Bill C-294

An Act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability)

This enactment amends the Copyright Act to allow a person, in certain circumstances, to circumvent a technological protection measure to make a computer program or a device in which it is embedded interoperable with any other computer program, device or component.

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

Yes. If we compare the interoperability provisions of the U.S. law against the current Canadian law or Bill C‑294, can we tie in? Will these exceptions help bring our position into line with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement?

[Catherine Lovrics]

I'm sorry. Is it how does something compare to what's in Bill C-294, the current provisions?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lovrics or Ms. Stanley, the anti-circumvention provisions of U.S. copyright law, that is, Chapter 17, paragraph 1201(f), contain an exception for interoperability purposes. How does this exception compare to the one currently in the Canadian Copyright Act, or to the expanded exception proposed in Bill C‑294?

[Colleen Stanley]

In terms of the objective of the bill, which is to take away barriers to interoperability to improve businesses like Honey Bee and other agricultural parts manufacturers, the issue is just a technical one. The current CUSMA section on technological protection measures and exceptions to them doesn't allow for non-infringing exceptions. In the way Bill C-294 is drafted, it seems that it would allow non-infringing exceptions, at least in some cases. It really gets down to a drafting issue.

I'm not talking about the broad policy issue here. It's that, as currently drafted, the bill would put us offside with CUSMA, and in particular of article 20.66.

I'd like to ask my colleague, Catherine Lovrics, if she has additional comments.

[Colleen Stanley]

I don't know why the issue of AI in TPM and interoperability hasn't been raised in negotiations with the U.S., but I'm not involved in international negotiations at all.

From the perspective of how IPIC would talk about AI in the context of TPMs, it would be in terms of the safety and security risks that we flag when you put in an amendment that is far too broad. That is one of our concerns with Bill C-294. It may not be intended to be broad, but the language that's used, like “manufactured product” or "device or component", could have many unintended interpretations and consequences.

In the context of the role that AI could have in terms of security, safety, health care and the whole Internet of things, that would be the comment. It's safety and security and making sure there are not unintended consequences from a broad amendment.

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

Thank you.

My next question is open for all witnesses.

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Colleen Stanley, Member, Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and honourable members, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, thank you for the invitation to appear today as part of INDU's study. My name is Colleen Stanley, and I am here as a member of IPIC's copyright committee and a member of the subcommittee on interoperability.

IPIC is pleased to provide comments in response to Bill C-294. IPIC recognizes that the bill aims to remove barriers to the development of third party parts by the Canadian manufacturing industry, particularly in the agricultural sector. The subcommittee studying Bill C-294, however, has had some difficulty in understanding exactly what the specific objectives of Bill C-294 are, as the wording is somewhat uncertain and ambiguous.

From what we can ascertain, the proposed amendments appear to target two main objectives. The first objective is permitting circumvention of a TPM to obtain information from a computer program for the purposes of making it interoperable with another computer program when one or both computer programs are embedded in hardware. In this objective, we're talking about smart products being made interoperable with other smart products. By “smart” products, we mean products that have code or embedded software.

The second objective we see is permitting circumvention of a technological protection measure to obtain information from a computer program, embedded or otherwise, for the purpose of making it interoperable with another product that may not be smart—i.e., making smart products interoperable with non-smart products.

With respect to objective one, the smart interoperable with the smart, IPIC's response is that the amendments are unnecessary. Subsection 41.12(1) in its current form already permits the circumvention of a TPM for the purpose of interoperability of computer programs embedded in hardware. It is clear in Canadian copyright law that “computer program” includes embedded software. The definition of computer program in the Copyright Act is broad, and includes this: “a set of instructions or statements, expressed, fixed, embodied or stored in any manner”. Case law to date supports this interpretation.

In addition to the amendments being unnecessary, they would introduce uncertainty into the Copyright Act. The term “computer program” is used throughout the act, and in each instance is interpreted to include embedded software.

With respect to objective two, where we're talking about smart programs being interoperable with not-so-smart programs, the amendments will likely not achieve the intended objective. That's because the subsection being amended by Bill C-294, subsection 41.12(1), does not work in isolation. It works in conjunction with two other sections of the Copyright Act. One section provides that the benefit of the TPM interoperability exception is lost if the circumvention enables a copyright infringement. The other section provides that reproducing a computer program for the purposes of making it interoperable with another computer program is not an infringement of copyright, but making a computer program interoperable with a product or device is not covered by the infringement exception.

This does not necessarily mean that an infringement would result from breaking a TPM, but in many cases it could. Therefore, as drafted, Bill C-294 would end up creating a TPM circumvention exception that may be available only sometimes or not at all.

