Debates of April 15th, 2021

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today at the second reading stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was introduced on December 3 of last year by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Introducing legislation to advance the implementation of the declaration is a key step in renewing the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. I am speaking today from the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, the Huron-Wendat, the Anishinabe and, most recently, the territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit first nation. Toronto is now home to many diverse first nation, Inuit and Métis peoples.

Many of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park are strong advocates for the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a privilege to represent such engaged and vocal individuals. My constituents have been clear about the importance of having a government that respects indigenous rights and plays an active role in reconciliation. This legislation would address those concerns by taking measures to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill is a critical step forward in the joint journey toward reconciliation.

I know that members are familiar with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but to provide a bit of context, the declaration was adopted in 2007 after many years of hard work by indigenous leaders and countless Canadians.

We are grateful for the unwavering dedication of indigenous leaders such as Dr. Wilton Littlechild and many other stakeholders who worked tirelessly for many years to develop and negotiate the declaration.

I want to refer specifically to the long-standing work of James Sákéj Youngblood Henderson, who made UNDRIP a key part of his life's work, and who also happens to be the father of my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria. The adoption of this declaration was a very significant moment in human history, with the goal of protecting and promoting indigenous rights around the world.

The declaration contains 46 articles that address a wide variety of individual and collective rights, including cultural and identity rights, and rights relating to education, health, employment and language, among others.

It is the language piece that I want to focus on very briefly because I do feel that this dovetails with the other work that has been accomplished by our government and by this Parliament. In this, I am referring to the Indigenous Languages Act.

In the previous Parliament, I had the ability and the opportunity to work with the minister of heritage on the Indigenous Languages Act legislation. Through that process, I learned not only a tremendous amount about myself as a parliamentarian, but also about the legacy of colonial policies in this country over 400 years of settler contact with indigenous persons.

In restoring languages through the Indigenous Languages Act, which we passed in the last Parliament, restoring funding and now ensuring that we are working toward the passage of UNDRIP, we see a continuity in terms of protecting cultural and linguistic rights, among many other rights, for indigenous persons on this land. These rights are sorely in need of protection as we try to give meaning to concepts of autonomy and autodétermination, as we say in French.

The declaration itself also recognizes that the situation of indigenous people varies from region to region and from country to country. It provides us with flexibility and the opportunity, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous people, to ensure that rights are recognized, protected and implemented in a manner that reflects the circumstances right here in Canada. In May 2016, our government endorsed the UN declaration, without qualification, and we committed to its implementation.

Subsequently, we were very proud to support private member's bill, Bill C-262, in the previous Parliament, which was introduced by former NDP member of Parliament Romeo Saganash. Unfortunately, Bill C-262 died in the Senate in June 2019, due in large part, I will frankly indicate, to stonewalling by Conservative members of the Senate. However, what we did in the 2019 electoral campaign is redouble the commitment of the Liberal Party to reintroducing UNDRIP as a government bill, which is exactly what we have done with Bill C-15. This builds on the foundational work that was presented by the old bill, Bill C-262, in the previous Parliament.

Building on support from indigenous groups for the former Bill C-262 and following discussions with indigenous partners, we as a government used the old Bill C-262 as the floor for the development of this new legislative proposal, which is currently before all of us in this chamber.

The Government of Canada drafted the bill following consultations with representatives of national and regional indigenous organizations, modern treaty partners, self-governing first nations, rights holders, indigenous youth, indigenous women, gender-diverse and two-spirit people, as well as representatives from other indigenous organizations. The comments received throughout the consultation process helped shape the bill.

That was the genesis of Bill C-15, which seeks to affirm the declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law and provide a framework for the Government of Canada’s implementation of the declaration.

Bill C-15 is but one sign of the progress I believe we are making in advancing reconciliation, affirming human rights, addressing systemic racism and combatting discrimination in this country. Members heard some of that in the previous speech from the member for Outremont with respect to other milestones we have reached as a government, but what I think is critical here is when we speak about combatting discrimination, in particular systemic racism.

It should not be lost on any members of Parliament how critical the timing of this bill is, given the moment we are in collectively as a nation and as a continent, with a movement taken on by all Canadians to actively combat systemic discrimination and systemic racism. COVID has shone a light on this, and we have been responding to it. Bill C-15 is part of the continuity of work that includes Bill C-22, which is about ending many mandatory minimum penalties that disproportionately impact Black and indigenous Canadians. Bill C-15 is part of that continuity and body of work.

