Debates of June 8th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Climate Change

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, that was the first issue that I began working on, even before I was elected.

Unlike the NDP, I work in this riding every day and I understand that there are very sensitive issues, like safety and social harmony.

I consulted all of the parties. We worked with the environment minister and the minister responsible for indigenous relations. We are still working on this. We worked with journalists and campaigned to raise awareness. We are doing it without putting on a show.

What interests us is the environment, not putting on a show in other members' ridings.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will ask for some forgiveness from my colleagues, as my voice has been impacted by the smoke we are encountering in Quebec and Ontario and on this side of the country. I will remind colleagues that British Columbians in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George and I have been experiencing it for a long time. I am glad that in the last couple of days and the last week, if there is a positive that has come out of any of this, Quebec and Ontario have been waking up to what the rest of us have been dealing with for quite some time.

In today's debate, I wish I had more time to speak to this because it is something we have lived with in my riding in the eight years since I have been elected. In 2017 and 2018, we had some of the worst wildfire seasons we have had in the history of our province. Indeed, in 2017, we had the longest state of emergency, which was over three months. We also had the largest mass evacuation in our province's history.

Members will pardon me for my skepticism about the government ever doing anything, because it has been eight years since the Liberals have been in government and six years since our largest wildfire season and they have yet to do anything. They stand with hand on heart while a phony tear comes to their eye and say they truly, really care, yet two weeks ago, when I appeared at the natural resources committee, I heard the government cut funding to the wildfire resilience program. That allows communities to be fire smart and to look after themselves to make sure they are prepared for the next wildfire season. The government has cut that. That is shameful.

My concern is that, after six years, I still have communities in my riding waiting to be made whole. Our colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has Lytton in his riding. It is totally devastated. The whole community is gone. The businesses there and that whole community have seen nothing from the government.

These debates get very partisan. Of course, everybody takes shots, but let us remember that there are real costs to this. Lives and livelihoods are lost. Everybody has taken shots at the Conservatives over this time, but I will remind colleagues that it was our former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney's government that brought climate change to the forefront of international discourse. The acid rain treaty that we signed with the U.S. in the late 1980s and early 1990s was groundbreaking. It was the first time this debate really took place.

Our friend from Kingston and the Islands railed on and on, for about the first 10 minutes of his 20-minute speech, about how our leader blocked and filibustered last night in his speech. He asked how we can sit as a party and be a party to this leader. How can the member sit in a party with a leader who has so many ethical challenges? I know our colleague from Kingston and the Islands to be a decent person, but over eight years we have sat and watched the Prime Minister face ethical challenge after ethical challenge, yet the member still sits there and is a good soldier for the Liberals. He cannot point fingers across the way.

Our argument is that a tax plan is not a plan to fight fires. We have real people in real communities who are losing their livelihoods and losing their way of life, yet the government, in eight years, has done nothing. As a matter of fact, as I said in this discussion earlier, the Liberals have cut resources to the very thing they say they are doing. They stand there when they think it means something or when they want to get voted in, but after they get voted in they do nothing.

In 2021, the Prime Minister, in the eleventh hour of that election, came to my home province, pledged millions upon millions of dollars and said that he was committed to finding a thousand forest firefighters. Two years later, the Liberals have done absolutely nothing, so pardon me if I am skeptical that, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the government will ever do anything with respect to climate change, wildfires and flooding. It is important that whoever is in power takes this seriously. The government is not.

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

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 12, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from April 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability), be read the third time and passed.

Copyright Act

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a rare opportunity for me to address you twice in such a short period of time. I am sure you are delighted.

I would like to take a few seconds to say that I am thinking of the people in my riding and all the organizations in my riding that are working very hard in these increasingly difficult economic circumstances, when housing and food prices are rising. My thoughts go out to them, given that the Bank of Canada raised interest rates yesterday.

I have in mind the Centre d'aide et de références de Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, the Dépannage alimentaire de Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, the Centre de dépannage St‑Janvier, the Comptoir d'entraide populaire de Mirabel in Saint‑Augustin, the Centre de dépannage de Saint‑Canut, the Comité d'action sociale in Saint‑Joseph‑du‑Lac, the Communauté d'entraide de Saint‑Placide, the Armoire d'espoir in Oka, the Saint-François d'Assise parish in Oka, the Sainte‑Marie‑du‑Lac parish in Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑lac, the Petite Maison de Pointe‑Calumet, the Centre d'entraide de Saint‑Colomban and all the other organizations that provide support in my riding. I want them to know that they are important to us and that we support them in these increasingly difficult times.

