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]

The World Bank released a report entitled “What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management”, which identifies numerous initiatives around the world to reduce the amount of electronic goods that end up in landfills.

Adherence to the principle of interoperability would reduce the number of electronic devices that give rise to connection issues. We know that Apple changed its connectors, obviously to force customers to buy more Apple products.

Is that also one of the objectives of your legislation, Bill C-294?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for being here. It's nice to see you again, here at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I want to build on something Mr. Fillmore mentioned. Quebec unanimously passed similar legislation in 2019, Bill 197, an act to amend the Consumer Protection Act to fight planned obsolescence and assert the right to repair goods.

What I take from Bill C-294 is that it would prevent manufacturers from using the federal Copyright Act to thwart efforts to make Quebec the number one place in the world for consumer protection against these types of practices. That's how we see it, anyways. In that regard, I commend you on your leadership.

Why do you care so much about planned obsolescence?

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much to the members of the committee.

It's an honour to be here. I was a member of the committee previously, so it's fun to be back here and, in particular, to talk about a bill that I think we have all already found some semblance of agreement on.

The House of Commons already voted unanimously to pass this bill at second reading, and I believe there is good reason and enough public support as well to keep the momentum going through the remaining stages ahead.

Many people are not familiar with the concept of interoperability, but it is fairly easy to understand the problem we have right now in Canada. It’s the result of rapid technological changes, especially over the last few years.

The federal government updated the Copyright Act 10 years ago in response to new developments back then, which gave us the current version of Canadian copyright law. Since 2012, the act includes a new section for the enforcement of technological protection measures, or TPMs for short.

At the time, there was a clear need to better protect the copyrighted works of artists and entertainers. That is why there is language that specifically mentions “performers” and “sound recordings”. Digital locks and similar technology were created to combat piracy and related issues, and the Copyright Act backs them up with enforcement and legal penalties.

The wording of section 41 made sense for what was happening 10 years ago, but we all know that has a lot has changed since then.

Now there are other industries that have incorporated digital features and software into their products. This has allowed digital locks to appear in places that were unimaginable when the law was put in place. It has opened our eyes to how common something like interoperability is.

For the benefit of the committee, and for anybody who might be listening online today, when we think of the concept of interoperability, one of the simplest forms to describe it.... For those of you who have Surface Pros, if you use an external mouse and you plug it in via USB, it just works. It doesn't matter what brand your mouse is. You plug it in, it downloads the driver and it interoperates. It's basically a plug-and-play concept. That's one of the simplest ways to describe what interoperability is and how it should seamlessly work.

For something like computer hardware, though, there hasn’t been as much of an issue. The market incentive favours allowing interoperability between different brands, and everyone is better off for it. However, other industries are starting to lose ground with letting people enjoy interoperability.

I have already said a lot—in my speech, back at second reading—about how there are problems with using agricultural machinery for farmers and short-line manufacturers, and I would be happy to talk about more of the details during your rounds of questions. Obviously, machinery for farming and heavy construction is not the same thing as copyright for music or movies. The nature of the business and products involved are quite different. Restricting interoperability in these areas has more practical consequences because there is more at stake with these sectors.

It is also important to remember that interoperability existed and was practised before these new conditions came along. What Bill C-294 proposes to do is not anything new. Instead, it is trying to close a loophole and bring back what farmers and manufacturers were always allowed to do. It's an acceptable and perfectly normal thing that should not be treated as if it were part of a black market. Until we return to the clarity of a simpler time, we are leaving people in an awkward, arbitrary and inconsistent position.

Bill C-294 is our opportunity to update the Copyright Act with a small, limited amendment. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just common sense. With your support, and that of the rest of our colleagues in the House, we can make a simple fix that will support Canadian consumers and industry.

I look forward to responding to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

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

Welcome to meeting number 59 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 taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022.

During the first hour of our meeting on Bill C‑294, we are fortunate to have with us the sponsor of the bill, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Jeremy Patzer.

Thank you for being here this afternoon, Mr. Patzer. The floor is yours.

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

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

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

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

Repair and innovation go hand in hand in a number of ways. There's evidence of that in this bill, in addition to Bill C-294, which speaks to prohibitions on innovation as implicated by TPMs.

The fact is that the process of repair requires a type of research and analysis. Product tear-downs are an example of this. If you look on iFixit's website, you see an entire library of, basically, research and discovery as to how things work.

