Industry Committee on Dec. 5th, 2022

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

My third question is about computer programs embedded in products, which are typically licensed to consumers because companies can get fees for them every single year. To retain the right to use the program, consumers usually must comply with the licence, which usually requires that they can't circumvent TPMs, for example. A person could thus breach the licence, losing the right to use the program even if the Copyright Act otherwise allows them to circumvent the TPM.

Do you think Bill C-224 goes far enough to overcome the challenge of licence restrictions?

[John Lawford]

It may not, and that's where we get into concerns about provincial jurisdiction. If you're talking about consumer items bought in a particular place, I'm not sure where you would put that: perhaps in the Competition Act to make sure the consumer has a right to in effect override that kind of stipulation in a contract or licence.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

I saw Mr. Hatfield nodding as well.

Mr. Hatfield, do you have anything to say about that?

[Matthew Hatfield]

Yes. To your point, people are going to make modifications to their devices no matter what we say here. Some of those people are going to be contravening the rules, but we're not stopping the most sophisticated users by denying basic repair rights. We're denying repair rights to ordinary law-abiding folks.

The portion that I think you're speaking to, which goes beyond what we're doing here today but needs to happen, is that we need to reaffirm a reasonable, basic set of consumer rights and expectations over the things we own. It's the same way that if I owned a washer or a car or a phone 40 years ago, I would have had a pretty reasonable set of expectations about what I was entitled to.

That needs to be brought back into the law for the digital age, and part of what we're getting from Bill C-244 and from the broader right to repair is redressing that balance, because things are swinging further and further against an ordinary person around these devices.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

That's great. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, MP Gaheer.

I now give the floor to Mr. Lemire for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to follow up on what Mr. Hatfield just said and take advantage of the door opened by my colleague Brian Masse in relation to the broader context. I also see an opportunity for reflection.

Mr. Hatfield, is the Copyright Act ripe for an in-depth review?

[Matthew Hatfield]

Absolutely, and unfortunately, some things that are happening to it right now are in our view a disaster for consumers. The extension of copyright from a default of 50 years to 70 is a really bad thing for ordinary people.

It would be well past time for us to look at the act more generally and to see where it is or is not serving its purposes, because without a general interest lens on it, the act tends to be abused by companies to further and further disadvantage consumers.

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

Indeed, that is a legislative requirement.

Mr. Lawford, should the context of the Copyright Act undergo a broader review?

[John Lawford]

Of course. I believe the act provides for a review every five years.

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

Since that has not been applied in a long time, I think there is an opportunity here.

[John Lawford]

We can see that the current act is greatly inconveniencing consumers, especially in terms of the technical safeguards we are talking about today.

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

Ms. Lovrics, do you have an opinion on the general context of the Copyright Act?

[Catherine Lovrics]

The statutory review every five years opens up the entire act for review. The last review where the reports from the committees were issued was in 2019. I'm not sure what the current timing is, but I would expect it would be relatively soon that there would be a call for the next five-year review.

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

Absolutely.

Mr. Chair, since I went a little over my time in the previous round of questions, I'm going to stop here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Masse, go ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was actually here on that committee. There's a lot of material in there if anybody wants to spend the next month going over it. We travelled across Canada and it was extensively discussed.

Mr. Lemire has a good point. Maybe we should get an update at some point.

Madam Lovrics, I want to give you an opportunity to respond. This has been going on for a while. Maybe you can reflect it through the OEMs and why there isn't more consensus to deal with this issue.

My bill was 10 years ago. Since then...we have now a Liberal bill in front of us. There's a Conservative bill. I know the Bloc Quebeçois have spoken about concerns about the treatment of consumers, so this seems to be gripping all political parties in Ottawa now.

What can it take, or how can we get a better response from manufacturers to get some reasonable improvements?

[Catherine Lovrics]

Again, I think the Copyright Act may not actually be the mechanism that will achieve that. The reality is that the Copyright Act deals with rules against circumvention of TPMs.

There are things like Bill C-231, which is an act to amend the Competition Act and focuses on making diagnostic information available as well as diagnostic tools. If you look to the U.S., there's a model right to repair act, which, I think, was the act you were referring to in New York as well as Massachusetts.

That type of a framework is outside of the scope of copyright. That's the punchline there. It's not under this umbrella.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. That's helpful.

Here's what my concern is. Those are good examples. Two other states are doing their own thing. Are we going to have every province in Canada doing their own thing and have 49 states doing their thing? It seems like a big mess.

From your association's vantage point, is there an understanding or a greater appreciation for the sensitivity of this issue across North America and particularly for Canada?

[Catherine Lovrics]

The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada obviously looks at things through an IP lens and not through another lens, so our focus really was on the IPP specifically on this bill.

What I can say is that when we were undertaking our research, we did look to the U.K. and the EU model, which I think I mentioned earlier. The EU really is aimed at a handshake. It's outside of the scope of copyright.

What I will flag there, and to underscore it, is our basic perspective on the bill is that even in that model, it is specific to certain categories of products. It's not blanket and across the board.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Généreux, the floor is yours.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses.

Mr. Hanvey, I would like a clarification on the data you mentioned.

I have a car from 2009 that does not produce data, unlike today's digital cars. Who owns the data associated with a million dollar tractor or a $50,000 or $60,000 car?

[William Hanvey]

That is the fundamental question before us.

I would highly recommend that you hang on to your 2009 vehicle, by the way.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!