Industry Committee on June 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

We'll now move to the next round of questions. We will start with MP Ehsassi.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to Mr. May. You have done a magnificent job on this bill. I know you care deeply about changing the repair landscape and you've always championed consumer rights. Just to put this in perspective, as I understand it, this will be hugely transformative for the agricultural sector as well.

Could you provide us with a few examples so that everyone understands the implications of your bill and how it will assist individuals in the agricultural sector?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I really appreciate that question. This was one of the reasons we moved forward with the bill. I am the member of Parliament for Cambridge. I'm seen by many as an urban member of Parliament, but in reality, if you look at my riding map, 70% of my riding is actually rural.

This is a really big issue with the farmers in my community and across Canada. We've heard from many of them who, as time has gone by and they've replaced certain pieces of equipment, it's been replaced with equipment that has these digital components in it. As a result, they can't so much as replace a tire on a combine because a sensor in that tire is connected to the motherboard, which is connected to the GPS that identifies that there's a problem with that tire.

I'm one generation away from being born on a farm. I can tell you that the culture is to fix your own stuff. It's not just a point of pride for the agricultural sector; it's a necessity. A lot of people are in rural communities not like Cambridge, which is close enough to urban centres that they can maybe drive or get a technician come out to the farm easily. A lot of our farmers across Canada don't have access to technicians to come out. They need to be able to fix their own stuff.

I've read stories, seen articles and talked to farmers about having to put tractors on trains to send them away to be repaired. That is not only incredibly expensive for farmers, but it is debilitating for our ability to produce the food we need for this country.

I know there was a push in the United States specifically toward John Deere to identify and provide a way around these TPMs for farmers. They put on a push with the lobby effort against the legislation and agreed to a voluntary measure. That measure was supposed to be provided by John Deere in January 2021. We have yet to see that measure in place.

Voluntary agreements are great if they are done. Historically, that has not been the case in this industry. I think that as we move forward, everything from combines to simple tractors and other devices are all connected in some way, shape or form to these technological protection measures. There is nothing about copyright that would be infringed by a farmer being able to replace a tire on a combine.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Given some of the expressions of concern that we've heard and you alluded to, which essentially relate to our obligations under CUSMA or under WIPO, for all those people who are flagging that specific concern, how do we insulate against retaliatory actions under these agreements? Is there anything we could do to mitigate that risk?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] answer that question. Again, if you're going to have departmental officials come to speak to this bill at some point in the future, that's a question that I would pose to them. I have yet to see where in CUSMA or any of the agreements this would be a problem.

I agree with the department. We need to make sure we're doing our due diligence on this, but it would be up to the department to give that information. I personally have not seen where that issue would be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. May, at the start, you identified four or five things that could interfere with provincial legislation. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic.

How does the bill align with provincial jurisdictions without infringing on them?

This could affect the Office de la protection du consommateur du Québec, for example. Have you contacted this office?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

No. Again, I haven't spoken directly to the individual provinces about this.

This is not about creating a bill that the provinces will have to adhere to. This is about removing a roadblock that the provinces currently have that doesn't allow them to move forward, if they so choose—they don't have to but if they so choose—on legislation or regulations around consumer protection or around the right to repair. Because the technological protection measures exist within the Copyright Act, anything that the provinces do until that is changed would run up against those legal challenges. All this bill is trying to do is remove that barrier in order for the provinces to be able to make those choices.

Now [Technical difficulty—Editor] what choices they do make. I know that there was a private member's bill or a piece of legislation that was introduced by a former Liberal member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that failed. One of the reasons it failed or was challenged was that the technological protection measures within copyright still existed.

My motivation and my hope is that the provinces see this as an opportunity to be able to move forward, to be able to recognize benefits to their citizens by creating that regulation or legislation around the right to repair.

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

Speaking of removing barriers, do you think that there may be a development opportunity for regional machine repair companies wanting to promote and expand their market?

I'm thinking in particular of all the Apple devices, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, that we were forced to return to the company.

Do you think that this could create opportunities in the regions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Please keep your answer short.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Very quickly, yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to MP Masse.

You have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Go ahead and answer that question, Mr. May. I really don't have any more questions. I'll give you an opportunity to finish the last one. It was a good question by my colleague.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you.

You brought up Apple. This is probably one of the biggest targets with things like this. You can't replace even a screen on something like this. Even if the part is available and the person has the know-how, you don't have the ability to do that.

They're very pernicious in how they've set up some of these systems, not just the TPMs but the requirements for things like passwords and tools that will unlock a device in order for the repair to even be done.

I'll give you an example. PlayStation has two major components to it. It has the disk drive and it has the motherboard. If the disk drive were to fail for some reason and you were able to take a disk drive from another PlayStation that maybe has another problem with it, or you're able to find the part online somewhere and you have the know-how to replace that part in the PlayStation, the motherboard will not recognize the perfectly fine disk drive because the serial numbers will not match up.

That has nothing to do with copyright. These are the types of things that manufacturers have done using copyright legislation as a shield. Even if you have the know-how and the parts, you still cannot get that device to function because of the way they have set up that device to not allow it to work.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

As a PlayStation gamer, I really appreciate that example. It's actually perfect. It's a really good example. Thank you.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

It's one of those things where I think people across Canada, when they're starting to learn about right to repair, they're thinking about their own examples. They're thinking that they had to do this or they had to do that. It was a pain in the butt, and it cost them a fortune to have a guy come out to do something they could have done themselves.

