43rd PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION House of Commons Debates Official Report (Hansard) Volume 150 No. 107 Monday, May 31, 2021 Speaker: The Honourable Anthony Rota CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 7591 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, May 31, 2021 The House met at 11 a.m. verse-engineering products and that, if they are sharing certain kinds of information, it could create problems for intellectual prop‐ erty that go beyond simply the question of repair. Prayer There are competing considerations, but I think considerations that can also be well balanced. I support in principle the idea that PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS people should be able to repair their own property. That is a reason‐ able expectation of somebody who owns a vehicle, a tractor, or ● (1105) farm equipment, etc. It is also a reasonable expectation, and one [English] that I think is compatible with that expectation, that people not be able to reverse-engineer products and take advantage of access to COPYRIGHT ACT repair codes and other information. How do we balance these con‐ The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion siderations? 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. The way this was addressed in the previous Parliament, over 10 years ago, that dealt with right to repair legislation was that mem‐ Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, bers passed the bill at second reading and while this issue was con‐ CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the Chair, because dis‐ sidered at committee, there was a great deal of discussion among cussing right to repair brings back memories of when I was a politi‐ stakeholders and it led to the creation of a voluntary agreement that cal staffer serving on the industry committee. I think you were serv‐ facilitated information sharing. It was ultimately a voluntary agree‐ ing on the industry committee at the time, about 10 years ago, when ment that all of the different players involved, the manufacturers as we were discussing another right to repair bill from the member for well as the repair associations, were happy to see proceed. That Windsor West, so the discussion of this issue brings back memo‐ happened because members expressed their support in principle, ries. but then also there was a good exploration of the issues and a rea‐ I appreciate the opportunity to continue with remarks I had been sonable meeting of the minds that happened and allowed for making previously; I had started a speech that I am now able to progress to take place. continue. I have six minutes left, I think. I am continuing a speech that I started earlier, and there has been an important development in my life since the first half of the speech, which was that I pur‐ I congratulate the member for Cambridge on bringing this item chased a ride-on tractor for mowing my lawn, which will no doubt forward for discussion again. I think it is a worthy issue for discus‐ influence my reflections on right to repair, and I want to thank the sion, especially since the scope of his bill goes beyond just talking member for Peace River—Westlock for giving me good advice on about cars; it talks about a broader range of issues involving repair that purchase. It was the cheapest model available that I could find, and equipment. I recognize the need for the discussion and the le‐ but it is still worth more than the car I drive. gitimacy of the principles at play. I am pleased to be supporting this bill at the second reading stage, and I look forward to the detailed Previously, there was a bill put forward before the House by the work that is going to be done by the committee on that. Again, the member for Windsor West that was dealing with the issue of right Conservatives support the principle of people who have property to repair for vehicles specifically. I was a political staffer at the time they have purchased being able to repair it and being able to contin‐ working with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, and other ue its functioning and not be unable to take the steps they reason‐ members who are still in the House were involved in that debate. ably need to take, themselves. We also recognize the intellectual There was this tension that always comes up around this question. property issues at play, which require seriousness and balance in On the one hand, there is the argument that people should have a our response to them. right to repair their own property and they should have the right to access the information they need in order to allow something they own to continue to work and function. There are also concerns from I will be pleased to support the bill at this stage and look forward the manufacturers' perspective, potentially, about things like re‐ to the work the committee is going to be able to do. 7592 COMMONS DEBATES May 31, 2021 Private Members' Business ● (1110) parts. That is no joke. It has also locked its operating software to [Translation] prevent repair people from circumventing the locks, which would make them subject to prosecution under the Copyright Act. Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker, whenever I have had the opportunity to address the House in person or from Longueuil over the past weeks and months, I If a consumer has a defective phone, the only way to get it fixed have typically been unhappy about something. There are all kinds is to take it to an Apple store or an authorized Apple retailer. Even of issues and problems I am not happy about, things we are not then, the company will fix only a very limited number of parts. moving fast enough on, such as housing, health and seniors. Today, however, I am relatively happy. Consumers are often told their phone cannot be repaired and I think the bill before us now, Bill C-272, is a step in the right must be replaced because Apple opts not to do the repairs knowing direction. I am pleased to speak to this issue this morning because it that the consumer does not have the right to do repairs the company is kind of a personal one for me. I am an actor, so copyright issues refuses to do. It is a kind of repair monopoly. are important to me. I am here to say that I support the bill because improper use of the Copyright Act to prevent people from fixing electronic devices is immoral. It is also expensive for consumers If a consumer has a problem with their smart phone and chooses and has a terrible environmental impact. to have an unauthorized person open it up to diagnose the problem, the consumer can no longer have it repaired and cannot even have it Bill C-272 would amend the Copyright Act to ensure that it replaced under warranty because they had it repaired by someone “does not apply to a person who circumvents a technological pro‐ else and that violates Apple's conditions. It is fascinating. tection measure that controls access to a computer program if the person does so for the sole purpose of diagnosing, maintaining or repairing a product in which the computer program is embedded”. ● (1115) What immediately spring to mind are telephones, lawnmowers, washing machines, and even tractors. Incidentally, in the last quarter, Apple made a net profit The Copyright Act is intended to allow creators to earn a living of $28 billion. Members should think about that for a second be‐ from their art and to protect their work from being copied or used cause planned obsolescence is a particularly unethical concept. The in ways they do not approve of. It is important legislation. As I said company is manufacturing a product knowing in advance that the before, as an actor, I am keenly aware of the need to protect both product will ultimately break. The company then makes sure that artists' revenue streams and their rights to their creations, that is to the product cannot be repaired so that it can sell more of the prod‐ say their art. uct and make more money. That is unacceptable. Curiously, the Copyright Act also applies to those who write computer programs, particularly when the work is protected from Companies are preventing consumers from repairing their items pirates by what is called a digital lock. The law prohibits breaking themselves and from paying someone a small amount of money to that lock to reproduce or alter the work without the consent of the repair a product that costs hundreds of dollars. All of that is done copyright owner, which is good. However, since the Copyright Act with the goal of filling order books and lining shareholders' pock‐ also covers software, businesses have decided to use it to keep re‐ ets. This aspect of consumer society is simply not compatible with pair professionals from breaking the digital lock. That effectively environmental protection. In a finite world, we cannot encourage renders many objects irreparable. infinite consumption that cannot even be mitigated by re-use or re‐ pair. The need, and I want to emphasize that word, to protect the The vast majority of today's products have electronic compo‐ environment for future generations makes all acts and initiatives nents, so of course we see this everywhere, but many companies important, whether they be big or small.