Industry Committee on Feb. 15th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Ladies and gentlemen, friends and colleagues, I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 59 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 30, 2022, we are considering Bill C-294, an act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022.

During the first hour of our meeting on Bill C‑294, we are fortunate to have with us the sponsor of the bill, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Jeremy Patzer.

Thank you for being here this afternoon, Mr. Patzer. The floor is yours.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much to the members of the committee.

It's an honour to be here. I was a member of the committee previously, so it's fun to be back here and, in particular, to talk about a bill that I think we have all already found some semblance of agreement on.

The House of Commons already voted unanimously to pass this bill at second reading, and I believe there is good reason and enough public support as well to keep the momentum going through the remaining stages ahead.

Many people are not familiar with the concept of interoperability, but it is fairly easy to understand the problem we have right now in Canada. It’s the result of rapid technological changes, especially over the last few years.

The federal government updated the Copyright Act 10 years ago in response to new developments back then, which gave us the current version of Canadian copyright law. Since 2012, the act includes a new section for the enforcement of technological protection measures, or TPMs for short.

At the time, there was a clear need to better protect the copyrighted works of artists and entertainers. That is why there is language that specifically mentions “performers” and “sound recordings”. Digital locks and similar technology were created to combat piracy and related issues, and the Copyright Act backs them up with enforcement and legal penalties.

The wording of section 41 made sense for what was happening 10 years ago, but we all know that has a lot has changed since then.

Now there are other industries that have incorporated digital features and software into their products. This has allowed digital locks to appear in places that were unimaginable when the law was put in place. It has opened our eyes to how common something like interoperability is.

For the benefit of the committee, and for anybody who might be listening online today, when we think of the concept of interoperability, one of the simplest forms to describe it.... For those of you who have Surface Pros, if you use an external mouse and you plug it in via USB, it just works. It doesn't matter what brand your mouse is. You plug it in, it downloads the driver and it interoperates. It's basically a plug-and-play concept. That's one of the simplest ways to describe what interoperability is and how it should seamlessly work.

For something like computer hardware, though, there hasn’t been as much of an issue. The market incentive favours allowing interoperability between different brands, and everyone is better off for it. However, other industries are starting to lose ground with letting people enjoy interoperability.

I have already said a lot—in my speech, back at second reading—about how there are problems with using agricultural machinery for farmers and short-line manufacturers, and I would be happy to talk about more of the details during your rounds of questions. Obviously, machinery for farming and heavy construction is not the same thing as copyright for music or movies. The nature of the business and products involved are quite different. Restricting interoperability in these areas has more practical consequences because there is more at stake with these sectors.

It is also important to remember that interoperability existed and was practised before these new conditions came along. What Bill C-294 proposes to do is not anything new. Instead, it is trying to close a loophole and bring back what farmers and manufacturers were always allowed to do. It's an acceptable and perfectly normal thing that should not be treated as if it were part of a black market. Until we return to the clarity of a simpler time, we are leaving people in an awkward, arbitrary and inconsistent position.

Bill C-294 is our opportunity to update the Copyright Act with a small, limited amendment. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just common sense. With your support, and that of the rest of our colleagues in the House, we can make a simple fix that will support Canadian consumers and industry.

I look forward to responding to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Patzer.

Starting off the discussion will be Mr. Perkins for six minutes.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for being here. Thank you, and congratulations for making it this far. As members of Parliament, it's always quite a special thing to be able to get a private member's bill moving through the House and to the committee stage, so congratulations on having the initiative to bring forward a bill that, I think, has a lot of interest from all sides.

The interoperability part, for those who are watching, applies to a wide variety of things. With regard to another private member's bill, Bill C-244, we've been dealing a lot with the impacts on agricultural equipment.

In your work in preparing this bill and making sure that it was achieving what you hoped it would achieve, what are some of the industries you've consulted with, and how do they feel about it?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

The concept definitely applies broadly to many different industries and interested groups. Whether it be manufacturing groups and companies or different sectors like forestry or heavy construction, they are definitely interested in what this bill has to offer.

When you're looking for the best product to do the best work for whatever your specific industry is, that's where interoperability is important. You might have a main OEM machine or piece of equipment, and then you might have a specialty attachment that you want to use, whether it be for mining, forestry or agriculture, depending on what season you're in or what type product you're trying to harvest or mine.

We had some good conversations with heavy construction and with some of the forestry and mining folks as well.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

The Copyright Act and your bill talk about this term “technological protection measure” or TPM.

These were originally, as I understand, put in place in the Copyright Act to really protect copyright works of entertainment, industry performing arts and that kind of thing. There has been some discussion that as technology has advanced and as the knowledge-based economy has advanced, the Copyright Act hasn't kept up with the fact that these areas are a problem. It's creating, in some cases, what I'll call a monopolistic use of technology to prevent competitors from directly competing in the same space, as I understand it.

I'm wondering if you could comment a bit on that issue of interoperability.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

One main component of the bill is to redefine what interoperability means.

