Evidence of meeting #43 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vehicle.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Thank you.
How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Okay.
Computer programs embedded in products are typically licensed to consumers. To retain the right to use the program, they usually must comply with the licence, which may require that they do not circumvent TPMs for any reason. Thus, a person could breach the licence, losing the right to use the program, even if, in this case, the Copyright Act otherwise allows the person to circumvent the technological protection measure.
Given that provinces have legislative powers over contract law, should the federal government engage with them on the matter of restrictive licences—in the context of Bill C-244, obviously?
12:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Federal Affairs and National Strategic Partnerships, Medtech Canada
Is that for us, Mr. Vis?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Federal Affairs and National Strategic Partnerships, Medtech Canada
Yes.
As you know, health care in this country is a provincial responsibility. There is funding from both the provinces and the federal government. I would imagine that right-to-repair legislation would probably land in the purview of the provinces. What we're requesting is that for federally regulated medical devices, there be either an exception or an amendment to ensure that these devices are repaired by trained individuals who have access to the proper parts and the proper training.
Does that answer your question?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
It does, partly.
I'm kind of on the fence about this bill right now. I think it's so broad. I see the merits of it for some industries. Then for others, I think we're opening up a can of worms. Generally, my rule of thumb is that I don't want to try to fix something that's not broken. It applies so differently to all the different witnesses we're hearing today. What I'm trying to get at is the complexity of broad-based legislation like this that doesn't exist in other jurisdictions, necessarily, and the implications of that. That's why I was asking those specific questions that were so generously provided by our analysts.
12:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Federal Affairs and National Strategic Partnerships, Medtech Canada
Maybe I could just expand on my answer, then.
Medical technologies and medical devices, as I said, are federally regulated. If we're looking for specific carve-outs, then I guess that would be our recommendation.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you very much, Mr. Malik and Mr. Vis.
We'll now turn to MP Dong for five minutes.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses for coming today.
I just want to say, Mr. Jack and Mr. Kerr, that your testimony was very much valued. I think it's good for us to hear different perspectives on this bill.
Having said that, earlier today we heard from witnesses who raised concerns regarding the impact of this bill on safety and environmental concerns. What's your view on how this bill would impact the safety of our roads and the environmental standards?
12:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association
That's a very good question. We care a lot about both of those issues. It's a very good question; thank you for it.
I would say a few things. First of all, we've also heard testimony that this is happening anyway, regardless of this legislation. Right now you have people going on the dark web and to various corners of the internet to download pirated pieces of software to do some of this themselves. We think that this legislation would surface that and bring it, hopefully, into the legal market. That's one thing we would say about it.
We think there are, as we've also heard, environmental laws. They should absolutely be enforced. However, these are amendments to the Copyright Act, not to environmental..., and I don't think we want environment.... As Mr. Vis commented, it's already broad enough. I don't think we need to be putting environmental concerns into this bill at the same time. That should be dealt with under environmental legislation.
We are not particularly concerned about road safety aspects of this bill because, again, we're talking about legitimate software that is already being used by legitimate players in the industry to repair vehicles, and just making sure through these amendments, this Bill C-244, that we don't put a new block in place—a new padlock, if you will, on access to that software.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you for that.
Although it may be true that it's happening anyway—people are getting information or are figuring out a way to circumvent it—I think making a law, making it legal, is very different because laws, to our understanding, set a very minimum standard of our expectations of what is happening in industry and society. In making a law, basically you're sending a strong signal that it is allowed and that people would be able to do that.
12:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association
For legitimate legal purposes.
12:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association
That wouldn't change whether somebody's doing something illegal.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
On the environmental impact, thank you very much for the response. One of my colleagues mentioned earlier that Australia is doing something and the United States is doing something, and I too want to thank the analysts for doing the research.
In the Australian case, in 2021 they tried to amend their Competition and Consumer Act to establish a scheme that mandated all service and repair information provided to car dealership networks and manufacturer-preferred repairers be made available for independent repairs and to registered training organizations to purchase.
Obviously that's a different path they're taking. This bill intends to fix the copyright aspect of things to pave the way for other laws—at least, that's what I see.
What's your comment on that? Can you compare the two approaches? Can you compare what the Australians are doing and what we're doing here in the committee?
12:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association
I think we'd agree with your interpretation, and as an earlier witness said as well, to the extent that there are issues with CASIS, this will not fix them. What it will do is ensure that another roadblock isn't put up in the future.
We see this bill as one step forward. As I said in the opening remarks, we hope that surfacing this issue and having this testimony from various players in our particular industry will perhaps cause the committee to take a renewed interest in the overall issue. I do think that the CASIS example is very pertinent, as I said, to any amendments you may be considering here, because if amendments are done so that people can do voluntary agreements but there's no oversight of those agreements once signed, you end up in the same situation and you'll have, I would predict, a parade of industries coming before this committee to complain from one side or the other that the agreement is not being respected, and there will be nobody to arbitrate that dispute.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I very much agree with your comment on the review and audit mechanism to be built. Whatever this bill will look like at the end of a series of amendments, would you still recommend a review and audit mechanism be built into this bill?
12:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association
We absolutely would, and again I think CASIS is a perfect example. With great goodwill, something was entered into 15 years ago. When people start disputing it, though, if it's just floating out there as a semi-private agreement, there's no way to fix it, and the consumer is ultimately the one who gets hurt in that situation.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Do you have any thoughts on how long that cycle should be? Is it a two-year review period or a five-year review period?
12:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association
We'd split the difference and say three, actually. Two is very short, and we are not interested in setting up a big new bureaucracy. Five years can be very long, though, in an industry.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Would you say that the review audit process should be specified within the regulatory process or actually should be built into the legislation?
12:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association
We'll leave that to your legislative counsel. I don't have legal advice on where the best place for that is, as long as it's there. Legislation, of course, would be better in that respect, but then there would have to be regulation made to follow that.
I'll make one other broader point, if I may. My colleagues inside the department won't like this very much, but I started writing about right to repair as a journalist in 1999. I've been around this issue for a long time, and one of the things that happened many years ago is that Industry Canada was slammed together out of a bunch of different departments. It is responsible for attracting and keeping automotive investment in this country. It's also responsible for the Copyright Act, as you would know. It's also responsible for consumer affairs.
My experience over the years has been that one of those things is considered more important than the others to the department. I understand that. Again, Mr. Masse isn't here to pipe up for the auto workers of Windsor, but I'm sure he would if he were here. I get that, but it is a fact that when there are competing interests inside the department, it is not always the consumer interest that triumphs at the end of the day. That may be understandable, but I think if there's a legislative mandate, it makes it harder for the department to not do anything. Indeed, my understanding is that there is a mechanism for an exemption under the Copyright Act regulations, but an exemption hasn't been granted once in 10 years.