Evidence of meeting #59 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 recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Patrick Blanar  Director, Copyright and Trademark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Scott McTaggart  Committee Researcher

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Basically, that would require buying more products made in Quebec or Canada, as opposed to China.

Thank you.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Masse.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for coming back to committee.

I worked on the CASIS agreement. That was my original legislation here, on the aftermarket for the auto sector. It was a voluntary agreement that was put in place. One of the problems we have now is the digital component to it. It was expected to be a problem.

One of the arguments against this.... For those who aren't aware, the bill was to provide the proper tools, training, materials and software to the aftermarket to fix automobiles: It's a public safety issue, an environmental issue and consumer choice issue. It was argued that this would be actually out of NAFTA too. I worry about that type of reasoning, because the reality was that the U.S. actually could have better legislation, because their Environmental Protection Act, outside of our trade agreement, actually gave consumers in the United States a better choice.

I'm wondering what you think about that and whether or not there's the high degree of concern or what the concern is. We refer to it as the “Canada‑United States‑Mexico Agreement” here. They refer to it as the “U.S.‑Mexico‑Canada agreement”, because Mexico signed it before us. We actually had to go back and sign it a second time.

They also have the Buy American Act, which is restrictive for Canadian companies. We have the Buy American Act, the softwood lumber dispute, dairy.... Buy local is also used against Canadians in terms of procurement from municipalities. On procurement, the U.S. defence industry is notorious for that, and there's also bus manufacturing. They all have restrictions on Canadians.

I'm wondering what concerns you might have if this is going to be used—as I guess a trade argument—against Canada. I'm a little less skeptical of the reasons not to go forth with, I guess, comprehensive legislation, because I'll conclude with this: The problem in my legislation is that it resulted in a voluntary agreement after there was agreement with the government, but it now has to be revisited because it's basically out of date. We're back to square one in many respects.

I'll turn it over to you. I thank you for your efforts.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

I definitely appreciate that.

In looking at the trade, again the big thing is that we're playing catch-up here because our laws are behind and outdated. When we have a 10-year review for copyright and then it takes a few years to implement and make those changes, it puts us at risk of being a little bit further behind. I think that's why the committee is seeing Bill C-244, why we're seeing my bill.... I know you drafted one on similar issues around copyright as well. We need to have a bit more agile legislation now as technology grows and advances, and we have to do so in line with our trade agreements.

When we look at CASIS, it's good to get that sharing of information, but when it's voluntary, it makes it tough. That's why we have to do something like this. That way, the manufacturer is trying to build those pieces and have the certainty they need to go forward and get the information they need to just make their product work, and nothing more than that.

I think what this bill does is that it provides certainty for the main OEMs. Again, they can develop proprietary software that's going to work, yet they can't block out the short-line manufacturers from being able to access the information they need to make other products that will work on their platform.

When it comes to the trade side of things, I think this bill is in a good position.... Again, as I alluded to earlier, I am willing to make amendments if there are things that need to be done to make it more compliant when it comes to trade deals and agreements.

This bill came out of a need for change, which we saw in the CUSMA negotiations anyway. Again, we're playing catch-up here to what the U.S. is doing. There shouldn't be an issue, but that's....

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

I think the point you're also making is about innovation and competitiveness. One of the first things I worked on here was with James Rajotte on this committee. It used to be allowable for companies to deduct environmental fines and penalties, and other malfeasance fines and penalties, as business-related expenses. We got that stopped.

It was unbelievable. It was like you were driving to work and got a ticket and you'd just claim, “Well, I had to get to work quicker, so I can write it off.” Drug companies were doing that—all kinds of different organizations. Some fines were up to $11 million.

At any rate, the point is that it took away from the good actors having to compete against the bad actors, who used that as a business-related expense for advantages.

My last question for you in regard to this is that this will have a chance to go through the Senate later. If, later on, there were an issue over trade agreements, that's going to get another analysis in the Senate that would be more robust. Perhaps it might give the government some backbone to deal with some of these other contentious issues that I listed with the United States.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Absolutely. We have an opportunity to do what's right by consumers and what's right by business. We need innovation, which is the best way to get products built and made and developed here. It can help on all of those fronts.