I think this is getting that broad appeal because everybody has an example like that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

Our next round of questions will go to MP Dreeshen.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, MP May, for bringing this very timely legislation to us. My relaxation is driving a tractor, so I'm quite familiar with the significance of what is being asked. Of course, when you take a look at things like your DEF emissions control modules, when they start to go down it's not like an air conditioner where maybe you could open the windows. That shuts it down and you only have a small time frame when you can actually do the work you require.

One of the examples that I had was from a constituent. They have about a 1,200-acre farm around Olds, and quite frankly their average repair costs are probably $75,000 a year. Of course, that's not all related to the types of things that you're discussing, but it does show the significance of the cost of repairs. I think that really becomes a critical aspect of it.

The thing that we depend upon, of course, are the great repair shops that we have in our communities, where basically whenever you have trouble they know how to fix it. This becomes one of those issues that I think we really have to pay attention to.

One of the things we've heard from equipment dealers and manufacturers in the past is that the right to repair argument is more about demanding the right to make these illegal modifications to farm equipment. Because no doubt we're going to hear a lot about that issue, I'm just wondering if you can speak to that for a moment.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I've heard this argument as well and I think we have to recognize where this argument is coming from. I think the idea that somebody is going to modify a piece of equipment to be dangerous or inappropriate is not realistic. We've seen this within the auto industry. People who are going to repair something and want to repair something either have the skills to do it or they don't, and if they don't, they take it to somebody who does. What this bill will do is it will allow that consumer to choose where they take that device or piece of equipment to be repaired. It allows for them to not have to necessarily go to one single-source person who can set the price and there's nothing you can do about it.

We look at the auto industry as an example. I have the comfort level to replace the oil in my car, and I used to feel comfortable—not anymore—going as far as replacing brakes. If all of a sudden the transmission goes, I'm not going to take that thing apart and try to fix it myself. I'm going to take that to somebody who is trained and has the know-how to do that.

The comments that it's going to lead to this or lead to that are really disrespectful to the average consumer who clearly doesn't want to take on a project for something that would either be harmful to them or potentially destroy the piece of equipment that they have.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

One of the questions was around if you happened to have a particular brand of combine and you wanted to put a different header on it. I think that's where some of these other companies are saying, “You know what? We have a great product as well, but we're going to have a little bit of difficulty being able to link up there, or potentially have a problem linking up with this product that we would like to be able to sell.” I think that really becomes one of the issues that people in the ag arena speak about.

One of the other things you spoke about was the environmental aspects of it and the fact that when things become obsolete, or there's planned obsolescence, these have to be dealt with. If you can keep them out of landfills that's important. I have a little different idea as far as landfill is concerned. I look at all of the solar panel waste that we're going to have and everything else as we work in certain directions. I think it's important that we do a full life-cycle analysis of all of the products that we're going to be producing no matter what the scenario, and the fact that you are addressing that is important, so I appreciate that.

I don't know if I have enough time to have you quickly comment on that, but I'd appreciate that.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I'm not sure that I have the time. Madam Chair has the red tag up there.

However, I will say that's, again, beyond this bill. That will be future legislation. This is simply removing that barrier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you.

Our last round will go to MP Lambropoulos.

You have the floor.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, MP May, for bringing forward this legislation. I'm happy we're discussing it here.

It's great that you're doing this, because a lot of middle-class Canadians and people can't necessarily afford to replace things or to go back to the company to get it fixed at the expensive rates that might be. I hope it gets full support going forward.

I do have questions, though.

I know that some companies purposely create these barriers and make it so that certain technologies get outdated. For example, with cellphones, iPhones, every couple of years they change the technology and the software so that you can no longer use the same charger, or when you update your phone it slows down and is eventually phased out.

Do you think this is going to have an impact on how companies, moving forward, will continue to do this, or will they try to make it even more difficult for people to be able to repair things on their own?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

It's a good question, but this is the difference between [Technical difficulty—Editor] the philosophy of manufacturing in general. With this bill, we are simply saying that you have the right. It's no longer against the law to circumvent the TPMs in order to repair or replace or diagnose the situation.

As to what you're talking about and what others have talked about today in terms of that planned obsolescence, these are business decisions. Consumers are also going to look at, “Okay, I can effectively replace the part in my phone or replace the part in this device or that device, but this device has this new innovation and I want that.” That always is a contributing factor in that consumer decision. This isn't going to slow that down at all. Industry is going to continue to innovate and continue to bring out new products with more conveniences.

I personally don't really find that kind of thing [Technical difficulty—Editor]. For example, my lawnmower has literally nothing on it that is a perk, if you will. You almost have to go searching for something like that now, something that's basic that someone like me can repair on their own. There are so many little features that industry is adding to products to make life easier, to add more convenience to this device or that device.

With the whole smart concept, the whole 5G connecting everything, the fact that your toaster is going to be 5G in the future and refrigerators already have that kind of capacity to say when you're out of milk and things like that, we have to recognize that this type of innovation is not going to slow down just simply because somebody has the right to repair their own device.

What we are looking at, really, is for industry to acknowledge that using the Copyright Act is simply not the way to do this. If provinces want industry to be protected in that way, fine. They need to pass a law to say that, and not simply use the Copyright Act as a shield in a way that was never intended.