That said, today we are debating Bill C-294 at third reading. First, I would like to thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for introducing this bill. I think it is a great initiative. I think, not surprisingly, he knows that we will support it.

This is a very short bill that contains only two clauses. However, the length of the bill is no indication of the quality, because it is designed to resolve important issues related to the debate we had in the House on the issue of planned obsolescence. Essentially, this bill allows the owner of a device that uses an operating system, for example, to break the lock on the operating system in order to take full advantage of it and use applications in the operating system that are not provided by the company that created said operating system. This is essentially an amendment to the Copyright Act.

We understand that creators have to make a living from their art, that it is important, that we have to take action against copying and against the unapproved use of a cultural good or, for example, an application, and so on. However, there are times when the consumer ends up paying a price.

I will give a few examples. Today's phones are literally computers. They are not like the phones of the past. Mine is quite sophisticated, for example. These phones have operating systems. Theoretically, under current copyright law, the company that makes my phone could prevent independent app developers from allowing me to use those apps on my phone. These apps can be extremely useful, like the VaxiCode app we used during the pandemic, or GPS apps that prevent people from getting lost in the woods.

Obviously, phone companies have been gracious enough to allow users to install apps of all kinds, but they do still have the right to prevent us from making full use of our devices. However, it appears that not all companies have been so gracious as to allow us to use other apps on their operating systems, which I think goes a bit too far.

I will give the example of John Deere tractors. I represent an agricultural riding. Over 80% of the city of Mirabel is zoned for agriculture. Our farmers use very sophisticated machinery. Today, these machines are computers on wheels. The operating systems of these tractors have software to optimize the way fertilizer is spread. They come with all kinds of devices that can even coordinate farm machinery based on weather conditions, outside conditions, and so on. They are basically computers.

Farmers think that an innovation market could spring up to allow third parties to offer all the technological innovations that John Deere could offer, but does not. However, when they buy their tractors, they are only paying for a licence to use the operating system.

They do not own the operating system, so they do not have the right to improve the performance of a piece of equipment that they paid a fortune for. Those things are expensive.

There is also the matter of code sharing. The company could say that people can develop apps if they want to but that it will not share its code. That is the kind of situation that my colleague's bill seeks to address.

It is closely related to the issue of planned obsolescence. The House previously worked on the right to repair. What was the objective? The main objective was to give consumers the full value of a product that they paid for, by ensuring that they do not have to buy the same item again at full price when the original item still has years of life and use left in it. We therefore worked on the right to repair.

We worked on planned obsolescence. That is a term that can be defined in a variety of ways, but basically, it refers to methods used by companies to ensure that, after a certain period of time, a period shorter than the full physical lifespan of the product, the product will no longer be usable. There are all sorts of keys and mechanisms that can be used to do this.

How can one describe planned obsolescence? As I said, it can take various forms. A company may simply design a product that is less durable. It could launch new models so that the older model becomes out of date or incompatible with new software. It can make products impossible to repair because the parts are unavailable or prohibitively expensive. It can use the Patent Act to prevent parts from being manufactured, or it can use the Copyright Act, and so on.

The original intent of these copyright laws and patent laws was not to prevent consumers from using their own property. The original intent was to allow the author of a work or the inventor of a new device to earn a living and ensure that a third party did not appropriate their own invention. Today we are in a situation where these laws are being used to prevent the consumer from benefiting. That is precisely what Bill C‑294 addresses.

It is complementary to the approach taken by the Government of Quebec. For example, in 2019, the Liberal MNA for Chomedey at the National Assembly of Quebec introduced Bill 197, which sought to stop planned obsolescence. This bill introduced a sustainability rating. It stated that the replacement parts, tools and repair service required for the maintenance or repair of a good must be available on the market for a reasonable length of time after the purchase of the good. It includes a provision stating that the manufacturer cannot refuse to perform a warranty on the grounds that the good was repaired. We know how it works: If we do not go to the dealer because we do not want a monopoly, since no one likes monopolies, and we get the thing repaired for less somewhere else, we are told that the warranty will not be honoured.

