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.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Okay.
Mr. Chair, is Mr. Miao present in the meeting, by any chance?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Okay. I really wish he were here, because this is essential discussion on his bill. I don't know why he wouldn't be present for the most consequential thing he'll likely ever be doing as a parliamentarian. That's unfortunate. I'd love to share my time with him so that he could respond to that, but unfortunately he's not here. Maybe we could invite him to attend future meetings.
How much time do I have left?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Vis. I just wonder, because I don't think this was ever brought up, if we have the same standing order here that we cannot comment on [Inaudible—Editor].
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Come on, Mr. Dong. I'm working well with Mr. Miao on this bill. I want to get it right.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Mr. Vis and Mr. Dong, I don't think we do have the same standing order as in the House. But in any respect, MP Miao has testified before this committee, and I can assure you, Mr. Vis, that I'm pretty sure he's listening intently to the testimony, because he cares greatly about this bill and getting it right—as you do too.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
That is all the time you had, Mr. Vis.
We will now turn to MP Gaheer for five minutes.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the witnesses for appearing before the committee.
My first questions are for Mr. Lawford. In the previous meeting on Bill C-244, the committee heard from manufacturer representatives about how TPM measures can be circumvented for unauthorized purposes, for example, to improve the performance of vehicles and equipment in a manner that may not be entirely safe. My question is to what extent, if at all, would Bill C-244 make this practice more common?
The reason I ask this question is because there's no way that the Copyright Act is the only thing preventing unauthorized circumvention of TPMs. There have to be other laws and regulations in place as well.
December 5th, 2022 / 12:10 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Right. I understand that there are occasionally safety regulations and other things that might also be covering the situation. But, Mr. Gaheer, I think the trouble is that the copyright TPMs are affecting real world products, and it's kind of an overreach, from our point of view.
When you're taking the copyright TPM violation out of repair, what you're really doing is removing the ability of manufacturers to sue people out of existence. Really, that's what we're here for today. What we're saying is that there is more benefit to allowing more repair rights in consumer products and that having the TPM extend to software and computer programs as copyrightable things—and yet those computer programs are now in what we used to use as regular devices like combines—is causing consumer problems.
I'm focusing on the Copyright Act, because the Copyright Act is being used to squash consumer choice and innovation in product markets, although I understand there could be sectoral concerns with auto safety or health devices.
I don't know if that answers your question. That's my best effort.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
That answers it partially.
I think my question is whether you think this bill will make it more common that unauthorized circumvention happens. In my understanding of this environment, it's probably already happening. This bill isn't the only thing preventing it not from happening.
12:10 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
In...?
12:10 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
No, but I guess when people say that things are unauthorized circumventions, they're referring to the unauthorized part being circumventing the TPM or causing some other kind of harm to the manufacturer. I think that's where the discussion gets a little confusing. As long as people pull those two apart—and we're talking about whether it otherwise harms the market or safety, apart from violating the TPM—then I think we'll have a more beneficial conversation.
Again, I don't know if that answers your question.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Yes, I think that's exactly the point I was trying to make.
The second question is that under the Copyright Act it's up to the copyright holder to enforce their rights, including provisions related to TPMs: Is it common for rights holders to seek enforcement related to TPMs and circumvention of TPMs?
12:10 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Well, they certainly spend a lot of effort on trying to defeat bills like this, but yes, there have been situations where manufacturers have gone after especially aftermarket providers of auto parts and medical device secondary market manufacturers. They do ask for either injunctive relief or for damages, which tends to knock those folks out of the market. I don't have examples for you in as many consumer product markets, or specific examples, but I can try to find them.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
That's great. Thank you. You could provide that to the committee afterward.
12:15 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
I will.