiction here, and so it is difficult to imagine that this aspect of the bill would be of any use in advancing our firefighters' worthy cause.

If the federal government wants to ensure that firefighters' cancers are detected in time, it should give the Quebec and provincial health care systems the means to make that happen by increasing health transfers to 35%, with a 6% escalator. This would get the health care systems in Quebec and the provinces back on track and help them detect cancer in firefighters and other patients in time to treat them effectively. That is the federal government's responsibility.

Furthermore, paragraph 3(3)(f) requires the national framework to include measures to “establish national standards to recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases”. Unfortunately, while the federal government does have free rein to set national standards for the firefighters under its jurisdiction, such as firefighters working in the armed forces, it cannot under any circumstances set federal standards that would infringe on the jurisdictions of the Quebec and provincial labour boards.

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, workplace safety is a provincial jurisdiction, excluding federally regulated businesses. In Quebec, the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CNESST, has the authority to compensate workers who contract work-related illnesses. In Quebec, nine cancers are currently recognized as being linked to firefighting. That said, the Bloc Québécois agrees that this is far from perfect and that more needs to be done. Let us be clear: Nine is not enough.

We support these demands from firefighters and believe that what is recognized in other provinces for the same work should logically also be recognized in Quebec. However, that is not for Bill C‑224 to determine. These are recommendations and submissions that will have to be made to the proper authorities. The federal government has no role to play here. If Bill C‑224 were adopted as is, it could wind up causing a jurisdictional battle at the expense of firefighters. The last thing we want to do is exploit them.

According to the Constitution Act, 1867, municipal institutions fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. In Quebec, for instance, the responsibilities associated with fire prevention, fire preparedness and firefighting are clearly set out in the Fire Safety Act, which divides the responsibilities among citizens, municipalities, the provincial government and the various fire departments.

We recognize that progress has been made and must continue to be made to ensure that firefighters have better protections, but ultimately, we need to remember that the federal government has no jurisdiction over workplace health and safety or over occupational diseases among firefighters. Interference in jurisdictions is never an effective solution, in the short or long term.

Let us work together to advance this cause and reach out to the authorities who actually have the power to change things. We will vote in favour of the principle of the bill. We want to improve it in committee to ensure that the bill can meet its objectives and protect our firefighters.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP supports protecting firefighters from occupational health and safety risks. Firefighters risk their lives every day to protect our communities. They have our backs when we need it most and, in turn, we have a responsibility to take care of Canada's firefighters. With that in mind, I will reiterate the words of my colleague for Vancouver Kingsway: This bill has our hearty support.

New Democrats stand with firefighters in the battle to extinguish occupational cancer and all occupational hazards they face. We must take immediate action to reduce the risk of cancer for Canadian firefighters through improved awareness, prevention, screening and treatment, which are all the things this bill proposes.

By way of background, occupational cancer is now the leading cause of early death among firefighters. Firefighters are regularly exposed to concentrated carcinogens in the air that can be breathed in as well as absorbed by the body. All firefighters are exposed to these realities, yet there is inconsistent recognition of occupational cancers among firefighters all across Canada. That is unfair. All Canadian firefighters should have the highest levels of protection, regardless of where they practise their profession.

Currently, across Canada, a firefighter's cancer may or may not be recognized as occupational depending on the province or territory in which they work. In addition, not all provinces and territories formally recognize the same cancer types as occupational among firefighters. For example, as the member beside me recently mentioned, Quebec recently enacted presumptive legislation for its firefighters, being the last province to do so. It only recognizes nine types of occupational risks, yet we know that there are at least double that number. With each province and territory having its own list of cancers that are presumed to be linked to firefighting, this alone is a reason to enact legislation to bring equity across the country.

British Columbia is one of the provinces that is leading in acknowledging the proven link between increased rates of cancer and the profession of firefighting. It leads in pre-emptive cancer recognition in Canada, recognizing certain cancers for firefighters since 2005. This is very much due to the leading work of Local 18. In 2017, the B.C. government moved forward with an amendment to the Firefighters' Occupational Disease Regulation under the Workers Compensation Act to add presumptions for breast cancer, prostate cancer and multiple myeloma as occupational diseases for firefighters.

I am going to get upset. I ask my colleague to read it for me.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I thank my colleague.