The Quebec government addressed this. The law is not yet in force. Europe has also addressed planned obsolescence. According to a European Union directive, member states are to amend their laws to classify products according to their repairability. Every product will eventually have a rating on a scale of 10 so that buyers know if the product is durable. This is good for consumers and for the green transition. Europe has a repairability index based on five criteria: the availability of documentation; disassembly, thus access to tools; the availability of spare parts; the price of spare parts; and specific criteria for various categories of equipment.

In the Canadian context, this represents consumer protection. It is the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. No matter what Quebec does to protect its consumers, if the owners of operating systems, in this case, can use the provisions of the Copyright Act against the initial spirit of the Copyright Act to block consumer rights, this counteracts the efforts made by Quebec.

In this context, I want to again applaud my colleague's bill. I thank my colleague for introducing it, and I recognize that his bill complements the work done by Quebec. I will repeat, as I did at the start of my speech, that we will support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here tonight to speak to the bill presented by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Bill C-294, regarding interoperability, and the member who spoke previous to me, the member for Mirabel, who is my seatmate, spoke eloquently about the impacts and the structure of this on the agriculture industry, which I will come to.

However, if you will provide me a little leeway, Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Speaker's riding and mine have had some dramatic forest fires these last two weeks. In the context of this bill and agriculture, I just want to stand up and thank a few people in the riding and in the Speaker's riding who have done an amazing job dealing with the issue of livestock that had to be evacuated.

It is a huge issue. People do not generally think about that in these kinds of fires, but on Cape Sable Island in Shelburne County there was agriculture livestock, and a lot of it, that had to be quickly evacuated, because it is tough to move it slowly. They actually did not have an evacuation order, but they moved it out in case. They moved it to the exhibition in Yarmouth, in the Speaker's riding, and they were fantastic to deal with. They took in a lot of animals and kept them safe and healthy, as did the exhibition in Bridgewater, in my riding. It was a full house of livestock that had to be safely moved and stored, which is no small effort. I would like to thank both those organizations for all the volunteer work they did to protect the animals.

In Bill C-294, the summary says that the enactment would amend the Copyright Act to allow a person, in certain circumstances, to circumvent, or get around, a technological protection measure, TPM, which is a technical term, to make a computer program interoperable, or in other words to make a computer program work with any device or component, or with a product they manufacture.

On this bill, we need to start with what the purpose of the Copyright Act is, and the member for Mirabel touched on it. The Copyright Act provides exclusive rights for authors and creators of works. It can be an artistic work, a dramatic work, a musical work or a literary work, and the latter category encompasses computers and computer programs. These exclusive rights are collectively referred to as “copyright”.

Copyright provides the rights holder, the person who created the work, the sole authority to perform specific acts vis à vis the product. They control what happens to their product. That is the purpose of copyright, and these rights are listed under section 3 of the Copyright Act and include the sole right to reproduce the works, so that the owner and creator is the only one who can reproduce that work, or they can choose to rent that work out to somebody else, and that includes a computer program, like when we sign up for or buy Windows. We buy a licence, but we we do not actually own the software. That is owned by the manufacturer, but the manufacturer can license those out.

A copyright generally lasts for a person's lifetime plus 50 years.

Other persons may use a protected work under certain circumstances. The owner of a copyright may assign it to another person. They may also license the use of the work with or without conditions, often in return for a payment or royalties.

What is this act doing on artistic copyright related to the issue of technology and specifically farm equipment? An important part of that is that section 41 of the Copyright Act defines circumventing a TPM, which I referred to earlier, as descrambling a scrambled work, decrypting an encrypted work or otherwise avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating or impairing the TPM. In other words, circumventing it is trying to find a way to use that computer program or work that one was not authorized to use as a person who is not the original rights holder.

This is an important part of what this is trying to get at. The member who is putting this bill forward worked quite extensively with people in his riding who are concerned and having trouble delivering their businesses.

With increased computerization in the development of everything that we buy or do, whether it be a cellphone or even a fridge now, as everything has computer chips the technology can be used to actually be anti-competitive. It can be used to make it exclusive so that nobody else can access or connect another device to that device, in order to make someone buy their other devices and not be able to buy a competitor's device. It is becoming more difficult over time for manufacturers to market their innovative products if they cannot connect to the original product if it requires that.

