SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Apr/27/23 5:31:07 p.m.
Watch

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

9 words

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Apr/27/23 5:32:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request that it be carried on division.

10 words

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Apr/27/23 5:32:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-294

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again be able to rise in this place and speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-294. This time, it has reached a new stage, at third reading, in the House of Commons. It is also important to acknowledge many of our fellow Canadians who are listening and who have been following this bill's progress for a while now. They are watching and waiting for the necessary change that it would bring. So far, the process of reviewing Bill C-294 has been moving along at a steady pace. It might not happen very often, but when we voted on it, this bill passed through the House of Commons at second reading with unanimous support. That was an encouraging thing to see and I remain hopeful that it can happen once again as we go through third reading and debate in the House again. Now that the committee has finished its study and the bill passed through the committee unanimously as well, I am eager to, hopefully, vote and pass this as quickly as we possibly can. There are many communities in my riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, in my province of Saskatchewan and all throughout this country who are counting on this bill's passing. The sooner we can help them, the better. That is what got this whole thing started in the first place. In my first speech with respect to Bill C-294, I told the story of Honey Bee Manufacturing, which is based in my riding, because its owners are the ones who brought this issue of interoperability to my attention. It is one success story among many for small businesses in Canada and it should be allowed to continue doing what it does best. However, it is the company's larger impact on the survival of local communities in the surrounding area that really brings it home for me, so when we had witnesses appear for the committee study, it felt like I had some déjà vu, because some people from Honey Bee came all the way out to Ottawa just to be part of the panel. About three years earlier, they had done the exact same thing when I was a member of the industry committee and we were studying the CUSMA deal. That is when they started to raise the issue of interoperability under the Canadian Copyright Act. The same effort to make sure that Canadian innovators and communities can thrive has been going strong ever since. Once again, during their most recent appearance, they were the best advocates for the issue because of their unique position on the front lines as the people who are the boots on the ground working on these issues each and every day. I am going to quote from a large portion of their statement to the committee, because they can speak to their own situation better than anyone else can. I quote: We are a global company, from the people we work with to the 29 countries we export to. Honey Bee sells 50% of its product in North America and exports the remainder to the rest of the world. However, our industry is still placed on an uneven playing field versus our U.S. counterparts. Foreign platforms seek to prevent participation by Canadian brands. Honey Bee's opportunity to capitalize on intellectual property is based on our ability to interoperate with OEM equipment platforms. Interoperability means that a Honey Bee harvest header can “plug and play” with OEM equipment. Historically, this has been provided in a straightforward and obvious way, like the way a keyboard plugs into a computer. Today, Canadian industry is technically blocked by some dominant international brands, with the impact being a loss of substantial market participation opportunity. The net result is “authorized use only”. This is controlled by OEM digital locks and keys that are unavailable to manufacturers of implement. Instead of spending our research budget on innovation, we are burning it on adaptation. It is important to state that in no way should Canadian manufacturers, dealers and—most importantly—farmer customers be at a disadvantage on choice. Historically, we had an integrated farm equipment market in North America and abroad. Honey Bee innovation caters to the specific needs of many markets and considers their unique environments, practices and crops. Meeting these challenges brings Canadian innovation to the world. The impact of technical lockout by OEMs will be the collapse of our Canadian implement manufacturing industry, which will decimate many of our smaller communities. Throughout the different stages of Bill C-294, I have talked a lot about Honey Bee specifically. It is a good example of short-line manufacturing in particular, but it is always important to emphasize that the issue of interoperability is something much larger and more significant than a single business or any one single type of product. In their presentation, the people from Honey Bee made a point of passing on support for the Agricultural Manufacturers of Canada and the North American Equipment Dealers Association, whose representatives were unable to attend the proceedings on that particular day. They mentioned that those two industry associations represent 240 members and 4,000 members, respectively. In addition, the committee heard directly from other witnesses who were present. Along with members of the Canada West Foundation, there were various stakeholders and experts who specialize in copyright or related areas of public policy. Overall, it is fair to say that the testimony provided to the committee was overwhelmingly supportive of Bill C-294 and what it is aiming to do. For the benefit of my colleagues who were not at the committee meetings but are participating in this debate tonight, I will try to quickly provide some highlights from the study. One of the witnesses, Anthony Rosborough, is a lawyer with relevant expertise. He explained part of the issue this way: In the world of embedded computer systems and the Internet of things, interoperability is synonymous with innovation. Bill C-294 reflects this reality, and it reflects the needs of Canadian innovators by not allowing manufacturers to prevent competition in secondary markets under the auspices of copyright. In another part of his opening statement, he added: This bill takes the right approach by broadening the application of the interoperability exception to include not only computer programs but also devices in which they are embedded. This is crucial, because the distinction between the computer program and the computing hardware is much less clear than it once was. In the past, it may