Industry Committee on Nov. 14th, 2022

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Jack.

I would like to thank you for your efforts to speak in French. We appreciate it very much.

I'd like to talk about insurers. One of the main arguments against individuals repairing their own vehicles is that safety is not guaranteed. Is that a concern for your organization?

What do you see as the biggest challenges for insurers? How could this be addressed?

[Ian Jack]

I'll turn to Jason in a moment, but I'd start by saying that these repairs are legal today. There are very limited circumstances under which the warranty would be void.

The piece of legislation before us today is, in our view, to ensure that digital locks are not used as a new way to start blocking the access that is legal and, as we heard our friends here in the industry say, that has been available for 15 years.

I'm not sure.... No, I don't think we do share that concern.

Jason, is there anything to add on that?

[Jason Kerr]

I would add only that in fact our colleagues on the previous panel from the CVMA spoke about the fact that access to the data is necessary in order to repair a vehicle to the proper specifications, as should be done. That can be done by an aftermarket repairer today. It's about making sure they have the right information, the right data they need to diagnose and to fix a vehicle, but I don't think there's any safety risk.

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

Bill 197 has been tabled in the Quebec National Assembly. The bill seeks to outright ban planned obsolescence and force the inclusion of a durability and repairability rating on product labels, preventing the use of the federal Copyright Act to prevent repairs.

Do you think planned obsolescence is a problem in the automotive industry?

Would your industry welcome a similar federal bill?

[Ian Jack]

You ask very interesting questions.

We have not spent a lot of time thinking about this. My initial reaction would be that I do not think we're concerned about programmed obsolescence. I think it's in the automakers' interest, as well, to keep that software as up to date as they can. Indeed, these days they all see themselves as being in competition with Tesla and potentially other new manufacturers. If anything, the auto industry is trying to remake itself as a tech industry these days.

Jason, maybe I missed something.

[Jason Kerr]

I would only add that vehicles on the road today average in age at about 12 years. These vehicles have been around for a while. I don't think it's the same kind of planned obsolescence issue that you might have with toasters or other products. I think vehicles are designed to last. People drive cars until they're 20 years old, as long as they properly maintain them. I don't think that's particularly an issue, from our perspective, on the vehicle side of things. It could very well be a—

[Ian Jack]

I would say, of course, it's getting the access to the software to keep them up to date in this situation.

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

I asked the previous panel of witnesses about VIN burning, a manufacturer's practice where one part can only work for one car.

Do you think this is a widespread practice in the automotive industry? Should we do more to combat that practice?

[Jason Kerr]

The translation didn't come through. Pardon me.

[Ian Jack]

Oh, okay. Well, I can take a kick at that one, then.

No, we were scratching our heads at the back of the room, I have to say, when that came up. It's not something that's come across our radar, I must admit. We will inform ourselves further on it, but I think we would have heard more about that if it were a big issue.

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

How do you respond to auto or equipment manufacturers who say that Bill C‑244 could create safety or compliance gaps?

[Ian Jack]

We think that's over-complicating this piece of legislation. Access is not only allowed but, according to the CVMA itself, encouraged these days, under CASIS. It's not an issue today. This would not alter in any way what's available today.

This is about repairability. As our colleagues from the aftermarket on the previous panel also said, this is not about an interest in any of the other data that's involved; it's about being able to repair vehicles in 10 years from now the same way they can be repaired today, and in the way they were able to be repaired 10, 20, and 50 years ago. We're trying to preserve, in a sense, the status quo as the technology advances, not change the rules of the game.

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

Technological evolution is leading us to electric vehicles and all the technology that goes with it. Do you think this will further complicate the relationship for electric vehicle owners? Will it create gaps and increase the power of car manufacturers, since we'll have to turn to a car dealership rather than a garage of our choice?

[Ian Jack]

I think vehicles are becoming more and more technologically dependent, regardless of what the drivetrain is. EVs are part of that trend, of course, but I think if EVs hadn't been invented and we weren't worried about the climate and we were just dealing with the vehicles from the past, the technological evolution would still come to a point where access....

Already today, you need access to software to repair any vehicles that are on the road. That trend will continue and will accelerate. More and more is diagnosed and then repaired via software, and less and less by wielding a hammer under the hood of the vehicle, like in the old days. That trend will continue, absolutely.

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

Thank you for your answers and for the image you evoke.

[Ian Jack]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Jack.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Vis, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be directed toward Mr. Malik and Ms. Spiegelman.

Section 2 of the Copyright Act already and explicitly includes computer programs in the definition of a “literary work”. In your opinion, why does clause 1 of Bill C-244 therefore propose to specify that a computer program is a “work”? What are the implications of that?

[Mia Spiegelman]

Do you want me to try to explain our concerns around clause 2? Is that your question? I'm sorry. Could you paraphrase, perhaps?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is this: Would enacting clause 1, which would amend the Copyright Act in section 2, shed doubt on the protection of computer programs under the act?

[Mia Spiegelman]

I can only speak to the impact that these two clauses have on regulated medical devices. We have equal concern with regard to clause 1 and clause 2, specifically around the parts components in clause 2. As you know, some components of medical devices go into contact with humans—blood, for instance, and solutions that go into human patients—and that's something we'd be equally concerned about as going into software, as mentioned in clause 1.

I'm not sure if I answered your question. If not, please feel free to ask it again.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'll try another one.

Section 41.21 of the Copyright Act allows the Governor in Council to make regulations to change some aspects of the act's anti-circumvention framework, including by prescribing further exemptions to anti-circumvention rules. How is allowing a person to circumvent a technological protection measure to diagnose, maintain or repair a product through legislation superior to doing it through the current regulatory approach?

[Mia Spiegelman]

We mentioned the example of Vanessa's Law. The current law requires a regulated industry to provide certain reporting. For example, you have to report to the government in 10 days if there was a death or near death, or should it recur in 30 days. This is an example. Vanessa's Law added to this in that they have to do yearly reporting and so on.

Our concern is around this amendment reducing the protections that our patients and health care providers have today in the unregulated industry, which is not covered under these requirements. Neither are they required to submit a 10-day reportable, a 30-day reportable or any testing around these parts that were created or any summary reports. Our concern is around the reduction of the protections for the unregulated industry today.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Then generally, the do-it-yourself approach to diagnosis, maintenance or repair of products that could be covered under this bill if it is passed is problematic to your industry.

[Mia Spiegelman]

It's problematic to our patients and our health care providers and to Health Canada to ensure ongoing safety monitoring of our patients.