“A very important woman in my riding was involved in that advocacy to include breast cancers as pre-emptive. Her name is Jenn Dawkins, captain and acting training officer, Vancouver Fire and Rescue”—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot take the member's speech. I would just give a minute to the hon. member to be able to get her breath again. I know that this is quite emotional, and I appreciate the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith wanting to give her colleague that support.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me a moment. I practised my speech, but it does not get easier. I am sure it does not get easier for anyone.

Captain Dawkins did not know back in 2016 when she was advocating the inclusion of breast cancer that she would be going through it herself only a few years later. During COVID, she was diagnosed with breast cancer, and I am happy to say that she is now back to work after a mastectomy and four months of chemotherapy. She said, “This is an actual result of simply going to work and doing my job.”

Female firefighters are still a rarity in this country. There are very few like Captain Dawkins who have been with the service for 20 years or more, and there is little data about impacts unique to the sexes. San Francisco is further along on data collection. It began hiring women firefighters in the late 1980s. Today, the city has the largest population of female firefighters in the U.S., but unfortunately it also has a high rate of breast cancer among women 40 to 50 years old.

A few years back, it reported that of the 117 female firefighters, 11 had been diagnosed with breast cancer and one had died. That is six times the normal rate. These alarming stats are just another reason this national framework is important. Cancers that affect females need to be included and protected as pre-emptive across the country.

Jenn Dawkins is a constituent in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, and not only did she advocate for the addition of pre-emptive cancer types for firefighters, but she is leading other women into the profession. She started a program called Camp Ignite many years ago. It takes place over four days each summer at different locations in metro Vancouver, hosting girls in grade 11 or 12 who are sponsored by their local departments in their own districts. Each day of the camp is different, with activities like first aid, rope training, aerial work, live fire handling and auto extrication. I think about how this bill could protect those aspiring firefighters.

Protection from illness by raising awareness about the risks of this profession is crucial to help firefighters identify early signs of cancer for testing and treatment. What this bill seeks to do is save lives. It is such important legislation.

Over a firefighter's career, they will go to hundreds of fires, and their risk of cancer increases as they move through their career. Although a firefighter's protective gear is made to withstand 1,000°C, it cannot fully protect from cancer-causing agents because the clothing has to breathe.

That is why the national framework must include measures to do the following: explain the link between firefighting and certain types of cancer; identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting; provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers linked to firefighting; promote research and improved data collection; promote information sharing and knowledge sharing; and establish national standards to recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases.

Going back to the experiences of female firefighters in San Francisco, Anita Paratley was a battalion chief for the San Francisco Fire Department. She developed breast cancer in 2003 when she was just 46 years old. She said, “I remember when I raised my hand to swear-in (to the fire service), thinking ‘please be safe, don't get hurt’.... I never thought about cancer.”

In closing, the national framework would provide a number of things, including measures to bring equity to firefighters across the country as it pertains to certain types of cancer for all sexes so that no firefighter in any province is left behind.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I know how personal that was for the hon. member given her history and knowledge of what breast cancer does to women, so I want to thank her.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the previous speaker for her very heartfelt interest in this bill.

I am honoured to rise in the House to speak about such an important bill. I would like to thank the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne for the work she has done to create this bill and educate members and the public about how vital this legislation is, and for advocating for the protection of firefighters all across our country. I would also like to thank the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the Kitchener Professional Firefighters Association and the Cambridge Professional Fire Fighters' Association for the work they have done lobbying for support for this bill and for the work they do every day to keep us safe.

The importance of Bill C-224, an act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting, cannot be overstated. All across the country, from coast to coast to coast, firefighters put themselves in harm’s way for the safety of others. They regularly enter unknown and unfamiliar situations that pose an immediate danger to the public. However, long after the situation has passed, the long-term and lasting effects of their service are largely unknown.

As members of Parliament, we have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to protect those who so selflessly protect us and those we represent in the House. This bill would ensure that no matter where a firefighter is serving, at least some of the long-term threats posed to them will be recognized equally. Whether they are responding to a car accident in British Columbia, a structural fire in the Yukon or a hazardous materials incident in Newfoundland, the risk of cancers posed to them because of their service will be recognized.

It is heart-wrenching to consider how many mothers have lost sons and daughters, how many spouses have lost partners and how many children have lost parents because of occupational cancer. More than 85% of all duty-related deaths among firefighters are caused by occupational cancers, a prevalence of roughly three times more than the average Canadian.