have been easier to distinguish between hardware and software, but when software now controls the physical functioning of devices and components, the software and hardware blend together. As I wrote in my 2021 article, the Copyright Act’s conceptualization of interoperability needs to reflect today's computing and innovation paradigm. Computers are no longer just boxes with screens and keyboards. They are cars, home appliances, pacemakers, agricultural equipment and learning technologies. With the rapid pace of changing technology, it is no surprise we need to update the Copyright Act after its most recent update over 10 years ago. The focus of Bill C-294 is to update our legal enforcement of TPMs so they are not misused to stifle creativity and innovation. That was never their original intention, and we have to make sure our law is applied fairly and with common sense. Over the last decade, the use of digital locks has been spreading far beyond the simple protection of creative works. Dr. Alissa Centivany, who works as a professor and researcher, provided more detail and context about TPMs. In her opening remarks, she said: TPMs were originally intended to create artificial digital scarcity so that creators of creative and artistic works who feared that the burgeoning Internet would lead to unfettered infringement on their works online wouldn't lose all incentive to create. Times have changed. We can now see that TPMs overshot their original mark. Today TPMs are used to restrict a wide range of lawful non-infringing activities that bear no relationship to protected works at all. By being keyed to access rather than infringement, TPMs have been a disaster for consumers.... TPMs lock consumers and third parties out. They also lock us in to ongoing relationships with companies and service providers whether we like it or not. We live in walled gardens, platform bubbles and tech silos—disconnected, closed worlds—and we are largely stuck because restrictions on interoperability have enabled switching costs to rise to untenable levels. We lack the economic agency to leave for an alternative or substitute provider. No matter how nice the trappings might appear at times, a cage is still a cage. On a similar point, a witness for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre added: In order to achieve improved access to compatible goods, competing companies must be able to examine each other's software for the purpose of developing interoperable products. Currently, manufacturers use TPMs to deny competitors access to the information, preferring instead to make goods that can only be used in conjunction with other products that they manufacture in a closed loop that encourages anti-competitive lock-in. It was good for us to hear some of the academic input in committee. It helped us to step back and hear about the issue in a way that shows how broad and far-reaching it can be. While most people do not think of interoperability very often, if they ever do at all, it is still an issue that affects us as consumers or as businesses in a competitive marketplace. This issue has so many aspects and we only have a limited amount of time for debate. There were some points of disagreement between different witnesses, although there seemed to be almost consensus that Bill C-294 is going in the right direction and would improve an outdated version of the Copyright Act. It reaffirmed the all-party support that this bill received at second reading. We are moving forward with the same principles that the Copyright Act has always maintained. This bill is not doing something new. It is only responding to recent changes in the marketplace that have caused innovators and consumers to lose ground they once had. All we are trying to do is get back to the right balance, which we had before. Interoperability has existed all along and was taken for granted. It is an essential part of our economy that we cannot afford to lose. Bill C-294 has a simple solution. We would have a limited exemption for interoperability with clear and meaningful language that is currently lacking. Something else that should be discussed at this stage is the amendment that was made to the bill at committee. The original draft that I introduced had a separate section with specific language about manufacturers. With the example of Honey Bee and similar businesses out there, it is absolutely necessary for the legislation to protect what they are doing. At the same time, I have acknowledged from the start that our approach to copyright has to be compliant with our trade agreements. The additions to the bill have taken a careful look at our agreements and have expanded the scope of the bill in some ways. That is what we are trying to do by using newer language about “lawfully obtained computer programs”, instead of specifically mentioning manufacturers. To be clear, the intent of this bill remains exactly the same as it was in the first version. We want to guarantee manufacturers the right to circumvent TPMs for the purpose of interoperability. That is non-negotiable. For my part, I agreed to accept this amendment from the government on the understanding that this would be the case. I have been assured that this is what the bill’s language would do in practice if it is, hopefully, passed. Along with the need to use technical language that is in harmony with our trade agreements, I want to reassure my colleagues across the House once again about our relationship with our trading partners, especially the United States. For the agricultural sector, we are seeking an exemption for interoperability that is equivalent to what already exists south of the border. Their system for regulating copyright is quite different from ours in practice, but this bill is trying to accomplish the same goal, mainly for our farm equipment, but also across other parts of the economy. We did hear some testimony at committee about the potential benefits of imitating the U.S.'s regulatory approach, and that could be a conversation worth having. That will have to be on another day. It is not the intent of this particular bill. What we wanted to deal with is what is not happening in Canada, and we need to catch up. Sometimes we have to move faster than the speed of bureaucracy, which is why we are taking this legislative approach. As it stands, our consideration of Bill C-294 has helped to show how we might want to improve the Copyright Act in other ways, such as by having a more flexible approach that can be accomplished through regulation, but that is a much larger issue than is typical or realistic for a private member’s bill. I will leave that to the government side to figure out, and I hope the work we have all done together on Bill C-294 will help that out. I have a lot of hope that we can move forward with this bill and see it quickly pass this House and move on to the other place, where hopefully it can receive royal assent.