This bill, Bill C-15, builds on the significant progress we have been making on implementing the declaration on a policy basis by creating a legislated, durable framework requiring the federal government, in consultation and co-operation with first nations, Inuit and Métis people, to take all measures necessary to ensure that federal laws are consistent with the declaration, to prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the declaration, and to report annually to Parliament on progress made in implementing the legislation.

Enhancements we have made to Bill C-15 as a result of the engagement process we undertook with indigenous peoples, which preceded its introduction, include the addition of new language in the preamble, with the following objectives: to highlight the positive contributions the declaration can make to reconciliation, healing and peace; to recognize the inherent rights of indigenous peoples; to reflect the importance of respecting treaties, agreements and constructive arrangements; to highlight the connection between the declaration and sustainable development; and to emphasize the need to take the diversity of indigenous peoples into account in implementing the legislation. Other key enhancements include the addition of a purpose clause to address application of the declaration in Canadian law and to affirm the legislation as a framework for federal implementation of the declaration, and clearer and more robust provisions on the process for developing and tabling the action plan and annual reports.

Moving ahead with Bill C-15 is consistent with our commitment to address the TRC calls to action and respond to the national inquiry into MMIWG and the calls for justice therein. Implementing this declaration is the natural next step in our journey to advance reconciliation, something I mentioned at the outset. This would be a significant step forward in our efforts to build a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be used as an essential tool in developing the Canadian framework for reconciliation, which will reflect our own history and our own legal and constitutional framework.

The bill proposes a legislative framework for the UN declaration, so that over time, as other laws are modified or developed, they would be aligned with the declaration. To this end, the legislation would require the Government of Canada, “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, [to] take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”, “prepare and implement an action plan”, and table an annual report to align the laws of Canada on the action plan.

As written, this bill would require that the action plan include measures to “address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination...against Indigenous peoples” and “promote mutual respect and understanding as well as good relations, including through human rights education”. The action plan would also include “measures related to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy or other accountability measures with respect to the implementation of the Declaration.”

I want to spend my last remaining time on an issue that has come up, which is with respect to free, prior and informed consent. Free, prior and informed consent is about doing just that. It is about the effective and meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them, their communities and their territories. The participation of indigenous peoples as full partners in economic development is a reflection of their inherent right to self-determination. Achieving consent is the goal of any consultation or collaboration processes. This means we need to make every effort to reach agreements that work for all parties. To be clear, the concept does not confer veto or require unanimity in these types of decisions. If consent cannot be secured, the facts of law applicable to the specific circumstances will determine the path forward.

I would refer members of this House to the testimony of David Chartrand of the Métis National Council who said precisely this. I would also refer members of this House to the previous testimony of people like Romeo Saganash in parliamentary committees when we were studying the old bill, Bill C-262, in the last Parliament who also indicated that it is not the interpretation of the law that free, prior and informed consent, FPIC, would constitute a veto. Indeed, in literally the last 36 to 48 hours, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, as counsel for the Assembly of First Nations said at the standing committee looking into this bill that “The idea that free—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am going to have to invite the member to continue during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this may be my only opportunity to speak to the legislation before us.

I am deeply troubled by the fact that this government, which professes the high purposes of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples appears in practice to decide that free, prior and informed consent means to continue to coerce first nations until they give consent to a decision that has already been made. I refer to the Trans Mountain pipeline as an example, which the Government of Canada bought without conferring with first nations, as we should have done. It continues, as elected members of council of the first nation in my territory, which I am honoured to represent, the territory of the W_SÁNEC Nation, have told me that the TMX, now a Crown corporation, comes to them offering money to try to get them to stop objecting. That is not free or prior consent, and yet that is what is being practised right now—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary a chance to answer.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an important issue. It is an issue that is obviously a dynamic one and an issue that will be considered on an ongoing basis.

However, what I was about to relate from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond I think captures the idea in response to the member's question. She said, as counsel for the AFN, that “The idea that free, prior and informed consent is some kind of a veto is simply not supported, and that is not how it's operationalized.” That is an important point to register.

With respect to the timing of the negotiations and the timing of the outreach to first nations communities, be they elected leaders, hereditary chiefs or other individuals, that is a very valid point that the member is raising, and something that we will continue to work on as a government and as all parliamentarians to ensure that this consultation is sought at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about a decision the government made that I think would very clearly violate the principle of free, prior and informed consent. I heard about it when I joined the foreign affairs committee in the last Parliament visiting Canada's north.

