Industry Committee on Feb. 8th, 2023

[Dr. Alissa Centivany]

I would defer to Mr. Rosborough on the classes issue. However, I would like to say that I would not be in favour of a sort of triennial review process, like what is happening in the United States. What we've seen there is that it's overly burdensome and that a tremendous amount of resources and attention and lobbying power and money goes into producing arguments every three years. The provisions, whatever might be produced in this three-year cycle, have to be readdressed in the next three years, so they don't necessarily carry over.

My preference would be to send a very clear statement, which I think this bill does, so there is certainty both for consumers and for manufacturers about the state of things, with the understanding that this can be revisited as the need arises in the future.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I appreciate that.

My last question is for Mr. Rosborough.

Ms. Centivany doesn't have a financial interest in this. The Entertainment Software Association of Canada does. Most organizations that have come before us who are wanting to water this down clearly have a financial interest at stake and don't take the same consumer-centric perspective.

Do you not worry, if you have a regulatory apparatus or you have an ongoing review, that you have large lobby firms that bring their might to bear and consumers may be left behind?

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

I had some optimism that there is a way of designing an administrative body that may be somewhat out of the bounds of regulatory capture. I would hope we'd have some faith in our institutions to do so. However, I think part of the structure of that administrative body, the design of it, would be important for safeguarding that concern. Ultimately—

I'm sorry?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

No, no. I take your point, but I'm out of time. It can be done, but we have to be careful how we do it.

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

You have to be extremely careful, yes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

We now go to Mrs. Desbiens for two and a half minutes.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is for Mr. Fogolin.

Planned obsolescence is a big concern for us, in Quebec, and we have a bit of a head start. Guy Ouellette introduced Bill 197, which is making its way through the National Assembly. The principle underlying the bill received unanimous support in 2021, and the legislation is currently at committee stage. The bill deals seriously with the problem of planned obsolescence and establishes a goods sustainability rating.

Is a label indicating the good’s sustainability rating an idea that resonates with you? Is it something you think is doable?

[Paul Fogolin]

Thanks for bringing this up. There's been a lot of talk of manufactured obsolescence throughout the debate on Bill C-244. In our industry, I like to think that we build our products with manufactured longevity. What I mean by that is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Fogolin, I have to stop you there.

Just one second. I think the translation is not working.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

The interpreters can't hear Mr. Fogolin. The audio isn't working.

[Paul Fogolin]

Okay, just let me know when I can proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Fogolin, I apologize. I think there's a latency problem with your connection, which explains why earlier in a previous moment you froze for the committee, which creates a problem for the interpreters. Maybe you could send in writing what you had in mind, but unfortunately I'll have to ask Madame Desbiens to move to another witness.

[Paul Fogolin]

Certainly.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fogolin, I would be very appreciative if you could follow up with a written response.

I'll ask Mr. Rosborough the question.

Similarly, do you think a label indicating the good’s sustainability rating is something the committee should explore?

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

For the purposes of the right to repair, absolutely. I think it may be beyond the scope of this bill, but a system of...maybe like a sustainability index under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. If the government is serious about pursuing the right to repair at the federal level, some sort of system would be essential. We have seen in other jurisdictions similar indexes that have been very successful, France being the main example.

With regard to provincial efforts toward the right to repair, such as the bill proposed by Guy Ouellette, these jurisdictions provincially in Canada are waiting for federal leadership on the IP issue. Bill C-244 and Bill C-294 are the important starting point. These bills are starting at the right place to give provinces the leeway they need to move ahead with those types of systems.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Do I have a bit of time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mrs. Desbiens.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's very kind.

How much can we rely on these tools to move things forward? If Bill C‑244 were implemented here, Quebec would be one of the places in the world where consumers were most protected against planned obsolescence. There's a keen interest in the issue in Quebec.

Do you think we can move towards that in Canada, or are we too far away?

[Anthony D. Rosborough]

We risk fragmentation by having independent provincial strategies that are inconsequential toward sustainability indexes or repairability indexes. To have meaningful effect across Canada, we should have a federal index for repairability. Absolutely, providing consumers with the information they need at the time of sale is essential for achieving the right to repair, because it creates a distinction in the marketplace. Consumers need to have that information.

Again, this allows for repairability, but it doesn't necessarily enable the right or ability to conduct repairs. That's what Bill C-244 looks to do. It starts at the source of the problem rather than looking just to solutions at the far end. This bill is starting at the right place. If we have enough movement in this direction on the IP file, we can move ahead with repair indexes and sustainability indexes and to arming consumers with the information they need at the time of sale.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Over to you, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While we're talking about obsolescence and that, Mr. Fogolin can't respond right now, but perhaps he can send this in.

I know, for example, on a lot of platforms there is reverse compatibility. If you upgrade your system, you can still play old games—those you've already invested in—without having to purchase them again as a consumer. Many platforms allow for that to be a continuation of what you've already purchased, and some are very successful at that.

That's the difference in that industry, which shows something that I think is different. In the auto industry, where I come from, they build the vehicles and create new tools that are necessary to fix them, which you have to invest in. It kind of creates planned obsolescence. Even our phones and so forth are changing—even though you charge your phone—and that creates a lot of electronic waste.

With my last minute, I'll go to Mr. Bernard.

We are hearing a lot about this from consumers and constituents. There's a reason there are three political parties that have three different bills in the House of Commons on this.

Does your association have a position...? If we don't act on this here, do you want, then, to just assume...? For example, in the United States, we have standardized bumpers, standardized processes for manufacturing.

We're probably going to get something imposed on us. What are your thoughts on that? If we don't do anything, do we just then have it imposed on us? It's just like we had emissions standards imposed on us from the United States. We used to work on those and set them together, and now we don't.

Please, that's for you, with my remaining time.

[Charles Bernard]

Thank you for the question.

It's a bit of a tricky one. Back in 2010 or thereabouts, Massachusetts passed a very progressive right to repair law, and it ended up having a negative impact on consumers. Companies like Subaru opted to remove certain electronic components from the initial vehicle models to bypass the law. At the end of the day, the approach had repercussions for consumers.

In CADA's view, CASIS is a great gateway for those discussions. As you say, it may also be a way to avoid having manufacturers impose standards in the future. I don't think the proposed amending legislation would solve that problem.

Ours is one of the only sectors fortunate enough to have been proactive on this, mainly thanks to your work, and to have a platform to help the discussion along. From CADA's point of view, that's really where the focus should be. We need to use the tools we already have, instead of running the risk of opening Pandora's box and unleashing consequences on consumers that are hard to predict.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Vis for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our panellists today for, likely, the most informative discussion we've had on this subject so far.

One of the analysts' questions, provided to us in advance, number 7, is as follows. Bill C-244 suggests a “do-it-yourself” approach to the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of products in which technological protection measure-protected computer programs are embedded: it would allow a person to circumvent the technological protection measure for these purposes, and to use or offer equipment for these purposes. It would not, however, allow a person to offer or provide services for doing the same.

Professor Centivany, why does Bill C-244 seem to prioritize a do-it-yourself approach, considering that ordinary people may not have enough know-how to repair products such as motorized vehicles and personal electronic devices, and that allowing others to do it for them could bring new revenues to Canadian businesses?