Although progress has been made by the government to limit the chance of exposure to harmful chemicals that are known to be carcinogenic, a national framework is necessary, as it would help address, all across the country, the threats faced by substances when we do not know what exposure could lead to. For firefighters, exposure to a harmful substance can occur at any time of day, but a physical reaction to a substance can occur at any point in their lives. The recognition of occupational cancers for firefighters has been a struggle for far too long.

In the city of Kitchener, in March 1987, Kitchener firefighters were called to a structural fire. It was a large fire that occurred at a local manufacturing company. Multiple alarms were called, and there were only two units in the entire city that were not at the fire at one point or another. Some of the witnesses at the scene described “smoke and flame that was every colour of the rainbow”. The blaze continued through the night and into the following morning until it was finally extinguished. In total, 69 firefighters took part in fighting this fire.

At the time, the fire marshal reported that there were no significant injuries from the incident. The only exception to this was Captain Ed Stahley, who went to the hospital, as he had a green appearance. It turned out to be nothing more than green dye used in the manufacturing of Oasis floral foam. However, what no one knew at the time was that while it just seemed like a busy night for a mid-size fire department, the exposure to the chemicals used in the manufacturing of this foam would have tragic consequences for years to come.

It only took two years for firefighters to begin dying of cancer caused by their participation in this fire, with several fathering children with birth defects. Dave Ferrede was the first to pass, and tragically not the last, dying only six weeks after being diagnosed with primary liver cancer. He was 32 years old. Those who attended the fire experienced a wide array of physical ailments, with 23 of the 69 firefighters getting either cancer or Parkinson’s disease.

For decades, Kitchener firefighters fought to have their voices heard about the effect this fire had on their lives and the lives of loved ones. While many studies have now shown the correlation between cancers and firefighting, this has not always been the case and even now the recognition of cancers is clearly not equal.

This is a tragic story that happened in my community, but there are stories just like this in communities all across this country.

Recently, I met with two local firefighter unions, the Kitchener Professional Firefighters Association and the Cambridge Professional Fire Fighters' Association, to discuss this bill. The president of the Cambridge union, Steve McArthur, captured the sentiment of this bill perfectly, stating that every firefighter knows someone affected by occupational cancers. That is every firefighter, not just firefighters in Kitchener or Cambridge, not just firefighters in Ontario, but every single firefighter across Canada. In fact, mere weeks after saying this, Cambridge firefighters lost one of their brothers to cancer.

Many provinces, such as Manitoba and Yukon territory, have almost 20 cancers recognized as being linked to firefighting. Others are very behind, with some recognizing as few as six.

A national framework would also promote research and information sharing, so that the lessons learned from one tragic experience may result in it never occurring again in Canada.

We must ensure that those cancers affecting female firefighters are also acknowledged and recognized. This is particularly important as more and more females are joining this band of heroes. This means ensuring that cancers unique to women, such as breast, ovarian and cervical cancer, must be recognized everywhere in Canada and that all measures possible must be taken to protect them, such as having proper-fitting equipment.

While we debate many subjects in the House, I hope the need for occupational cancers to be recognized equally no matter where firefighters serve is not debatable.

This bill is not some abstract policy proposal. This is a bill that has many faces and many names of those who have served, those who continue to serve and those we have tragically lost. From 2012 to 2021, 400 Canadian IAFF members got cancer as a direct result of their duties. This is by far the number one cause of line-of-duty deaths in Canada. We must do more to prevent firefighters from getting cancer and to treat those who do get cancer.

People often think that the greatest threat facing firefighters is something they can see, such as a burning building, fallen debris, raging water, but it is more often the things they cannot see. That is why the other part of this bill is so important, designating the month of January as firefighter cancer awareness month.

This would help increase awareness and educate people about this most serious threat that firefighters face. The ability to identify symptoms early and provide knowledge about the occupational hazards present when performing duties is necessary for reducing the number of firefighters affected by occupational cancer.

By dedicating an entire month toward firefighter cancer awareness, we can help ensure there is a meaningful dialogue about this terrible reality and make sure the public prioritizes protecting firefighters everywhere from occupational cancers.

Firefighters are heroes. They run into danger while the rest of us run away. They put their lives on the line at great personal risk. Unfortunately, all the risks they are exposing themselves to are not known at the time and often the damage from unknown toxins, etc., only manifests itself years later.

Firefighters have our backs. I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-224 to ensure that firefighters know that Canadians have their backs.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne for proposing Bill C-224. I also want to thank the hon. member for Saskatoon West, because just 10 minutes ago, he gave up his time so that I could speak to this bill. I want to thank him for that.