In December of 2016, the government designated all Arctic waters as indefinitely off-limits to future oil and gas licencing. Indigenous communities in the north told us that they found out about this through a phone call 45 minutes before the announcement was made to the public.

Does the government think that it has the same obligation to consult when it introduced these kinds of anti-development policies that hold back the desire of indigenous communities in the north to develop their own resources for their own benefit?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his frequent participation in debate on all matters in this House.

The bottom line is that when we enact and seek to enact the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples via Bill C-15 into Canadian law, what we are saying is that we must consult with indigenous peoples in all of their heterogeneity, and I think it is an important point that the member raises.

We know that there are indigenous people on the western prairies who believe in resource development, including pipeline development. We know that there are indigenous communities in the north that may believe in drilling in the far north. A requirement to consult and a requirement to do that outreach must apply across the board with all aspects of the community with respect to all projects, whether it is a resource-based project or one that would prevent such a project from moving forward.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend Richard Kistabish, also known as Ejinagosi, a former chief of Abitibiwinni nation, which is located in my riding, and a former Anishinabe grand chief, was recently appointed to the Global Task Force for Making a Decade of Action for Indigenous Languages, 2022-32. I would remind everyone that the House is located on Anishinabe land.

I chatted with him about the bill yesterday, and he told me it was good news because it officially excludes the term “Indian”. He feels that is a starting point for dialogue because that recognition is a prerequisite for conversations about other issues. He sees the passage of Bill C-15 as nothing less than a signal to initiate dialogue. Ever since the Constitution was repatriated, Indians have lost their rights, and I want to point out to the House that the term “Indian” is pejorative.

What does the parliamentary secretary think about that perspective? Will there be next steps after the passage of Bill C-15 to initiate a nation-to-nation dialogue with indigenous peoples as equals?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, after this bill is passed, I am sure that we will begin a new chapter and open a new dialogue in good faith with all indigenous peoples, namely the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the great honour to finally rise in the House, virtually of course, to speak to Bill C-15, which seeks to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am also very pleased to give this speech in support of Bill C-15 on behalf of some 20 Cree, Inuit and Algonquin communities in the great riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

I said “finally” because we have waited for this bill for a long time. The United Nations declaration was adopted on September 13, 2007. It is now April 2021, nearly 14 years later, and the declaration has still not been enshrined in Canadian law. Fourteen years is a long time. That is four Parliaments. However, 14 years is just slightly less than the gap in life expectancy at birth between Inuit people and the rest of the Canadian population. In 2017, this gap was 15 years for men. A 15-year gap represents half a generation, or one-sixth of a century, which is a lot of years in a human life.

Time goes by and the world changes, but time stands still for indigenous peoples. Nothing moves, nothing changes because procrastination reigns supreme in the kingdom of Canada. It is time for that to change.

I am unfortunately running out of time, so I will talk about the history of our political party, the declaration, and the notion of free, prior and informed consent.

We believe—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize for having to cut off the member, but it being 6:25 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Monday, April 19 at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:40 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 6:40 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Copyright Act

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

moved that Bill C-272, an act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance or repair), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am so proud to appear before the House today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-272, and discuss the background and details of it. I really appreciate everyone for their attention to this debate, including those in the House digitally and Canadian citizens who are watching from home.

If members care about agriculture, the environment or consumer rights, they should care about passing Bill C-272. The bill has wide-ranging implications when it comes to solving some key problems for farmers in reducing landfill waste, particularly toxic e-waste, and in the innovation economy. I hope this legislation kicks off a conversation about the right to repair in Canada. This issue is non-partisan, and it spans citizens from all corners of urban and rural areas.

The bill protects consumers. It has a positive impact on our health and safety and the environment. It takes a common-sense approach and is highly targeted to a specific problem. I trust it will be supported by all members of the House.

Bill C-272 addresses some concerns that have become more frequent over the past decade. There is a concern that the Copyright Act is being used and interpreted in areas far beyond its scope and that, in particular, the provisions of copyright are able to prevent the repair of digital devices and systems, even when nothing is being copied or distributed. This is well beyond the intent of copyright as Canadians understand it, and it is beyond the scope of the legislation as intended by the drafters.

Copyright is there to protect producers of content and to ensure that they will derive reliable and effective compensation for their innovative works. However, as the digital technology around us has become more affordable, more integrated into our daily lives and more relied upon for everyday services, the Copyright Act has become increasingly influential on these items throughout this process.