With respect to objective two, there is also the issue of treaty compliance. CUSMA sets out the exception for circumventing a TPM for purposes of interoperability and provides that such exceptions be for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability with another computer program.

As well, the use of a broad term like “manufactured product” will introduce uncertainty into the Copyright Act and may result in a TPM circumvention exception that is much broader than originally intended.

In conclusion, if the government wishes to pursue the policy objectives in Bill C-294, IPIC advises taking an approach that considers three factors. The first is how the Copyright Act works as a whole. As discussed, a number of sections of the act work together with subsection 41.12(1), but Bill C-294 amends only that one subsection.

They also have to take into account Canada's international treaty obligations. These require that any exception to the protection of a TPM be carefully crafted, narrowly focused and enable only non-infringing uses.

The third factor is societal safety and security issues. TPMs play a vital role beyond intellectual property protection, and circumventing TPMs can open access to sensitive or private information stored within a computer program or impact its safe operation. The broad variety of TPMs and their related business models calls for a legislative framework that identifies specific cases in which safety and security can be taken into account.

In conclusion, a targeted regulatory approach with a framework for case-by-case assessment that would consider the risks and benefits of each exception is the approach recommended by IPIC to address the policy objectives raised in Bill C-294. IPIC will provide suggested wording for proposed amendments that would address these concerns in its brief, which will follow shortly.

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-294 solves this problem.

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

Thank you.

[Anthony D. Rosborough, Researcher, Department of Law, European University Institute, As an Individual]

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

It is my pleasure to once again appear to share my perspective on copyright, software TPMs and anti-circumvention policy. This time it is in relation to the proposed Bill C-294 and interoperability.

I am a doctoral researcher in law at the European University Institute and a graduate of the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University. I am also a practising member of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society.

My doctoral thesis explores the design, function and implications of TPMs across the automotive, consumer electronics and agricultural equipment industries. My research includes an exploration into how TPMs impact innovation and interoperability. I have spent a significant amount of time learning from cybersecurity experts, electrotechnical engineers and Canadian innovators to better understand this issue and its relationship to copyright law.

In 2021, I published a peer-reviewed article in the Canadian Journal of Law and Technology that examines Canada’s copyright interoperability framework and addresses many of the issues under consideration by the committee today. I have provided an electronic copy of this article to the committee clerk for your review.

Overall, I strongly support this bill and the concerns of Canadian innovators who have found TPMs to be an obstacle to devising new products and services as well as a source of considerable business risk and uncertainty.

These perspectives demonstrate that innovation in the 21st century does not occur in a vacuum. It's a cumulative process and it thrives when knowledge and expertise can be devoted to improving the technologies we already have to perform new and unprecedented things. In the world of embedded computer systems and the Internet of things, interoperability is synonymous with innovation.

Bill C-294 reflects this reality, and it reflects the needs of Canadian innovators by not allowing manufacturers to prevent competition in secondary markets under the auspices of copyright.

In my remarks today, I would like to make three main points. First, I'll explain why the Copyright Act’s existing interoperability exception is inadequate. Second, I'll explain how the bill could be improved. Finally, I'll clarify the appropriate role and scope of copyright law in this context.

In the concept of interoperability in the act, the existing exception allowing circumvention of TPMs conceptualizes interoperability as the mutual exchange of information between two computer programs. Given the history of this exception, this narrow view is understandable.

The existing exception was included in the act as part of the Copyright Modernization Act over a decade ago. However, a lot has changed since 2011. Policy experts and standards organizations around the world now recognize a much more complex and context-specific understanding of interoperability. This includes embedded systems, computerized devices and Internet of things technologies.

This bill takes the right approach by broadening the application of the interoperability exception to include not only computer programs but also devices in which they are embedded. This is crucial, because the distinction between the computer program and the computing hardware is much less clear than it once was. In the past, it may have been easier to distinguish between hardware and software, but when software now controls the physical functioning of devices and components, the software and hardware blend together. As I wrote in my 2021 article, the Copyright Act’s conceptualization of interoperability needs to reflect today's computing and innovation paradigm. Computers are no longer just boxes with screens and keyboards. They are cars, home appliances, pacemakers, agricultural equipment and learning technologies.

By viewing interoperability narrowly, as purely a relationship between two computer programs, the act’s existing exception does not address the reality of 21st century computing or 21st century innovation.

Here is how the bill can be improved.

Though the bill offers a lot of promise by expanding interoperability to devices and components, there remains one important drawback left over from the existing exception. That is the caveat that the person circumventing the TPM—who is not a manufacturer themselves—must own “the computer program or a copy of one, or has a licence to use the program or copy”.