Large companies such as John Deere, which the member for Mirabel mentioned, have introduced what are called digital locks on machinery. This move restricts access to repair or interoperate the tractor or equipment with another manufacturer's equipment. One cannot even go in and repair it, whether it is on warranty or not, unless it is through an authorized dealer. That is a primary concern as to operating farm equipment because when a repair of this type of equipment needs to be done, it is not done when one is not harvesting, but done when one is out in the field. It is very difficult often to get those who are the only authorized repair people to actually be able to come out, repair that equipment, get the parts and do it all in a timely manner so that one can get back to one's work in farming. Every day lost is an important and costly loss for that farmer.

As a result of all that, those who are significantly disadvantaged by this have been calling for changes that would safeguard both the right to repair and the right to connect one manufacturer's equipment to another manufacturer's equipment. One may prefer a different combine from the combine that John Deere has one's equipment hooked up to. That is a big issue.

What this bill attempts to do is allow, in certain circumstances, an individual who owns that equipment to seek repair from suppliers or even on their own by accessing it and getting it repaired without having to go to that authorized dealer only. That “authorized dealer only” concept is a sort of monopolistic trait that says that if I can only go to that dealer then I am sort of held captive to what that dealer is going to charge me for those repairs. It prevents a free and open market.

We are going to see this not only in farm equipment but with everything in our lives. Try to buy one's home appliances from different manufacturers. If they are all computerized and one is from one manufacturer and the other from another manufacturer, although they are supposed to be able to “talk” to each other they will not be able to because of these restrictions around TPMs and the inability to do this.

The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands began working with all of these groups and put together, as the member for Mirabel said, a very simple bill. It is not very long. It is two clauses and it repairs that simple clause in the act.

I would commend the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for tackling this. Sometimes it is confused with the right to repair, which is another private member's bill before this House, which is the right for us to repair a certain thing in a certain way. This bill makes sure that, if one wants to connect two pieces of equipment together that have technological protection, one will be able to get that done without breaking the law.

As we consider this going forward, I will be supporting the bill. We studied it at the industry committee. It is now here for third reading. I would encourage all members of this House to support this important bill, which is pro-competition.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-294, now in its final stage of consideration in the House of Commons.

I am also pleased by the overwhelming support received for this legislative initiative thus far. I want to thank our colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands who brought this important initiative to the House that seeks to remove a copyright barrier to interoperability, which would benefit all Canadians, including those in my riding of Yukon.

The Copyright Act, as it currently reads, represents an obstacle to Canadians who really wish to make their products with functionalities enabled by software, such as smart phones and farm vehicles, interoperable with other products, devices or components.

The Copyright Act currently represents an obstacle to interoperability because it generally prohibits that circumvention of technological prevention measures, also called TPMs, or digital locks. Manufacturers often include digital locks to protect software in their products to prevent unauthorized access and copying.

The Copyright Act also includes an exception that permits the circumvention of digital locks to achieve interoperability between two computer programs. However, being limited to the interoperability between computer programs, this exception is not sufficient to cover the needs of Canadians and the market.

With the increasing number of products with functionalities enabled by software, interoperability also means ensuring that parts or components added to such products be compatible and exchange information with these products' software. As the member for South Shore—St. Margarets just explained, these parts and components actual can then talk to each other.

Without being permitted to circumvent digital locks to access the product's software, it remains difficult to make these products interoperable with other products, components and devices. This obstacle can notably impact Canadians when manufacturers decide to introduce new technologies that are not compatible with the previous generations. In such scenarios, software-enabled products we can own easily become only good to gather dust next to our VHS players.

Bill C-294 specifically seeks to address this issue. The bill proposes to expand the scope of the current exception in the Copyright Act, so the copyright framework allows Canadians to circumvent digital locks to make a computer program, or a device in which it is embedded, interoperable with another computer program, device or component.

Bill C-294 does not call into question the importance of digital locks in the copyright framework but stresses the importance that the Copyright Act provides efficient exceptions and limitations to digital locks when they harm the legitimate interests of consumers to have control over the products they own.

Legal protection for digital locks is an important enforcement regime in the copyright framework with roots in international treaties. Canada has obligations to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of digital locks used by copyright holders under the WIPO Internet Treaties and certain free trade agreements.

Digital locks are meant to grant creators more control over the distribution of their creative works in the digital marketplace by preventing others from copying, accessing or using the fruits of their labour without their permission. This enforcement regime ensures the Copyright Act continues fostering Canada's flourishing creative economy by providing creators with an efficient mechanism to obtain a return on their investments.