When that becomes unlawful to do, we're restricting the flow of knowledge and information, which is really antithetical to the purposes of the intellectual property system. The reason we have IP is to bring ideas forward that we can share and benefit from. When we're putting an indefinite block on the flow of that information, we should have a really compelling reason to do so. Contorting copyright law to be a vehicle for cybersecurity or the theft of automobiles is probably not a sufficient justification.

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

Thank you.

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

I'm a lawyer and doctoral researcher in law at the European University Institute. I'm also a practising member of the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society. In the past I've taught in the intellectual property area at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University. My doctoral thesis investigates the design, function and implications of TPMs across the automotive, consumer electronics and agricultural equipment industries. I have published several peer-reviewed articles on the right to repair and TPMs, including a forthcoming publication in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, which analyzes the right to repair in Canada and the bill under discussion today, along with Canada's international trade obligations. I've included open access links to these works in a brief I've submitted to the committee.

I firmly support the right to repair and the substance of this bill, but my focus this afternoon is not to reiterate the numerous social, economic or ecological benefits of repair. Rather, my aim today is threefold: first, to explain why repair restrictions enabled by TPMs are a misuse of copyright; second, to explain how the bill could be strengthened; and finally, to respond to the core arguments put forward by those who have opposed the bill.

To begin, looking at copyright misuse, access control TPMs in physical devices are best understood as an aberration in the history of copyright. TPMs were first recognized in the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty as measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights and that restrict acts in respect of works that are not authorized or permitted by law.

TPMs were originally conceived as legal protection to safeguard copy control technologies to assist the digital content industry, but today's access control TPMs in physical devices often bear little, if any, relationship to copyright infringement. They bear only a superficial resemblance to copyright. They function principally to protect technologies, rather than works or the rights of authors, so when device manufacturers rely on anti-circumvention to prevent diagnosis, understanding or repair of computerized devices, this contorts copyright policy to perform the work of a patent or a trade secret. Put simply, this is a misuse of copyright.

As for how the bill could be strengthened, one approach would be to transpose it into a system of comprehensive regulation under section 41.21 of the act. That section allows for regulations that could exclude certain TPMs, or classes of them, from protection and to conduct review and consideration of specific implementations. This may also assist in providing a path forward for Bill C-294, which aims to create a new exception to anti-circumvention for the purposes of interoperability between embedded computer systems. A regulatory framework under section 41.21 could safeguard a whole host of socially beneficial activities. It could also address new and unforeseen uses of TPMs.

To respond to the opponents' claims, opponents have put forward three main themes in their remarks. The first is cybersecurity concerns. The second is health and safety risks, and the third is carve-outs for certain industries.

With respect to cybersecurity, we have scant evidence that repair activities can or will undermine cybersecurity. In any event, cybersecurity should not form part of TPM policy under the Copyright Act. This is not the role of copyright law. A more appropriate framework for cybersecurity considerations is under Bill C-26, currently under consideration, or the Telecommunications Act.

As for health and safety risks, these fears seem to misunderstand what the bill seeks to do. No longer making it unlawful to circumvent a TPM does not equip anyone with new powers or capabilities. The fact is that anyone who wishes to manipulate or modify a device for unlawful purposes can already do so. Any system can be hacked. If the repair of devices poses health and safety risks, the government should consider amending the Consumer Product Safety Act or other legislation. We should ask more of manufacturers and not rely on copyright law to ensure the health and safety of Canadians.

As for industry-specific carve-outs, opponents of the bill have often sought to exempt certain industries or limit the bill's application to consumer products. The reasons for this have not been convincingly argued.

The Copyright Act's purpose is to create a system of rights and incentives, including exceptions and limitations, which govern the use of works. It's not the role of copyright law to distinguish between different technologies or physical devices. In fact, Canadian copyright law has long rested on the principle of technological neutrality. This means that copyright policy should not discriminate against any technology or medium of expression, so to create a TPM distinction based on the type of product or device would amount to a clear violation of this principle.

To conclude, TPMs are increasingly used by manufacturers as a tool for protecting a series of interests that are unrelated to copyright. Repair is not infringement.

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.

Repair-inhibiting TPMs undermine these goals. They function as absolute barriers to the diffusion of knowledge. They are indefinite in duration and receive legal protection in the absence of any connection to copyright.

I ask this committee to move the bill forward and to include it as part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme that ensures that TPMs in devices are protected to the extent that they are connected to copyright.

Thank you.