It may not be clear in every case that a person circumventing a TPM for interoperability has a licence to use the computer program embedded in the device or is the owner of a copy of the program. For this reason, the bill could be improved by making it clear that the ownership of a device or component in which a computer program is embedded creates an implied licence to use that computer program.

Legislating an implied licence to use the embedded program for interoperability would enable Canadian innovators and researchers outside of the manufacturing context to develop interoperable solutions without the prior consent of the original manufacturer. This would create a more open and competitive marketplace and better choices for consumers and ensure that copyright law is not used by foreign multinationals to stymie Canadian research and innovation.

This brings me to my last point: to clarify the role of copyright law when it comes to innovation and computing.

The purpose of copyright law is to incentivize the production of artistic and literary works. It encourages authors to bring ideas into the public realm. Software is a type of work capable of copyright protection, but the physical functioning of the devices that it controls is not and never was intended to be within the scope of copyright law and policy.

If we follow the logic of rights holders, it goes something like this: Where there is computing hardware, there is software; where there is software, there is copyright; and where there is copyright, TPMs can be used to prevent access. The trouble is that even when access to software bears no relationship to infringement, the act still treats that as an unlawful activity.

Though original equipment manufacturers and industry groups may contend to this committee that the bill could enable piracy-related circumvention of TPMs for infringing acts under the auspices of interoperability, this fearmongering is unfounded, for two reasons.

First, I strongly doubt that any of us are interested in making unlawful copies of the firmware used by our microwaves, televisions or laptop computers, and I have a hard time believing that bootlegged copies of firmware would attract much interest on illicit markets.

Second, and more importantly, we need to be clear about what is really being contorted here. The bill is not about enabling piracy under the auspices of interoperability; the bill is about preventing OEMs from roadblocking innovation and research under the auspices of copyright.

At a fundamental level, access-control TPMs in physical devices undermine the public policy goals of the copyright system as a whole. They function as absolute barriers to the diffusion of knowledge, are indefinite in duration and can undermine Canadian competitiveness and innovation in the global marketplace. Innovation, research and discovery are not infringing activities. Canadian innovators should not be held hostage by copyright protections designed decades ago to protect digital content industries from online infringement.

To conclude, I ask this committee to consider amending the bill to include an implied licence to use the computer program embedded in the device or component necessary to achieve interoperability. That would broaden the scope of the bill's application to research and innovation beyond product manufacturing. Following such an amendment, I wholeheartedly recommend that this committee move the bill forward toward royal assent.

Thank you.

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

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

My name is Alissa Centivany. I'm an assistant professor at the faculty of information and media studies at Western University, where I work on technology, policy, law and ethics, and I serve as co-director of Tesserae, The Centre for Digital Justice, Community and Democracy at Western University.

I have a JD specializing in intellectual property law and a Ph.D. in information science. I've held research appointments at the Center for Law & Technology at the UC Berkeley law school and at the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy at the University of Toronto law school.

I'm currently the primary investigator on a SSHRC-funded study of copyright, computerization and the right to repair. I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak with you today about Bill C-294. This bill improves the existing exemption, but in my view, it doesn't go far enough.

First, I'd like to acknowledge that this topic is both critically important and also somewhat inaccessible. Interoperability demands that we navigate between distinct, sophisticated, highly technical fields—copyright law and technological protection measures, or TPMs, on the one hand, and the design of complex emerging technologies on the other.

This is no easy task. I caution the committee to be wary of what I call “strategic befuddlement”, a tactic of using overly technical jargon that is employed by some stakeholders to obfuscate and confuse, rather than illuminate, what's really at stake. With that in mind, I'd like to make a few brief, hopefully straightforward, big-picture points and offer a few recommendations.

Interoperability is the act of making a new product or service work with an existing one. This includes peripherals, consumables, interfaces, data, software, replacement parts and so forth. Interoperability is good for consumers, for research, for follow-on innovation and for competition. The standards and shared norms at the heart of interoperability make life simpler, more efficient and more connected.

Interoperability can be co-operative, ambivalent or adversarial. It's this last category, coined by Cory Doctorow and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, that is perhaps most relevant to our discussion today. Adversarial interoperability, also called competitive compatibility, refers to new products and services connecting to existing ones against the wishes of the original company.

Before TPMs were added to the Copyright Act, this form of non-consensual interoperability was a normal way of innovating in tech and other sectors. TPMs changed that, though.

