Bill C-244 (Historical)

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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

November 7, 2024

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 7th day of November, 2024, at 5:06 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair)—Chapter 26; Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability)—Chapter 27; Bill C-284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care—Chapter 28; S-16, An Act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the Council of the Haida Nation—Chapter 29.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

Industry and Technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This bill is a good thing for consumers because it frees them from the limitations that many companies place on their customers, effectively making them prisoners to whoever holds the original software. I applaud companies that do not use the act and that allow interoperability instead of preventing it. If this bill makes its way through all the stages, that will be the norm for everyone.

Many businesses come to mind as examples of best practices and benefits for consumers. I want to emphasize that interoperability opens the door to infinite opportunities to do better things with the technological tools available to us.

We need to think about the enjoyable and user-friendly tools people want to work with. That is what the bill addresses. Take a cellphone, for example. It is much more than a telephone; it is a pocket computer that can be used for all kinds of activities. To make it even more versatile, we can download many different apps that get added to the operating system and add new functions to it. Without interoperability, would the use of this device be so widespread? The answer is obvious.

In Quebec, many apps have been developed in record time, and because they were interoperable, everyone could use them, no matter what kind of smartphone they used. There is VaxiCode, the vaccine passport app developed by the Quebec government at the height of the pandemic, the Transit app that gives us public transit schedules in real time, or even a financial app that allows us to access our credit union accounts in one click.

Although the operating system designers did not choose to invoke the Copyright Act to prevent us from downloading all these apps, the act would give them the power to do so. Our devices would be less versatile and would become outdated more quickly, and a new technology developer would be excluded from the market, restricting competition and innovation. Fortunately, they understood the benefits of interoperability.

Interoperability is considered to be very important, even critical, in many areas, including information technology, medicine in the broad sense, rail, electromechanics, aerospace, the military and industry in general. The different systems, devices and elements must be able to interact seamlessly.

Even if cellphone designers chose not to invoke their copyright to exclude competitors, other businesses did choose to do so, which is unfortunate. The idea here is to encourage and clarify the option that legislators wanted to put forward in the act, that is interoperability. I salute the member for La Prairie. That is the kind of word that he would have made me repeat and that I would have mispronounced again.

Even though Quebec has not codified the circular economy, it applies the principles of the circular economy in many of its policies, and most of its major industrial strategies are now developed in accordance with the principle of reclaiming the materials and energy used to produce goods.

It is high time we reconsidered the linear economic model and, in conjunction with Bill C‑244, adopted the principle of interoperability for the goods we consume.

The idea is to dissuade businesses from developing products in a vacuum. I will repeat the same message: We need to shift to a new paradigm and stop throwing money away. Repairability and interoperability are principles that need to be enshrined in the Copyright Act. We have to do much more with fewer resources. This realization is already reflected in Quebec's new laws and policies.

Recently, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted Bill 197, which will completely ban planned obsolescence and force companies to label their products with a sustainability and repairability rating. An ambitious update to the Consumer Protection Act is needed to make companies change their practices in ways that benefit consumers.

With the recent election, the Government of Quebec has not yet adopted the order to bring the new legislation into force, but it has clearly indicated its intention to do so swiftly.

Far from interfering in the work of the National Assembly of Quebec, passing Bill C‑294 would prevent manufacturers from invoking federal copyright law to counter the work being done to make Quebec the place where consumers will be best protected against this practice.

A World Bank report entitled “What a Waste 2.0” identifies several initiatives around the world to reduce the volume of electronic goods ending up in landfills. Members will understand why I am so excited. Very soon, probably in this parliamentary term, great strides will be made in laying the foundation for the circular economy.

I encourage members to follow the work of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, specifically in November, for I am sure they will find our study on the electronics recycling industry very interesting. It will be in November at the earliest, but this subject is very important to me.

The objectives are clear. We have to break free from disposable plastic, better inform consumers, fight waste and promote social enterprise in recycling, take action against planned obsolescence and improve manufacturing quality. This is our future.

I am encouraged, because the movement is taking hold, although several pieces of legislation still need to be modernized. This societal shift is being led by ordinary citizens and is gaining momentum. All levels of government must act, because not only is waste a health issue, but it is also key to the green transition, since the resources needed to produce these goods are not available in infinite quantities.

E-waste is a growing environmental concern, and there are several laws that should be amended to address the issue. Today's debate represents a small part of this burden, but we must redesign our laws to allow interoperability. Slowly but surely, everyone will come to see the benefits.

