Evidence of meeting #143 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was works.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
—that they have changes to it again. It was interesting to have their presentation about that, because it's not a holistic approach, in their opinion, and it's going to create some inconsistencies.
I know that it's a lot to throw at you right here if you haven't seen it. They talked about transparency, access and efficiency as some of the common things to be fixed. Some of those things do happen in Bill C-86, but it still hasn't gone through a review.
5:20 p.m.
Partner, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, As an Individual
Any time you have successive incremental amendments to a statute, I think there are bound to be some unintended consequences when you look back on that approach. If there were an appetite for a really fulsome review, or a scrub, as you put it, of the Copyright Act, it would be an interesting idea for that reason alone: just to look at what the unintended consequences or the inconsistencies that have emerged might be. I don't know if that's what the board was getting at, but it's an interesting idea, to my mind.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
5:25 p.m.
Chair, Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
I don't have any response in particular to the question you pose. I just want to commend to you the submissions that IPIC did make on Bill C-86 and also the submissions that were made in 2017 on Copyright Board reform.
5:25 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, I would note that to me this actually highlights—to come back to the chair's question about a five-year review—why five-year reviews are a bit problematic. First, the fact that we're able to address things like the Copyright Board or the Marrakesh treaty in between the period of 2012 and now highlights that where there are significant issues there is the ability for the government to act.
Second, on the idea that we would have by far the biggest changes the board has seen in decades, with new money and almost an entirely new board, that's going to take time. We know that these things still do take time, so the idea we would come back in three or four years—or even five years—to judge what takes place, much less scrub the act, strikes me as crazy. We need time to see how this works. If the board is suggesting that it needs an overhaul to make sense of things, then I think that's problematic.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
That's kind of the trajectory. This is what worries me right now with Bill C-86 in terms of what we've done and also the USMCA. We have three significant balls in the air all at the same time. They're all going to land, and we're going to be dealing with it at that time.
I don't have any other questions. I'm done.
Thank you, witnesses.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'm going to go back to the right to repair. I also sit on the agriculture committee. I was also working in the innovation space in agriculture. The J1939 standard is the vehicle standard. There's an ISO standard for on-vehicle things, like steering systems, the ISO 11898, and then on the trailer for fertilizer spreaders, seeders and applicators, it's the ISO 11992. How specific do we need to go, so that innovators can get on tractors and do their work?
We could work on anything but John Deere, but I knew a guy in Regina who knew how to get around the John Deere protocols as well. People have to get around protocols and then semi-legally give you access to the equipment. How specific should the act get in terms of technology?
5:25 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
First off, they shouldn't have to semi-legally be able to work on their own equipment. In fact, the copyright law ought not to be applying to these kinds of issues. One of the very early cases around this intersection between digital locks and devices involved a company based in Burlington, Ontario, called Skylink, which made a universal garage door remote opener. It's not earth-shattering technology, but they spent years in court, as they were sued by another garage door opener company, Chamberlain, saying that they were breaking their digital lock in order for this universal remote to work.
The idea that we apply copyright to devices in this way is where the problem lies. The origins are these 2012 reforms on digital locks. The solution is to ensure that we have the right exceptions in there, so that the law isn't applied in areas where it shouldn't be applied to begin with.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
No, you have to deal with this specifically under the anti-circumvention rules. I think it's section 41.25. The exception that you would be looking for, an ideal one, would be to bring in that fair dealing exception and make that an exception as part of the anti-circumvention rules, too. In other words, it shouldn't be the case that I'm entitled to exercise fair dealing where something's in paper but I lose those fair dealing rights once it becomes electronic or digital or it happens to be code on a tractor.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
In terms of our innovation agenda, section 41.25 is a section we would have to take a good look at.
5:25 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
We created a series of limited exceptions. In fact, they were so limited that we had to go back and fix them when we entered into the Marrakesh treaty for the visually impaired. The United States has, meanwhile, established a whole series of additional exceptions. Other countries have gone even further than the U.S. We are now stuck with one of the most restrictive rules in the world.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
But we have the most innovative farmers. They can get around these things.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much.
Before we adjourn for the day, I'll just remind you that, on Wednesday, in room 415, for the first hour we have witnesses and for the second hour we have drafting instructions.
Also, for those listening to these proceedings throughout Canada, here is a gentle reminder that today is the last day for online submissions, by midnight Eastern Standard Time. I suspect the word is out because today we've already received 97 online submissions.
Notice that our analysts are saying, “Oh, no.”
5:25 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
I want to thank our panel for being here today. It was a great session and a great wrap-up to where we've been going for this past year. Thank you all very much.
We are adjourned.