Protection for digital locks was originally promoted as a tool to encourage creative industries to offer their works, such as songs, books and movies, on the Internet and in other digital forms. It has never been the intent of the protection for digital locks in the Copyright Act to prevent the interoperability of products.

Bill C-294 is an essential measure to rebalance the equilibrium of interests and provide consumers more control over the products they own and use, while also preserving incentives for creators in the Copyright Act.

For instance, Bill C-294 would solely permit Canadians to circumvent digital locks for the purpose of interoperability. Bill C-294 would not facilitate copyright infringement.

Protection for digital locks and copyright infringement are two distinct regimes in the Copyright Act. While persons may be allowed to circumvent a digital lock on a work to access it, they are not allowed to make unauthorized copies of the work unless an exception to copyright infringement also applies. Bill C-294, with the amendments reported to us by the committee, would ensure that the expanded interoperability exception permitting the circumvention of digital locks would not be available if it involved an infringement of copyright.

I want to reiterate my support for Bill C-294, which is a pledge to Canadians that they should not be frustrated by digital locks when they seek to render the products they own interoperable with a new part, component or device.

I acknowledge that the scope of this bill is limited. It is an exception to the prohibition to circumvent digital locks that addresses only one aspect of facilitating interoperability. As such, it does not encourage industries to develop standards ensuring interoperability between different manufacturer products and ecosystems. However, I am persuaded that the exception proposed in Bill C-294 would have positive impacts in offering more opportunities for Canadians to make their products interoperable. That is especially the case with the amendments reported by the committee, which ensure that the exception would apply to independent service providers, helping the owners of products to achieve interoperability.

Bill C-294 also aligns with the government's commitment to provide Canadians with a right to repair by encouraging the prolonging of the life cycle of products and with its commitment to support innovation and foster follow-on innovation by small and medium-sized enterprises. This is practicality in action. It really is about the choice of products for Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers.

I look forward to the vote and invite my colleagues to support Bill C-294 to send a strong signal to Canadians of the importance that the House of Commons gives to this great initiative.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to stand on behalf of my constituents of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, a riding I am very, very proud to represent.

Before I go on, I would like to point out that in about 10 minutes I am going to be followed by another speaker, the member for Essex. I do not want anyone to get confused and think that I have been speaking for 20 minutes. A lot of people get us very mixed up, even the parliamentary photographer, people in our own caucus and CBC reporters. I know I am the better looking of the two.

Today I will be speaking on a private member's bill from a close friend of mine who represents Cypress Hills—Grasslands, and he is doing a great job.

This bill is important to me and to my riding. Not too many people know that my riding is one of the larger ridings in Saskatchewan, and the biggest industry in my riding is agriculture, so what is being brought forward is of utmost importance to those I represent. I will share later on some of the first-hand experiences I have had, what I have seen and witnessed and what benefits this bill would bring to those who are in the agriculture industry.

The city I live in is the city of Moose Jaw. It was founded as a trading post for farmers who were bringing their goods to market. In fact, in 1905 it had the largest flour mill in it, the Robin Hood flour mill. This reiterates the importance of the agriculture industry and the way the agriculture industry has evolved from the horse and cart to tractors to very expensive and very large machines, such as combines.

I have never met a farmer who did not know how to recycle, who did not know how to maximize their dollars. They are up against Mother Nature. They are up against the weather. They are up against time. They are up against seasons. They have challenges. They are being challenged right now with a reduction in fertilizer and an increase in carbon tax. Things are impacting them and are impacting us, as we can see in the grocery stores. However, that is not really what we want to talk about. We want to talk about technology, how it has evolved and how it is impacting farmers.

As I said, I have never a met a farmer who did not know how to maximize. If I were in my riding right now and I said to a farmer that I had seen him take a piece of equipment from a Case tractor and put it on a John Deere, that could actually get me lynched. I really hope that this comment is not going to be clipped and posted, because I did say that once when I was out speaking with many of my constituents from Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, and some faces were very upset with me.

This poses a challenge and it poses a problem, because the price of equipment is going up so much. It is almost a million dollars for a combine. This is essential equipment that farmers rely on in order to not only produce the crop but also to harvest the crop.

I mentioned earlier about time being of the essence. Farmers, if the weather is bad, sometimes cannot go out into the fields, but they still need to get the crop to market. When the weather is good, they need to make sure everything is operating well.