In conclusion, it makes sense to be able to repair our own belongings, but it does not make sense to keep supporting throwaway culture. The message must be clear: Let us put an end to schemes that encourage consumers to throw items away because they cannot repair them.

Regulatory progress is slow, but I remain convinced that this bill will make its way to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology very soon. I still hope the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry will introduce a bill to modernize the Copyright Act as soon as possible, like this fall. We are running out of time to clean up our manufacturing methods and our consumer habits.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-294 tackles a public policy challenge of importance to Canadians. I believe that we need to do more to facilitate the interoperability of products. An interoperability-friendly environment means empowering Canadians to adapt the products they own to their needs. For example, it means giving the ability to farmers to install different add-ons to their tractors so that they can do a number of different tasks with the same piece of machinery. It also means giving Canadians the ability to render compatible their old electronic devices with new technological standards to address the accumulation of electronic waste on our planet.

Many of the current obstacles to interoperability have arisen as a result of new market dynamics created by digital technologies and the increase of embedded software in products such as smart phones, televisions and vehicles. Removing these obstacles will require a variety of measures in both federal and provincial areas of responsibility. At the federal level, there is one particular marketplace framework that comes into play when discussing interoperability, and that is the Copyright Act, which is the subject of amendments proposed in Bill C-294.

The Copyright Act, as it currently reads, represents an obstacle to the ability of Canadians to extend the life cycles of their software-enabled products protected by digital locks. The Copyright Act prohibits Canadians to circumvent digital locks protecting copyrighted content like software. An exception to this prohibition already allows the circumvention of digital locks for the purpose of interoperability, but it is limited to the making of two computer programs interoperable. Bill C-294 seeks to expand this exception to allow Canadians to also circumvent digital locks to make their software-enabled products interoperable with other devices or components. This bill will work in conjunction with my private member's bill, Bill C-244, which was just voted on, to allow Canadians an increased autonomy over their purchased goods.

Because of the complexity of copyright policies and the issues related to interoperability, it remains that an expanded interoperability exception, such as the one proposed in Bill C-294, should be carefully considered so as to prevent any unintended consequences. Without prejudging the outcome of Bill C-294, I look forward to working with my colleagues to constructively scrutinize this bill.

Last year, the government conducted a number of consultations on copyright, one of which discussed the interoperability issue. The government's consultation on a modern copyright framework for artificial intelligence and the Internet of things highlighted some of the challenges for Canadians in rendering their products protected by digital locks interoperable with other products. The comments provided by stakeholders in response to this consultation are publicly available and they will greatly assist in our work.

First, some stakeholders pointed to the importance of ensuring that exceptions allowing the circumvention of digital locks respect Canada's treaty obligations. Canada must provide legal protections for digital locks that, notably, respect the terms of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Internet treaties. Canada also needs to comply with the additional requirements to protect digital locks that have been integrated into CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, which limits our flexibility to enact new exceptions allowing for the circumvention of digital locks or to expand the existing ones.

It will thus be important to ensure that the measures proposed in Bill C-294 and their effects on the Copyright Act comply with Canada's international obligations.

Second, I urge us to consider the perspective of a broad range of stakeholders in studying Bill C-294. The diversity of views will enrich the policy debate and lead to a more effective balancing of the various interests at play. The stakeholder submissions received in response to the government's consultations attest to this diversity of views.

Particularly, manufacturers have expressed concerns that expanding the scope of exceptions allowing the circumvention of digital locks could introduce personal safety and security risks for consumers. They have also noted potential cybersecurity and privacy risks, especially for products that connect to the Internet. Moreover, copyright holders argue that expanding these exceptions would expose them to piracy of their content and potential economic losses. We need to ensure the amendment sought in Bill C-294 does not negatively impact the ability of manufacturers and copyright holders to market their products and innovate.

Despite these considerations that will need further exploration, I want to reiterate the important issue Bill C-294 brings forward to us as it seeks to remove an important barrier to the interoperability of products. I look forward to continued discussions on this important matter.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for bringing forward this bill. I know that we worked together on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology last Parliament, so I am really interested to hear more about his bill.

I just wanted to know if he could elaborate a little on what the difference is between his bill and Bill C-244, which just passed in the House, in terms of right to repair. It is not clear to me as to the difference between these two pieces of legislation.