As an example, if people had a washer or dryer in the 1960s, it had no digital technology in it, no code and no software. It had nothing that could have been or would have been copyrighted. Today we see the introduction of smart appliances, including smart washers and dryers, that have thousands of lines of code within them, all of which are protected by copyright and may have many technological protection measures, otherwise known as TPMs, that prevent doing repairs without breaking copyright. The cost of easy repairs has gone up, and if the owner of the appliance circumvents any of those TPMs to conduct a repair, it would be illegal. These technological protection measures are everywhere and are increasing as more devices incorporate them.

Copyright is supposed to prevent people from essentially stealing the ideas and works of authors, artists, engineers and others. It also protects the works of programmers, as the code that all of our cellphones, televisions, computers and so forth have within them are copyrighted. TPMs include everything from encryption to password locks. They prevent access or modification of these works, and it is illegal to circumvent them in Canada.

The system works well for the most part, but if people attempt to repair something they own, these TPMs may work to prevent the repair from being completed or beginning in the first place. Many vehicles and appliances are not able to be repaired without entering some form of reset code or modifying the code to accept a new part that was installed.

I will give a quick example. There is a popular video game console that has a disk drive and a motherboard. Inside there are matching serial numbers in order for it to function. One cannot simply replace the disk drive without replacing the motherboard with a matching one, even though there is no technical reason for this since drives are changed in computers all the time. This is resulting in more of these devices ending up in landfills and is making what should be a simple repair difficult or sometimes illegal. One cannot make the switch without violating a technological protection measure.

Of course, everyone will be familiar with these systems because they are present in many of our cars and trucks, as well as other items we typically take to get repaired by manufacturers and dealerships. These challenges existed in the automotive industry before the industry came to a voluntary agreement to allow for repairs by local repair shops. This system functions well today for almost all Canadians, although, because it is voluntary, there are still some ongoing issues.

I ask members to consider this scenario: Farmers across Canada pride themselves on their ability to repair their own equipment because they must be able to not just for their own livelihoods but, frankly, to feed our country. However, agriculture and farming equipment does not have the same agreement as automotive, so they are blocked by TPMs in many cases from making repairs. A recent article spoke about these differences between farming equipment and automobiles. The author, a gentleman by the name of Scott Smith, is an electronics technician who works in the agriculture industry. He wrote:

All vehicles made since 1996 have had onboard diagnostic systems. Initially, the only way to get the information was with a dealer service tool. Neither the vehicle owner or local repair shops had access to the system.

This system was eventually challenged and overcome. The tools and information are now readily available.

Farmers need the same level of access. Whether they do the work themselves or use a local repair shop do the work, the farming community needs to be given options.

Bill C-272 would work to prevent these kinds of issues by carving out a specific and very limited allowance for consumers to circumvent a TPM, but only for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance or repair. This bill is not a sweeping change to the Copyright Act, but a rather limited change designed to give a small amount of control back to the consumer.

As always, it is important to remember that consumers are quite often motivated by price, and the free market is critical for people to continue innovating and bringing new and better products to market. Individuals will seek out their most cost-effective option when repairing or replacing a product. If outright replacement is cheapest, people will replace things. If repair is cheaper, then they will repair. People will take the least expensive option.

However, in some cases even simple repairs can cost thousands of dollars when consumers or local repair shops are prevented from making these repairs due to misapplication of the intent of copyright. This means higher costs and more items being sent to landfill well before they should. This is why Bill C-272 is critical. Our constituents want these changes. Overwhelmingly, Canadians are supportive of the right to repair.

A recent survey tells us that three-quarters of all Canadians would support a right-to-repair law in Canada that would allow them to repair their own devices more freely. However, Bill C-272 is not just about this problem today. It is about what is coming next in our society as the Internet of things becomes evermore present. We know that the Internet will connect our appliances, our wearables and our vehicles, and that ever smaller and less expensive devices will be able to be networked in the future.

We must, as consumers, have the ability to conduct basic repairs on the objects that we own. We must have the ability to replace a part without risking charges under the Copyright Act. If we do not, we are dooming many more devices to the junkyard, to the detriment of our pocketbooks.

We also run the risk of inadvertently making criminals of many Canadians. Bill C-272 is about preventing planned obsolescence and a proper reconsideration about what the legal limits of copyright must be.

We are far behind our counterparts in Europe in legislating in this area, and a number of U.S. states are actively considering right-to-repair legislation. The time is right for action to address this issue here in Canada. We must address it clearly and openly as well so that manufacturers, repair shops, technologists and retailers know the direction that industry must take.