The reason we're doing that is that right now, the Copyright Act envisions interoperability as being simply between two computer programs. Think about even the example I gave in my opening remarks about a computer mouse. Your computer mouse itself doesn't have a computer program inside of it. When you plug it in, your computer recognizes an interface inside of it, so it downloads the appropriate software to the computer. It doesn't download it the mouse; it downloads it to the computer. You have a software program and then you have a mouse with a little interface or a little chip inside of it.

Then you make that comparative analysis on larger scale. In agriculture, the prime example came from a combine header. You have your main combine and then you have the header that you attach to the front of it to harvest your grain. There are many short-line manufacturers out there that only make the header. They don't make the combine, so they're looking for some certainty to be able to operate on the platform of the main OEMs.

Again, they don't put computer software into their header. There might be an interface. It is an attachment.

That's why we're redefining what interoperability means. We're also adding in the provision that's going to allow a manufacturer to circumvent a TPM for the sole purpose of making that product interoperate.

The reason the language is so important there is...obviously there is proprietary software. The manufacturers don't want access to the proprietary software. They just want to know what information—basically what ones and zeros—they are going to need to make the reel on the header turn or make the knives go back and forth to cut the crop. It's being able to send those signals. That's the information that they are looking for—what the signals are. They are not worried about the proprietary side.

The protection still exists so that even if someone were to be adversarial and try to access that proprietary software, they would be in violation of the act.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Your bill proposes to deal with that whole software connection.

We read recently about how in Europe, they mandated that cell phones must all have the same plug in the actual hardware or the physical thing.

Does your bill deal with that part of interoperability?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

It makes sure that something physical can be realized in the term of what interoperability means.

By adding in the term “attachment” or “interface”, generally that is a more physical thing as compared to software. While it wouldn't explicitly be a phone plug, it does still deal with and reference something that is a little bit more physical.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I think my time is up.

We'll get you on the next round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It is indeed, Mr. Perkins.

We'll now move to Mr. Fillmore for six minutes.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thanks so much, Mr. Patzer, for being here and for your work on the bill. This is something the committee has studied in different forms over the last year or so. Thanks for your contribution to moving this necessary issue forward.

We've learned that there are potentially some conflicts with CUSMA. The government would like to ensure the bill is compliant with CUSMA and that we don't create difficulties in international trade with our partners.

Is this something that you have heard? Do you have any thoughts about this? Would you be supportive of amendments that would bring your bill into compliance with CUSMA?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, I'd definitely be happy to consider some amendments if there are issues that have arisen with some trade deals.

We definitely looked at that right from the very beginning, though, because some of the people who reached out to me about looking to do the private member's bill on this actually came from witness testimony at the CUSMA hearings. Part of what was acknowledged then and is still the case now is that Canada lags behind what the Americans are doing. We're also behind the European Union. Australia has been very progressive on this as well. I think that even France has more progressive language on interoperability. This bill will basically put us back up onto a level playing field with our international competitors.

When we worked with the analysts of the Library of Parliament on this, we did a lot of extensive research as to how it would impact our trade deals. At the time, we found there didn't appear to be any issues, but if there is more legal analysis out there that would suggest there are some tweaks to be made, I'd be happy to entertain those tweaks.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Okay. Thanks for that. I think we'll have a chance to discuss this in more depth in the second half of today's meeting, and I look forward to that.

Another part of the question around right to repair, which the committee has embraced with some vigour, I would say, is around the circular economy: keeping things out of landfills and extending the life of things. I had a very expensive palm sander that I dropped off my bench and was able to fix myself, to my great delight. I didn't have to put it in a landfill.

As it pertains to supporting a circular economy, what would you share with the committee on that?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Right to repair and interoperability are similar, yet they're different in a lot of different ways. What this does is help to drive innovation. We kind of dubbed the bill “the right to innovate”. For example, when you dropped your sander and broke it, you might not have been able to get the exact part from the original manufacturer, but you might have been able to get an aftermarket piece that would work.

What we're working on here.... Again, I'm coming at it more so from an agricultural background. We're looking to create—or to preserve, I guess—a situation where these manufacturers can drive innovation so that we have better products that are going to work longer, hopefully, and so we just continue to drive that innovation. That way, we're not left with a situation where maybe a monopoly takes over and the quality of the product deteriorates.

When we create an environment that allows these short-line manufacturers to innovate and to make these products, it keeps the quality of the products higher, which is going to make those products last longer. People could use them for much longer than they would if that same quality weren't being driven by the short-line manufacturers.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Okay. Thanks for that.

The impacts of your bill will be felt not just by users, which is a good thing: It will be felt very likely by provincial regulators, provincial governments and private sector manufacturers and so forth. What do you see out there in terms of work that needs to be done or those points of interface? Are there any concerns? Is there anything to share there?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I've had a few conversations with some of the provincial governments as well, just around what their thoughts were on this. Being that some of the issues we broadly see with industry fall more into the competition side, that's where some of the provincial angles might come into play. I know there is a federal framework, but a lot of it can be enforced on the provincial side of things.