In 1982, I was an 18-year-old kid. I had gone to Humber College for radio broadcasting. My first job was working the all-night shift at a country music radio station in Brandon, Manitoba. I had never listened to country music in my life. I grew up in Montreal and Toronto. I moved to Toronto when I was 12 years old. I realized very quickly, like most fledgling radio careers, that I was not going to make much money.

My uncle was a firefighter in Toronto. My Uncle Pete—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will let the hon. member take a few seconds to catch his breath. I know this is a very emotional subject and I can certainly understand that many have personal stories that affect them as well.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

My Uncle Pete, who inspired me to be a firefighter, recently developed throat cancer. He spent almost 35 years on the job with the City of Toronto. In 1985, I got a job with the City of York Fire Department as a dispatcher. I had radio experience and naturally fit in as a dispatcher, but it was not enough for me. I saw the guys and girls on the floor. I saw what they were doing, and I wanted to be a firefighter.

In 1987, I applied to the Town of Markham Fire Department. It was the Town of Markham at the time. I got on the trucks. I actually became a firefighter. I could not believe it. I was 22 years old at the time, just turning 23. There I was, with five weeks of training, in the middle of January, training to be a full-time firefighter. It was never anything that I ever wanted to do. I had always wanted to be a radio broadcaster.

The equipment they gave us at that time was unlike the equipment today. We had hip-wader boots, basically. We had long coats. There was never, ever any protection for the groin area. Everything could come up. We actually got red fireballs gloves. For those who are here today, they were effectively made of plastic. If anybody got into a fire, they would actually melt on their hands. The equipment is nothing like it was with bunker gear.

Often there were times when we went to fires at that time and we would go back to the fire station and take a shower after a fire, and the whole basin of the shower would be black. The soot and the carbon that we took in would actually have been absorbed. Everybody thinks about the impact that inhalation has on a firefighter, but it is actually the absorption. We would be sweating. All of those materials that were burned, the carbon and the soot would actually go through our skin. We would go back and the whole basin of the shower would be black.

Just imagine what that was doing to our bodies, how it was impacting our bodies. I can tell the House first-hand how it impacted many of my colleagues.

There was a fire very early on in my career at Greenspoon, a demolition company on Woodbine Avenue. They would pack all of their materials in oils. I remember that day. I was not on the actual fire, but I did spend two or three days there. The first-in crews were talking about what they had seen. Literally, the flames were 100 feet in the air. It was black smoke. Just imagine oils burning. There was black smoke everywhere. It took literally three or four days to get that fire under control. Things were burning underneath.

At the time, the breathing apparatus that we had was known as a 2APD. It was not a Scott system or a regulator system, like we have now. We would actually have a hose dangling to an exterior regulator. We would attach the hose to the regulator. That is how we breathed with compressed air on our back.

Oftentimes, at that time, not knowing what we know now, and again, this was 30 to 40 years ago, we would take the hoses off. I spent two days there, and we would take the hoses off and let them dangle. All of that stuff we were breathing in, came in through the hose, which was a direct conduit to our lungs and to our bodies.

Because of that fire, Larry Pilkey, Paul Donahoe, Harold Snowball, Lorne Martin, Doug Kerr, who recently passed away, and Jason Churchill passed away. There were six people from that fire who passed away, because of an occupational-related cancer.

I remember Jason Churchill who died at 51 years of age. Nobody changed occupational health in this province of Ontario more than Jason Churchill did. This guy was a dogged advocate for health and safety for firefighters. I am sure his name lives on for many people in the fire service.

I worked with Jason for a while. I remember sitting in the washroom of the station. He came in and he had this giant lump under his arm. He asked me, “What do you think of that?” I said, “You have to get that checked out. That's not good.” He was literally dead within a year. There is no question in my mind, no question in my colleagues' minds that it was as a result of that Greenspoon fire that Jason Churchill died. I think of others as well. Gord Hooper is struggling with cancer right now. Bruce Zimmerman, my former captain, has been dealing with stomach cancer. All of them were at that fire.

I heard the hon. member for Kitchener Centre speak about the fire in Kitchener. I was at Ed Stahley's funeral. I know about that situation and how many of those Kitchener firefighters died. It is the same thing with the Plastimet fire in Hamilton. There are still firefighters today who are suffering from occupational illnesses as a result of those two fires, just like there are with the Greenspoon demolition fire.