TPMs were originally intended to create artificial digital scarcity so that creators of creative and artistic works who feared that the burgeoning Internet would lead to unfettered infringement on their works online wouldn't lose all incentive to create. Times have changed. We can now see that TPMs overshot their original mark. Today TPMs are used to restrict a wide range of lawful non-infringing activities that bear no relationship to protected works at all. By being keyed to access rather than infringement, TPMs have been a disaster for consumers.

Even with the current interoperability exemption, TPMs have also been a disaster for follow-on innovation, because they can still be used to inhibit competition and protect the business models of incumbents. For example, in the context of repair, companies today routinely use proprietary tools and interfaces and parts-pairing restrictions to block third party replacement parts and lock out independent service technicians.

Even more troubling, though, is that companies like Apple, John Deere and video game console makers Microsoft and Sony even block their own authentic OEM parts from interoperating with their products absent some additional authorization by, and payment to, a company-approved technician. The use of TPMs to block interoperability is anti-competitive, anti-innovation and anti-consumer, and it reflects, in my view, an astounding degree of corporate greed.

There's a lot of talk about how we live in a connected world, but what all this shows, I think, is that we don't really. TPMs lock consumers and third parties out. They also lock us in to ongoing relationships with companies and service providers whether we like it or not. We live in walled gardens, platform bubbles and tech silos—disconnected, closed worlds—and we are largely stuck because restrictions on interoperability have enabled switching costs to rise to untenable levels. We lack the economic agency to leave for an alternative or substitute provider. No matter how nice the trappings might appear at times, a cage is still a cage.

Bill C-294 represents a step in the right direction, but in my view, it doesn't go far enough. In addition to what I've already said, I'm concerned that the entirety of the Internet of things may remain insulated, given the bill's focus on embedded computer programs.

In terms of offering some recommendations, I have a few that I'll put forward in a descending order of radicalness.

First, we could get rid of anti-circumvention provisions. Infringement is already illegal. Let's let the Copyright Act do what it was designed to do.

Second, we could mandate interoperability rather than permit it in limited circumstances.

Third, we could create broad immunity for acts aimed at promoting interoperability.

Fourth, we should absolutely reform the TPM provisions to make it clear that anti-circumvention applies only to infringing activities, and that exemptions to infringement, such as fair dealing and research, are preserved.

Finally, we should create broad exemptions for interoperability that include not just computer programs and embedded systems but also smart technologies, peripherals, consumables, interfaces, data formats, connectors and so forth. Making and trafficking in tools to accomplish the above should also be clearly exempt.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 61 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 30, 2022, we are considering Bill C‑294, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability).

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

I want to begin by thanking all the witnesses who are joining us today on this Wednesday afternoon, and offer our apologies on behalf of the committee for the brief delay in starting the meeting. We had to vote in the House.

Without further ado, Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a technical question.

If BQ‑1 is deemed out of order, would it be possible to somehow turn it into a subamendment to G‑1?

I ask because the Entertainment Software Association of Canada raised concerns in a letter it sent the committee. The association is concerned about Bill C-294's impact on the video game industry and requested an exclusion for video game consoles because the nature of the industry is such that it produces data that can be copied and exported online.

They need a specific exclusion. Obviously, it's not the same as repairing a tractor. There are legal precedents in some U.S. states, including Washington.

I think this is important because it's about protecting the content and intellectual property of numerous video game companies. Not only do they have a presence in almost every province in Canada, but they also are part of a flagship industry in Quebec.

The safety and security of consumers and data are at stake. Gaming platforms are increasingly moving to the web, so removing this safeguard would make it possible to copy and share games. This has repercussions for the funding of the video game industry because companies could see their intellectual property being copied.

For that reason, I propose including our amendment in G‑1, between proposed subsections 41.121(1) and 41.121(2). That would exclude the video game industry.

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

Part of it is the right to innovate...or the safety concerns. A lot of that comes down to enforcement in other jurisdictions. It's not copyright that would be the enforcement mechanism for a lot of those things. Safety isn't copyright. When you're talking about motor vehicle safety acts or environmental protection, that's not the Copyright Act.

Both Bill C-244 and my bill, Bill C-294, which we're talking about today, are not going to allow people to alter or make substantive changes to an already existing piece of equipment. When you look at the very definitions of “diagnose”, “maintenance” or “repair”, you're maintaining it to what the original state was or you're repairing it to the original state. In order to do that safely, you have to be able to access information to restore it to the original state.

What we're trying to do with my bill is to make more products available to the consumer to use, to have the choice and the options for what they want. Again, that's not going to violate environmental protection laws. It's not going to alter motor vehicle safety. There are standards in place that still have to be respected.

All of these companies are certified companies; they're making good products. Are there going to be some bad actors or other people who are black market or whatever? Yes. With or without this, that's going to exist.