If it's the forestry sector, it's going to benefit from this bill. Until we can get the softwood lumber agreement dealt with, this will give the industry extra products that they need to continue to make the world-class products we make here in Canada, in every province.

What we're going to continue to focus on with this bill is driving that innovation. You're right. We want to make sure that the good actors get rewarded, get what they need. There's the enforcement side for the bad actors out there as well. We're focused on creating a framework. That way, the good actors can continue to do what they do best and that's innovate. It will prevent them from being squeezed out by other people who are trying to eliminate the competition from the workplace.

5 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Thank you very much.

We'll now turn to Mr. Vis for five minutes.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

You mentioned earlier that the enforcement of technological protection measures was originally introduced to protect copyrighted works from the entertainment industry and performing artists.

To be clear, would you agree that these mechanisms themselves are not the problem but that they are now being misused in a way that was unforeseen when the rules and maybe legislation were originally written?

5 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

They definitely are. Again, just the way they're defined under the Copyright Act, where it's between two computer programs, doesn't necessarily allow the flexibility and certainty they need. That's allowed some of the big OEMs to hide behind the Copyright Act, in part because of the definition of “interoperate” within the frame of the Copyright Act. But also, when we look at TPMs and the different exemptions that are out there to circumvent, it has to be more agile to better reflect how technology has changed and advanced.

It used to be that what was thought of as a written work was a play or a novel or music, but now, in the digital world, we're seeing that it is also code written for how machines are going to operate. The first thing you do when you hop into a tractor or combine now is to accept the user terms and conditions. You don't just turn a key and go anymore, right? You have to accept what it says. When you hit that “accept” in the machine, it says that you acknowledge that you do not own the software inside that machine. Therein lies part of the problem because copyright is based on ownership. If you don't own the software, you don't own a copy of it, and therefore basically you do not have the right to make a product interoperate. That's why we got the exemption included in this bill: to allow people to circumvent a TPM for the sole purpose of making a product interoperate with another product.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Well, maybe on that point, you're suggesting there's some form of monopoly starting to take shape and getting in the way of competition and innovation, that basically there's a danger that our copyright law is working against its original intention and the spirit of protecting copyright in the first place.

You gave one example of a tractor, but what other examples can you provide, real-world examples, of where this takes place?

5 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Again, in their original form, the original goal of TPMs was to provide certainty for artists but also to help make sure there were more products, more written works available to the general public. That is, in essence, the goal of both copyright law and TPMs.

Again, it just comes to those aftermarket pieces, right? Those don't necessarily have to be on the agricultural side. They can be in any industry you look at. If you have a tractor, a piece of mining equipment or a piece that might be used on the forestry side of things, that's where you're going to buy those other products to do your work because they're more specialized to the industry you're working in. When you look at it from the technological side, there's the simple analogy to a computer mouse or other pieces you're trying to put together to build something, and quite often there can be a barrier there, too.

For all intents and purposes with this particular bill, our focus is the agricultural side, but the benefits do definitely exist for many other industries as well.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

How does it work if the company has terms of service for using the software in a product, which they still own, and which are treated as something separate from the physical hardware of the same product? You see an issue with how the software ownership works in the context you've provided already.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Exactly. Basically, right now, in order to make products interoperate, you have to get over a whole separate hurdle. You have to have a digital box that's going to do the work for you, because you can't access that software since right now the act doesn't allow you to do that. Again, you're just trying to get the signalling information you need to send signals back and forth. That's all these people are looking for. But you can't get that information easily. If things are based on getting licences, you're always at the whim of a software update and a software upgrade, and then you have to repurchase or reapply to get those licences and those agreements. That's where creating a system and an environment in which people have that ability and regardless of how many software updates come out they can access that information by circumventing the TPM becomes important. That's what we're trying to create here.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Ms. Lapointe. You have five minutes.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MP Patzer, you and I have the opportunity to work together. We're both members of the natural resources committee, to which mining and forestry are very important sectors. In your opening statement, you talked about those sectors and about how you've had some engagement with them and how they've indicated that this bill would be beneficial to them.