[Matthew Hatfield]

That's a huge question. I think in general I'll defer the interoperability discussion to both the Bill C-294 discussion and also looking at our Competition Act—and the privacy act, for that matter, in Bill C-27.

The big picture around interoperability is that many, many digitally savvy companies are locking their consumers within walled gardens. As many people on Twitter know these days, it can be very hard to leave a company once they get you locked in, no matter how you feel about that company. In general, we want to see our government passing legislation that gives consumers real ownership of our data and makes it easy for us to see our data, take our data out of a system and put it into another system. We want them to really facilitate that transfer, because people don't have the options they deserve in terms of who to do business with anymore. A lot of us are locked into commercial relationships that we are not satisfied by.

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

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank you and look forward to your questions.

[Matthew Hatfield, Campaigns Director, OpenMedia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Copyright Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-294 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from November 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise at the end of this debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-294. I would like to thank all of my colleagues who have expressed interest in speaking to this bill, in particular the members from all of the other parties of the House and the great ideas that they spoke about on this bill. I think of the planned obsolescence issue that the Bloc Québécois raised in both of their hours of debate. I definitely appreciate what they had to say about that issue.

At the start of our discussion, I provided the background for the issue of interoperability. I spoke about what it is and how it is important for the life of communities across Canada. It will allow them to survive and to keep on doing the good work that they have been doing for decades. That is what leads me to raise this issue and bring this bill forward.

While I focused on the familiar examples of farming equipment in rural areas, I will repeat that interoperability is something much larger than just a single sector. We are really talking about something that lays a foundation for stronger competition and innovation in the workplace.

It is not anything new. Before digital technology was a factor, there were always innovators creating new equipment or devices, which customers could freely use with the products from established brands. It happened in an open market where all of the players, as well as their customers, could benefit. One such example is a simple USB connection. That is one of the easiest ways to describe interoperability. One simply plugs it into one's computer and the brand does not matter; it will work. That is what copyright is supposed to encourage and protect.

All we need to do is to update and clarify the law to uphold this principle under changing circumstances. It should never be discouraged by a technicality found in the Copyright Act. Digital locks and TPMs have a legitimate function and the law will continue to enforce them as such, but the force of law should never be used by larger companies to discourage or shut down competitors and innovators. For this sole purpose, Bill C-294 would provide a clear, limited exemption to enable interoperability.

I would like to go back to what brought attention to this issue in Parliament. A short-line manufacturer from my riding provided witness testimony while the industry committee studied the CUSMA trade agreement. Considering our trade relationship, they said this:

It's a challenge for us to achieve the ability to continue to legally manufacture our product and sell it onto these platforms. The copyright act in the United States has provision for circumventing for the purpose of interoperation. The Canadian Copyright Act does not have this same term in the agreement.

They explained that they do not want to have an uneven footing with the U.S. if they are facing a barrier in Canada that does not exist south of the border. Even if a short-line manufacturer operates outside of a small town or rural Saskatchewan, they are still selling their equipment internationally, whether it goes to the States or down to Australia. Both of these countries, by the way, are moving in this direction with interoperability. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has studied the situation with agricultural machinery and recommended data standards to promote interoperability between brands of machinery.

Similarly, our own Competition Bureau has discussed barriers for interoperability and has signalled some support for updating the Copyright Act. The U.S. Copyright Office, with the Library of Congress, regularly reviews the application of TPMs and provides exemptions. Their ruling, in 2018, allowed for circumvention in different areas, which included agricultural equipment, vehicles and phones, to name a few. This worked well enough for them to renew the exemptions in 2021 for another three-year term.

While the process might work differently in their system, Bill C-294 is seeking to provide an equivalent exemption here in Canada, as requested by our own industry. We have industry associations, manufacturers and dealers from many provinces, including Ontario, who see the growing need for us to do this so that they can stay in business and remain competitive.

As I said earlier, the process that led to this bill began with studying CUSMA. Our international agreements are an important factor for our policy decisions. Canada has made certain commitments with respect to intellectual property and what our own copyright laws will look like. I want to reassure my colleagues that I have kept this in mind while researching and discussing the issue with policy analysts from the Library of Parliament. It has shaped the drafting of this bill from early on.

With the support of my fellow members at this stage, I am hopeful that Bill C-294 will be studied at committee and we can continue to have a constructive discussion throughout the legislative process. As always, I am happy to talk with my colleagues further about this as we go forward.

[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.