I will give members a first-hand account. Last year, I was in my riding during harvest time, and I was on a John Deere combine with one of my constituents. I had just done a tour of Drake Meats, which is a smoked meat business in Drake, Saskatchewan, and I smelled like smoked meat. The gentleman who was driving the million-dollar combine said, “Do you smell smoke?” I said, “Yes, as a matter of fact I do. I was just doing a tour.” He hesitated, but that answer did not satisfy him. About 30 seconds later, he said, “Do you smell smoke?” I said, “Yes, I have just been on a tour of Drake Meats.” At that point, he stopped the combine and lifted the header, and we both got out of the combine. I took a couple of steps back and watched him walk around.

He went to check the other side of the combine, on the header, and just as he was coming back, boom; there was a big fire, right behind him. It was unbelievable. I yelled, “Fire, fire, fire.” I have never seen a man move so fast in my entire life, to go grab an extinguisher. I went and grabbed another extinguisher, and we put out the grass fire. I have to be honest: I felt like a rock star and a hero. There were three other combines. They do not move very fast, but the drivers saw what was going on and they showed up, just in time to get pictures and photo ops of me helping to put out the fire. Again, it is on record.

Time is of the essence. What happened there was that the header caused a fire. It is a challenge farmers have. It is about timing and it is about interoperability. Some people who are watching tonight might not understand the challenges farmers have in dealing with modern technology. I will give an example that might help them relate. A Tesla we see on the roads needs a certain type of charging station. Other electric vehicles need a different charging station, which does not work for the Tesla, so there is a problem.

What we really want to do here, with this private member's bill, is to actually give power back to those who have purchased those million-dollar combines so they could actually fix them, work on them or interchange some of the technology required for them to bring in the harvest.

While I was out in the riding last year, I met a gentleman who had a John Deere riding lawnmower. That is not that expensive, but a screw had fallen out and he could not fix it. He called up the John Deere dealership, and the dealership sent out a technician, who put the lawnmower on a trailer and took it to the dealership, where the screw was fixed. Then it was brought back. That cost him $500. Technology is getting beyond farmers' being able to fix equipment in the fields.

I will be supporting this bill, because I believe it would be beneficial to those in my riding. It would be beneficial to farmers who are under pressure and under attack. They need help, so I am asking my colleagues in the House to support my friend, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands in order to get this bill passed so we can make things better for farmers, better for people in my riding.

I appreciate the member's efforts. I appreciate some of the things I have actually learned through reading this, as well as the fact that there seems to be quite a bit of support, not only from our caucus but from others across the floor.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, half of me wants to stand on a point of order and speak about this great colleague of mine for suggesting that perhaps he is better looking than I am, but we will let the public be both the judge and the jury on that.

Ironically, although I do not smell like smoked meat, I did appreciate the fact that he spoke about the firefighters in the field, because the truth of the matter is that I was a firefighter for seven and a half years. I put out many a wheat fire and grass fire, many of which were actually caused, unfortunately, by our farming industry, so I appreciate his bringing that up.

It brings me great pride today to stand here in this place on behalf of the fantastic residents of Essex, who sent me here. I say “thanks” to them.

Before I dive into the bill, in great support of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands's private member's bill, Bill C-294, I do want to just send out heartfelt thanks and best wishes to the firefighters across Canada, who are battling, so dearly and desperately, the raging wildfires.

I have said it before and am proud to say it: My father was the milkman in Essex, with Lewis Dairy. As I always say, am I ever happy that my mother opened the door when he dropped off that milk to the house, because, otherwise, I would not be here today. The reason I say that is that I have heard many stories from my dad about how farming equipment, both in the dairy industry and in the grain industry, has evolved. I know it to be true, because I grew up on a farm.

I, myself, do sharecropping, so I have my own farm. I see the various utility equipment that goes onto a tractor or goes onto a combine. Bless my wife and my daughter for loving horses so much, all five of them. Now we are getting into hay. I suppose it is easy for me to speak to this because all the different farming takes a whole bunch of different utility equipment, to not only harvest but to also plant these crops. I look at this equipment and I look at the interchangeability, the opportunity to save a few thousand dollars, for a thrasher from one company to another that perhaps would not or could not interchange with a Case tractor, a John Deere tractor or a New Holland tractor.