Can you expand on that point?

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Yes, for sure. I can't pull a company name off the top of my head right at the moment. You think about attachments that would be needed for say, road construction. If you are looking at the mining industry, there are going to be different components and pieces that you might be able to get. People are always selling different teeth, for example, for mining. There might be a different piece that they're going to be able to attach to a machine that would use that.

It's making sure that there's innovation in different sectors. That's where it matters.

There are different loader attachments, for example, for forestry, with grappling hooks, different things like that, which would provide a better function. It's more geared towards a specific use. The main OEMs don't always have that niche or specific thing in mind. They make a general product and try to use that for other purposes.

When you have these short-line companies that specialize in making just mining equipment or agricultural attachments or road construction equipment or attachments that are going to help with road construction...that's what this bill is aimed at trying to do.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON

During our study on Bill C-244, there were opposing views on the bill. Original equipment manufacturers have been quite opposed to right-to-repair frameworks for a number of reasons. They cite safety concerns and IP theft.

What are your thoughts on this?

February 15th, 2023 / 5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Part of it is the right to innovate...or the safety concerns. A lot of that comes down to enforcement in other jurisdictions. It's not copyright that would be the enforcement mechanism for a lot of those things. Safety isn't copyright. When you're talking about motor vehicle safety acts or environmental protection, that's not the Copyright Act.

Both Bill C-244 and my bill, Bill C-294, which we're talking about today, are not going to allow people to alter or make substantive changes to an already existing piece of equipment. When you look at the very definitions of “diagnose”, “maintenance” or “repair”, you're maintaining it to what the original state was or you're repairing it to the original state. In order to do that safely, you have to be able to access information to restore it to the original state.

What we're trying to do with my bill is to make more products available to the consumer to use, to have the choice and the options for what they want. Again, that's not going to violate environmental protection laws. It's not going to alter motor vehicle safety. There are standards in place that still have to be respected.

All of these companies are certified companies; they're making good products. Are there going to be some bad actors or other people who are black market or whatever? Yes. With or without this, that's going to exist.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON

Do you think there should be classes of products that are exempt from this bill?

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

No, I don't. I think the bill respects the protections that people would have, again, for developing proprietary software. When you look at various industries, part of what makes one product possibly superior to another is that they might have some cutting-edge software that they use to operate a machine, or how it calculates things or does things for them. It's not about providing access to that proprietary software. It's more about making sure that people have the information they need to build the attachment that is required for that machine anyway.

Going back to my farming example, John Deere makes a John Deere header, but you can also buy a Honey Bee, a MacDon, a New Holland. You could buy lots of different types of headers that are going to attach to the front of it.

Exempting one group over the other, I don't think is what we're looking at. We're trying to create an ecosystem where people can innovate and do so without fear of having the Copyright Act chasing them down because they unlawfully circumvented TPM. This provides the protection that the big companies want and need, but it still also provides a certainty for the short-line guys to do the work that they want to do.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON

Quickly, it's becoming more and more apparent that the Copyright Act was not designed for our current digitized world. I think I heard you say that OEMs do take advantage of the Copyright Act to protect their own financial interests.

How would your bill better protect consumers but also give them that wider range of choice and options?

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

What this does is get towards the manufacturers. This bill is about allowing manufacturers to access the information they need to make a product for the end consumer.

If our innovators don't have an environment in which they can do what they do best, which is to innovate and drive that innovation level higher, that will reduce the amount of choice that consumers have. We want more and more choice. We want more products available for consumers, so we need to create an ecosystem in which they can do that.

Again, when the Copyright Act was implemented in 2012, it met the needs and the demands of the day, but as we all know, the minute you buy a phone, it's obsolete. The Copyright Act also needs to recognize that things have changed since 2012. The review is under way. There are going to be changes coming, and this is one of many things that need to be done to update the Copyright Act. Hopefully we can get this done before the updates are done.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Thank you.

Over to you, Mr. Lemire.