By putting this framework into place, it does create a bit more room and an ecosystem out there where, again, innovation can be driven by our provincial partners. It will give MLAs and provincial governments a bit more certainty, I think, to be able to make sure their laws also work alongside and similar to this to protect that.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thanks very much.

I'm probably just about out of time, am I not, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes.

Thank you for keeping yourself in check, Mr. Fillmore.

Over to you, Mr. Lemire, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for being here. It's nice to see you again, here at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I want to build on something Mr. Fillmore mentioned. Quebec unanimously passed similar legislation in 2019, Bill 197, an act to amend the Consumer Protection Act to fight planned obsolescence and assert the right to repair goods.

What I take from Bill C-294 is that it would prevent manufacturers from using the federal Copyright Act to thwart efforts to make Quebec the number one place in the world for consumer protection against these types of practices. That's how we see it, anyways. In that regard, I commend you on your leadership.

Why do you care so much about planned obsolescence?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

When I look at the general economy in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and every province, manufacturing is a very big part of the local economies and—this gets a bit more to what Mr. Fillmore was getting at—each province might have a different sector or a different part of the economy that they are manufacturing for particularly.

In the small town my parents farmed around, Frontier, for example, there is a business called Honey Bee Manufacturing. I spoke about it at length in my speech. Were it not for Honey Bee, the big source of employment for the region would be gone. In many small towns all throughout the country, that is what the jobs are.

If you look at Quebec, you guys produce some fantastic aluminum there. There are other aspects of manufacturing that are going to be beneficial to that. This is providing more opportunity for more Quebec aluminum, per se, across the country to be utilized and used, but predominantly, it's about choice.

It comes down to the end user. We have innovation from our manufacturers. They are world class on that side, but when it comes down to choice for the consumer, for the farmer or for the companies in forestry and mining to be able to have the products that they need to do the best job that they can do, that's what this is all about. It's giving them the tools they need to succeed.

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

In 2019, the sponsor of Quebec's bill, Guy Ouellette, drew inspiration from European solutions, including measures to prohibit planned obsolescence and French legislation on labelling indicating a good's sustainability rating. France's legislation also added a repairability index based on five criteria, including the availability of documentation; disassembly, access and tools; the availability of spare parts; and the price of spare parts. The fifth criterion refers to subcriteria specific to the product category concerned.

Did you use the European legislation on planned obsolescence as a model?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

As far as the issue of planned obsolescence is concerned, the more competition you have in the marketplace, the better the product you're going to get, so hopefully, those products are going to last longer.

One of the key drivers to this is innovation. If we want to avoid things like planned obsolescence, there are a couple of things. There's being able to get the parts you need to make repairs. At the end of the day, hopefully, we can just buy products that are initially going to last longer, so that you don't have to buy parts to repair every year. It would be even better if the original pieces lasted longer.

Think of a deep-freeze, for example. Technologies change and the way they are made or manufactured is very different. My parents bought a house that was built in the seventies that still had a deep-freeze. I swear the house had been built around the deep-freeze, because we couldn't get it out of the basement, but it was still running and it was 40 or 45 years old. I wish you good luck buying a deep-freeze today that will last 40 or 45 years.

When you look at some of the names of the companies back then that were making these things, there was lots of competition. Now it seems to have dwindled. There might be a few different names, but when you look at the back, it's the same parent company that's manufacturing under a few different names. We don't really have as great competition as we would need to help push some of these products to be made better than they are right now.

We can address the issue of planned obsolescence in part by driving innovation. That's what this bill will hopefully do.

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

The World Bank released a report entitled “What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management”, which identifies numerous initiatives around the world to reduce the amount of electronic goods that end up in landfills.

Adherence to the principle of interoperability would reduce the number of electronic devices that give rise to connection issues. We know that Apple changed its connectors, obviously to force customers to buy more Apple products.

Is that also one of the objectives of your legislation, Bill C-294?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, I would say so. There are definitely environmental benefits to this—for sure. Again, you want to have an environment that exists where, yes, you can make those repairs but you can also get the parts you're going to need to do that.

On the one hand, the committee is already dealing with the right to repair legislation as put forward. My bill is going to be more so about making sure there's innovation in the sector to make sure that for the original piece that you're going to have, there will be innovation to grow and push the development of those products that are going to last longer and be better going forward.

Generally when you provide consumers with the option to buy a couple of different objects of the same kind, yes, they're going to buy a cheaper one sometimes, just simply because it's cheaper, but the reality is that you're going to buy the same thing three times, whereas if you would have paid a bit more for the higher-quality, quality-built product, it would have lasted longer.

If there's more competition, if there are more people pushing and driving that innovation, we should, hopefully, have more high-quality pieces that people can buy, but that also bring down the cost of purchasing. That way, the people who are buying the cheaper pieces could afford to buy the higher-quality ones because there are just more pieces available. They would be more apt to buy something that lasts longer at a better price.