I will then also take it one step further. Especially in Essex, where we are somewhat landlocked in that we are surrounded by three bodies of water, land is, quite frankly, at a premium. It is darn expensive, but it is really expensive, and almost unheard of, for our next generation of young adults not just to be able to afford a home and start a family but also to take over the family legacy, which is the farm. They need every opportunity, every possibility possible, to ensure that they can even begin to think about taking over the local farm.

I have two amazing sons and an amazing daughter. Both of my sons spend a lot of time on the farm. They are grease monkeys, and I am darn proud of them for being grease monkeys. They repair a lot of the farming equipment that, quite frankly, I break. Whether it is cutting the laneways or plowing in the headlands, there is always a screw, a nut, a bolt or a washer that just does not fit anymore. It gets worn out. The cost to repair that, the cost that our farming community goes through because something is not interchangeable, is absolutely astronomical. I think about when we blow a belt on that same utility that I cut the fence rows on. I am sure the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands would know how expensive a farming belt is, especially when one has to bring it in from overseas.

If we start today, if we start in this beautiful country today, to make the equipment interchangeable, the lives of farmers today and the future for the next generations will be that much easier.

My brother-in-law, Rob Reid, has been with the Ridgetown agricultural college, a subsidiary or sister college to Guelph University, for a number of years. He has been in charge of the dairy and the hogs, but he also does all the work with the college training students for future generations with regard to the equipment.

This year, I will have been happily be married to my lovely, loved wife Allison for 25 years, so I have known Rob for about 30 years. I have heard the stories, the trials and tribulations at the college. It has to really watch the money it spends, when it spends a whole bunch of money on one type of equipment, and five, six, seven or 10 years later, when half of the equipment comes to the end of its useful life, it has to buy new additions to that equipment. The tractor still works, but the plow or the thrasher or the planter needs to be replaced, and it is not interchangeable. Therefore, the college has to basically start from zero. What does that do? It not only costs the college, but, ultimately, it also costs the students. As if it were not tough enough to go to college now, and as if it were not tough enough to excite future young adults to get into farming and take over their family business, now the cost of tuition has just gone crazy, right through the roof. Therefore, this private member's bill only checks all the important boxes of what the future of Canadian farming looks like going forward.

I think about Vollans farm equipment business, just around the corner from my house, and about how many times I have taken my Zero-Turn lawnmower there if, as was previously mentioned, there was a nut falling out of the bottom, or there was a worn out U-joint. If it were not for Vollans, and I do not have a lot of money in my pockets here today, I would have a whole lot less money in my pockets, because it is so unique and so excellent in how it is able to adapt various pieces of equipment and put them together. However, we are now getting into the digital age, which allows for an interface of two digital systems coming together to put together two pieces of critical infrastructure needed to feed Canadians, put food on the table of Canadians and, quite frankly, to feed the world, as well as to make life much, much more exciting and more affordable for our farming industry.

Essex, as I mentioned, is a very small, landlocked, area, but it is a very vital area. As a matter of fact, the majority of the grain produced in Essex, and this should put a smile on a lot of faces here, goes straight to our distilleries. If members like Crown Royal, they will probably like the fact that we grow a lot of corn. Now that I have everybody's attention, they probably know just how important this private member's bill is.

To conclude, I am a very proud son of an amazing father who taught me a whole bunch about farming, as did my grandfather while he was still alive. I am proud to be partners with Greg Eisler, a fantastic farmer who farms my land alongside me. Also, I really want to thank, one final time, my dear friend, the member who represents Cypress Hills—Grasslands incredibly well, for bringing this private member's bill forward.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-294, sponsored by our friend and colleague, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

I simply want to say how supportive I am of the bill. It is a great bill that will certainly help the great folks in Perth—Wellington and the farmers and farm families across Perth—Wellington and across Canada.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that, typically, when we get into discussions of this nature, there is often a right of reply given to members. I want to make sure that the member who introduced the bill is in fact aware of that. You might want to allow that member the right to reply.

First, we will deal with the motion. If it does not have to be dealt with, as a courtesy, we should provide the member who introduced it the opportunity to reply, depending on what you get back.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am cognizant that the PMB hour expires in just a very few minutes, so just hold on a second.

The motion is in order.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to once again be able to rise and speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-294.