This does not affect just the firefighters who contract cancer and eventually die. It affects their friends and families who live with the loss all the time. I can think of Luanne Donahoe and Larry's wife who have had to move on. I can think of the families that have to deal with this cancer. It does not just affect them emotionally; it affects them financially. For their entire lives they will have to deal with the financial loss of losing one of their loved ones.

I know there has been some discussion today about birth defects. I can tell members first-hand that for many of these firefighters and their families the greatest joy in the world is having a child, but many of the children suffer from birth defects as a result of what their parents contracted at these fires.

I am really lucky. I will share personally that I have a urologist who, when I retired at age 51, after I was elected to this place, took a baseline measurement because he has seen too many firefighters come through his office who have suffered from occupational cancer, whether it is prostate cancer, bladder cancer or brain cancer. There are 12 cancers that are recognized in Ontario right now as an occupational illness, at least at last count. He has taken that baseline on me every year I go for a check-up because he wants to know, because of my occupation, whether I am going to contract cancer as a result of all of those years of taking in, not just by inhalation but also by absorption, many of those carcinogens that are being created as a result of the materials today.

The equipment has improved; there is no question about it, but making sure that we are looking after our firefighters and their families becomes critical. With respect to that fire, the fire in Kitchener, as well as the one at Plastimet, we also have to think beyond firefighters, because there were police officers and EMS officers who were on the scenes who are suffering from those occupational illnesses as well.

Let me clearly and unequivocally state that I stand here as a former firefighter who loved every minute of my job every single day. There was not a day that I did not want to go in there. Maybe I did not feel like it the day after Joe Carter hit the home run to win the World Series in 1993. I am thinking maybe I should not have been at work that day.

This is an important piece of legislation not only for firefighters who have contracted cancer and passed on, but their families and friends as well.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to support my colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, and her Bill C-224, an act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.

I am equally proud tonight of all members in the House for their speeches and for sharing their personal experiences. It shows how important this particular topic is to all of us, so I say a special thanks to them.

Firefighters, as we have heard tonight, play a critical role in keeping our communities safe. We all depend on their training, skills and expertise when an emergency arises. That is why I am proud to support my colleague's bill.

In April of this past year, I sat down with firefighters in my community to discuss what their needs were when it came to being able to do their jobs safely and go home at the end of each shift to live happy, healthy and long lives. Each firefighter, to a person in the room, pointed to Bill C-224 to do exactly that.

This bill seeks to develop a national framework to promote greater awareness and education about occupational cancers linked to firefighting, and to support prevention and early detection of these terrible diseases all across the country. Occupational cancers, as we have heard tonight, are the leading cause of death among firefighters, according to the International Association of Fire Fighters.

It is impossible to imagine the number of carcinogens in the air as a firefighter bravely runs into a building that has gone up in flames. More than that, how many of these carcinogens follow the firefighters back to their stations and homes on their gear, trucks and equipment? This hazardous material cannot be easily washed away, as we have heard tonight, and can quickly lead to illnesses such as cancer among firefighters in the line of duty.

One of the goals of Bill C-224 is to explain the link between firefighting and certain types of cancers. It also provides measures that would explain the link between cancer and the profession to better identify the education needs for health care and other professionals to promote research and information sharing.

Without identifying and understanding the problem, we cannot fight the problem, so it is essential that we work to fully understand the way firefighters are put at different levels of risk than other first responders based on the nature of their work. This national framework would help us to better understand the real numbers behind occupational cancers among firefighters.

The words “national framework” are a very important part of Bill C-224. According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, and we heard this tonight, there were more than 400 deaths that were formally accepted as job-related. However, the association believes the true number of occupation-related firefighter cancer deaths is likely higher, considering that not all provinces and territories formally recognize all the same cancer types as occupational among firefighters.

For example, Manitoba recognizes 19 cancers as occupational cancers, while B.C. only recognizes nine. Quite frankly, and we have heard this tonight, our firefighters deserve better. By establishing a national framework, we could ensure that education, information and training to prevent occupational cancers could be shared across this country.

While this bill seeks to create standards across the country, we can learn from other provinces' successes and failures when it comes to supporting our fire services, and where the inequalities lie when it comes to recognizing occupational diseases. For example, women in the fire service continue to be left behind, with only five of our 13 provinces and territories recognizing that cervical and ovarian cancer can be caused by occupational health hazards female firefighters face in the line of duty.