The right to repair has also come up in Ontario with recent proposed legislation, but the changes under Bill C-272 that I am proposing would change federal law in Canada as a key step in allowing provinces to be able to create their own right-to-repair legislation as they see fit. Bill C-272 is part of the federal responsibility within the broader right-to-repair legislative framework. I want to stress that much of this responsibility does, in fact, lie in the provincial sphere.

However, this is one part of the federal responsibility that must be addressed in order for meaningful right-to-repair legislation to exist in Canada. We must, as legislators, review what the intent of copyright must be. It is there to protect works: to ensure that their authors can derive a profit, to ensure programmers, writers and artists can make a living from their works, and of course to prevent piracy.

None of these copyright protections is an issue with respect to repairs, and the spirit of the Copyright Act is not intended to speak to the repair of physical devices at all. Interpreting it this way is widely outside the scope of the intent of copyright. The legislation is frankly out of date and is being misused as a result.

The need to address these issues has been more important than ever during this pandemic, when repair professionals are often unable to visit homes or even farms. It is critical that Canadians have a legal ability to conduct the repairs they are able to on the spot. This need for repair is even more critical for people in rural or remote locations who likely do not have quick access to dealerships or manufacturers. Their cost for travel to repair facilities might already be in the hundreds of dollars and that is, of course, before the cost of the repairs.

I am unable to get into every single example of the importance of this bill with the time that I have, but I trust that everyone will see its far-reaching implications. Digital technology lies in all of these systems and technologies and ties all this together, and copyright covers the gamut.

I want to take a moment to be clear on the limits of Bill C-272 in order to address the concerns that I am certain will be pressed upon the members of this House. The circumvention of TPMs discussed and allowed under Bill C-272 is only for repair, maintenance or diagnosis. Any other circumvention would remain illegal under the Copyright Act. Bill C-272 is not a rewriting of the act and does not allow TPMs to be circumvented under other circumstances. The rights of copyright holders are maintained and appropriate legal remedies are available for those who wilfully violate the Copyright Act for illegal purposes.

It is of course my hope that members of the House agree with me and that they take a few moments to review the legislation and vote in support. I look forward to questions and subsequent debate. Furthermore, I am always happy to take calls and emails if anyone would like to discuss this matter further.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for introducing this bill. As a member of Parliament who comes from a family of five generations of agricultural producers in Alberta, certainly the conversation around the right to repair is important. Some of the concerns I have heard from dealers, equipment manufacturers and producers who buy service contracts with local dealers are about disincentivizing some of the development that is taking place within the agriculture and agricultural technologies.

Can the member comment on that?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have heard this argument in the research I conducted for the bill, and it is a common one.

I would argue that the innovation of automotive has clearly not slowed down as a result of the voluntary changes to the repair of vehicles. Imagine if we were to say to Canadians that they can only take their vehicles back to the dealerships, that this is their only option for repairs. It would not be acceptable, and I do not think it should be acceptable for farmers to have to manage that as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Cambridge on his leadership.

My question for him is simple. Are there legislative measures we can take to stop planned obsolescence? What are the environmental impacts? What can we do? How can his bill help us combat planned obsolescence?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak a bit more about this. It is easily one of the top reasons I moved on this bill. We have seen such a massive increase over the last number of years of toxic e-waste landing in landfills. The reality is that repairing these devices is more expensive than buying new ones, and that is the challenge I hope is understood.

We need to make these repairs an option for people. If people have the option to repair their devices, the cost of repairing will come down and it becomes a more viable option. We are seeing far too many pieces of equipment, such as televisions, gaming consoles and cellphones, ending up in landfills when they could very easily be repaired.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, as some will have noted, although we do not mention our names in this place, the hon. member for Cambridge and I might be mistaken as family members. I would be proud to claim him as a close cousin, because this bill is fantastic.

The right to repair is part of Green Party policy, and there is in fact a movement globally on this. There is a case where Apple, the giant Apple corporation, sued the owner of a little tiny Norwegian repair shop, Henrik Huseby, because he had the gall to think he could repair some of its products. This is important legislation. I hope to support it in seeing it all the way through to report stage and third reading.

Has the hon. member heard of that case? This is a global movement and I am proud to be part of it.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see my very distant cousin on the screen asking a question of me.

I have, in fact, heard of that and many other cases where some of the biggest corporations in the world have a strangle hold. They are using copyright in a way it was not intended. The point of Bill C-272 is to simply make a slight adjustment in the Copyright Act so folks have the opportunity to repair their own devices or take them to a repair shop.