This bill comes from constituents in my riding who work at Honey Bee Manufacturing and brought the issue forward to me. It was an issue that came up when we were discussing the CUSMA negotiations. Although it predates CUSMA, it was flagged at that point in time, in the same breath. That was when it was first brought to my attention, and I was able to bring the issue to the House of Commons—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, because of this relatively new process that was introduced just a few minutes back, my concern is that the mover is not going to get the opportunity of a right to reply. I am prepared to allow that to occur, as a courtesy, with unanimous consent, as opposed to the member talking out the clock and he never gets that opportunity.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

What I will do is tack one more minute on to Private Members' Business, just so we can consult to be sure that we are following the right process on this one. Therefore, if members do not mind, we will take a second, and I will make sure that the hon. member has his right of reply on this bill. I think that is the intention here, but I am just not quite sure how to proceed on it.

Just so everyone is aware, now that we basically have two motions, we could full well run out of time. I am guessing that this is the idea, and we will probably end up having two votes on it.

However, this is technically the hon. member's right of reply, so I will recognize him as such. The hon. member has four minutes and 46 seconds.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to have this right to reply on a bill that I feel is of utmost importance, not just for the people of Cypress Hills—Grasslands and southwest Saskatchewan but also for the entire country. I am grateful for the support that I have received from my colleagues in the NDP, my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and also the government.

I will speak favourably about the process that we went through at committee. We had a very collaborative approach, again, with members from all parties. I am willing to say that I even accepted a friendly government amendment that helped to provide a bit more certainty and clarity for the bill as it pertains to our trade agreements. As we know, that is a very important part when we are talking about something like this, so I was very happy to be able to do so.

I want to talk a bit more about farmers. The original intent of the bill was to address choice for farmers, as well as to be able to provide a bit more certainty for the manufacturers who make the products that our farmers rely upon.

I have Honey Bee Manufacturing in my riding. It is a big employer of people in the small town of Frontier; people from many of the communities around the area also commute to Frontier to be able to work there. It is a fantastic town. It is a fantastic company that does a terrific job. It employs well over 100 people, and probably closer to 200 people, in a town that only has about 300 people in it. Again, there are many other communities around it that people commute from to work there.

There are other great manufacturing companies, such as MacDon, which is a competitor to Honey Bee and also supports the bill. MacDon makes the FlexDraper header; Honey Bee makes the AirFlex header. The two companies are in competition with each other, but they are united in their support for this bill.

We look at other short-line manufacturers, such as Degelman, Vaderstad, Bourgault and Schulte. There are many great small-town Saskatchewan manufacturers that are supporting small-town communities, as well as supporting our farmers by providing them with the tools that they need to be able to put the crop in the ground and harvest it when the time comes in the fall. This is a fantastic bill. It is going to support our innovators and our farmers.

The bill applies to more than just farming. The concept of interoperability goes beyond just simply agriculture. In the digital sphere, we look at, for example, our smart phones. Everybody is aware that we have our Apple and Android phones. There is interoperability of applications to be able to work on both platforms, and this bill would strengthen the ability to have apps work on both platforms.

A really good example of interoperability is actually NATO and the position that Canada has within NATO when we talk about our military equipment, when our members go to other countries to fulfill their obligations and do the terrific job that they do around the world. Whether it be in peacekeeping or in training missions, Canadian troops do a fantastic job. This bill, in a way, would support what they are doing as well, because the interoperability of military equipment is extremely important to our troops, as well as to troops around the world. This actually has a far-reaching impact beyond just Canada.

With respect to our computers, without interoperability, people cannot even use a regular computer when it comes to plugging in a keyboard, mouse and monitor and having them work. In the old days, before we had everything all built into one, there were many products that would attach and plug into a computer.

The way that we are changing and redefining interoperability in the Copyright Act would provide more competition across the economy. The current Copyright Act only recognizes interoperability between two computer programs. This bill would expand the scope of that, so that it would be between a computer program and an interface or a device in which the program is embedded. Again, it would broaden the scope of interoperability. It would provide a better realization as to what interoperability looks like today; it would also provide the necessary flexibility for innovators tomorrow, next year and down the road. What is farming going to look like in the future? If we do not have changes like those in this bill, we are not going to have innovators in the future who can make the necessary equipment and changes to allow for that next great innovation.

We heard the Bloc members talk in their speeches about planned obsolescence. This bill would provide for higher-quality products out there across the entire economy to make sure that people have good, long-lasting equipment that is more environmentally sustainable and responsible. It would also provide choice for consumers, which is what is the most important.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 14, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[For continuation of proceedings, see part B]