I must say I am very proud of my province of Nova Scotia for announcing this year that, effective July 1, these cancers and 11 others would be formally recognized as occupational, bringing the recognized occupational cancers in Nova Scotia to 19, which is the highest recognized number in the country.

Speaking of Nova Scotia, as a member whose constituency is primary rural, I would also like to acknowledge that most rural communities in Canada rely on volunteer fire services. While professional fire departments may have state-of-the-art equipment for decontamination and gear storage, small and local volunteer firefighter operations may not have the same tools and best practices to keep them safe. That is why the ability to share standards across the board is so critical and so valuable.

Firefighters and their families deserve to know and to fully understand the risks associated with their careers, how to mitigate them and what the best practices are to keep them safe in the line of duty. We can help to make that happen.

I have spoken in the House quite a bit about my dad, Mick Kelloway. Dad was a first responder in mine rescue. I think back to the work we did as a country to support our miners' occupational health and safety, and I firmly believe that as a government and a group of individuals, it is incumbent on us to do the same for our fire service. Firefighting, we know, is a dangerous occupation as it is, let alone when we think about the toll that the work takes on people's bodies. Whether they are responding to a highway accident or dealing with hazardous materials, cancer continues to be an epidemic within Canada's fire service.

Firefighters, both career and volunteer, have the backs of our communities and have protected us when we needed them the most. Now, they need us and I have no doubt that each member in the House knows that, especially after listening to the speeches tonight. By working together, we can do what is right and what is fair, and I urge all members to join me in supporting Bill C-224 for the betterment of our fire services from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting the speeches tonight. I want to thank my husband Chris and my father Dave who are firefighters, my friend Chris Ross, and firefighters in Montreal and Longueuil for bringing this issue to us. There are now 338 members of Parliament who know that firefighting causes cancer. I am sure each and every one of us learned something over the course of this debate, and for that I am so thankful, because that is what this bill is about. It is about bringing awareness not only to firefighters, but to their families and the doctors who treat them so they know to ask those questions.

The member for Barrie—Innisfil had it right. He knows to ask about the firefighter in rural Canada who does not know not to put his bunker gear in the back of the car because it is contaminated. That is what this is about. This is about bringing the provinces, territories, indigenous communities and members of the Canadian Armed Forces who served as firefighters together to share that information.

The provinces and territories need to share all their information. For example, one province recognizes 19 cancers, while another recognizes only nine. What information can they share with us?

At the end of the day, the provinces and territories have the final say. I want to explain it very clearly to my friends in the Bloc: The purpose of this bill is to save lives, full stop.

I will not apologize for wanting to save lives.

A lot of my colleagues here who have had a chance to work with me know that I am a kind of pratico-pratique kind of gal. I like to GSD, or get “stuff” done, because I do not want to use unparliamentary language. We were sent here to do things, and this is something we need to do. We need to bring together our colleagues at every level of government to say: “How are we going to beat this? How are we going to prevent cancer in firefighters?”

Right now, when a firefighter passes, God forbid, depending on where they live, they may or may not be eligible for the memorial grant that we put in place, yet they may have died from the same cancer from doing the same job, and that is not fair.

To the firefighters watching, and some are here in Ottawa right now, I thank them. To the firefighters watching at home, I thank them. I thank their families who fear for them every time that bell goes off, and even worse, fear this is the year they will get that diagnosis, because that is the real killer.

Our government has put in place initiatives, whether changing the national building codes or looking at toxic chemicals in flame retardants on sofas, but there is more to do. We need to share that information, because before this, I am sure some of us did not know. All of those young boys and girls who want to become firefighters need to know about this so that they can take the proper precautions, so that they can make sure to decontaminate after a fire, and so that they can make sure to tell their doctors that they are firefighters and to ask for those tests.

What are the tests that provinces are using? This is what I am talking about with this bill. It is about sharing information about the tests and so on. How do we prevent this from happening, and how do we support those who put their lives on the line every single time that bell goes off?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

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

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 22, at the expiry of time provided for Oral Questions.

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.

Copyright Act

[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.

[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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that we cannot refer to members by name.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you. I was referring to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

We also need to think about implementing technical measures.

Simply put, we should be able to repair the things we own. We cannot continue to support a culture of disposable goods. The message must be very clear. Let us put an end to strategies that encourage consumers to dispose of their products because they cannot be repaired.

The regulations are progressing slowly, but I am confident that this bill will make its way to committee soon.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, 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 divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #187

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)