Industry Committee on Dec. 5th, 2022

Evidence of meeting #49 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 copyright.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Bill C-244

MPs speaking

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Also speaking

Ian Boxall President, Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan

William Hanvey President and Chief Executive Officer, Auto Care Association

Joshua Dickison Copyright Officer, University of New Brunswick, Canadian Federation of Library Associations

Catherine Lovrics Chair, Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada

Matthew Hatfield Campaigns Director, OpenMedia

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

Alexandra Kohn Copyright and Digital Collections Librarian, McGill University, Canadian Federation of Library Associations

1 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Well, they do, but actually, subsection 1 of article 20.66 is the defining section as to what everything that follows is pursuant to. It's specifically in relation to what authors, performers and producers of phonograms use in connection with the exercise of their rights. To your point, it may be widely expansive, but it doesn't really seem that the right-to-repair legislation, Bill C-244, is really what article 20.66 is driving at.

1 p.m.

Chair, Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada

Catherine Lovrics

I'm trying to pull it up quickly so I can comment on the specific language. In both CUSMA and the WIPO Internet treaties to which Canada has agreed, we have agreed to protect TPMs and to make any sort of exception or limitation on TPM protection carefully crafted, based on evidence and narrowly appropriate to whatever circumstances are dictated by the evidence. The concern with the current bill is that it takes a blanket approach without any sort of specific focus on what products would qualify.

It also doesn't require that it be proven that there's a substantial adverse effect on the ability of Canadians to make non-infringing uses. I think it's really the breadth of the current bill that is ultimately the concern.

I'm still trying to quickly find the opening wording of article 20.66.

1 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

No, no, that's all good. We're out of time. I look forward to receiving your proposals and amendments.

Thanks, everyone, for the time.

1 p.m.

Chair, Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada

Catherine Lovrics

Thank you.

1 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Thank you, colleagues, and to all of our witnesses today. It's been a very interesting discussion. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.

Thank you to the analysts, the clerk and the support staff. Have a great week, everyone.

This meeting is adjourned.