2325 words

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Apr/27/23 5:46:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the important part is that we are not trying to go above and beyond what the Americans already have. They have kind of set the standard right now around the world for how interoperability can be achieved. As I said, their mechanism is different, but what we are trying to do is only come up to and match what they already have, so that way we are not setting a new precedent. Hopefully one day the government can do that, but right now we are just trying to match what they already have. Within CUSMA, we heard both from the department officials and from some of the other witnesses that there is a legislative process that does allow us to expand the scope of TPMs or the ability to circumvent TPMs without being in circumvention of CUSMA. We also looked at how this bill could impact some of the other trade deals we are already in with other countries and also the future deals we might be signing. As of right now, there are no negative implications for any of our trade deals. This does fit within that narrative, and we should be okay.

198 words

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Apr/27/23 5:48:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to distinguish between right to repair and interoperability. What we are trying to focus on with this bill is solely the ability for people to manufacture add-on products that will go along with the tractor. We can think of it in a technological sense. For example, if we have a Windows tablet but buy a Lenovo mouse, we just plug it in and it works. That, in and of itself, is interoperability to its core. However, imagine if Windows were to implement something on the side of the computer so that only a Windows mouse would do. Apple has previously done this with its chargers and different connection cords. The European Union has taken measures to simplify things. I will give the government credit: In its budget, it did provide some wording around trying to move to a single charge cord. That is interoperability right there: a single standard. The agriculture sector has previously used a single standard for electrical and hydraulic connections. However, some of the main OEMs are trying to redo that, so they have proprietary connectors. This is what is happening right now in agriculture, which is why I have specifically gone after the agricultural side of it, but it does apply to more than just agriculture in the economy.

221 words

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Apr/27/23 5:49:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the big thing is that initially we were trying to have a specific, carved-out exemption for manufacturing because we wanted to recognize that when we talk about a manufacturer, we are specifically talking about a corporate entity. However, by removing that and broadening the language, it does apply to more of the economy than just the manufacturing sector. The amendments do provide a broader application to it, and the Copyright Act does have a very broad scope and application to it. We did want to keep it confined to a specific thing, but in the same breath, I do see the benefits of having it broadened, and with the advice of the analyst, we did so to help provide a bit more certainty and clarity with trade deals and other things.

136 words

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Apr/27/23 9:42:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-241

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to be able to rise in the House of Commons on behalf of the great people from southwest Saskatchewan. I would be remiss if I did not start off by congratulating all the ranchers who have just made it through another calving season, or are at the very end of the season. I also mention our farmers, who are about to begin their spring plant, with the spring thaw that is going on. We have a bit more moisture this year than we have had in years past. I know a lot of folks are really excited about that and are also more than happy to wait a couple of days to start. I know everyone is anxious to get in the fields back home, so I want to wish everybody a safe and happy spring planting season. Here we are talking about budget 2023. The budget is a great opportunity for the government to take a step back, have a little self-reflection and really hone in on the needs of Canadians. That is something that has been lacking for the last number of years. Instead, we are seeing a continued coalition with the NDP, who are keeping the Liberals in power and helping them repeat scandal after scandal. We have seen the NDP bring up some of these scandals from time to time, but at the end of the day, it is still voting for them. We know the NDP will vote for this budget because it has to. We have heard some great comments from NDP members criticizing the government. At the end of the day, it is kind of useless and meaningless because they are just going to prop the Liberals up and vote for it anyway. The Liberals are running a government that is quick to announce massive amounts of spending without figuring out where the money is going to come from to pay for it. Most recently, we saw the government massively subsidize Volkswagen in Canada. We still do not know the upper reaches of the total compensation of the package, but we do know that it is going to be in excess of $13 billion. We still do not have a lot of information, but that is a ton of money, and it is appropriate for us to be asking a lot of questions about it. It gets even worse. Volkswagen is the only automaking company in Canada to be charged under CEPA for violations against the environment. There were 60 counts against it. What was its reward for that? It was $13 billion of taxpayers' money. This is from a government that says it prioritizes the environment. However, the only company to actually violate the Canadian Environmental Protection Act gets massive subsidization as a reward for its behaviour. The Liberals will go out of their way to defend all this spending. They will say they have to spend a lot of money so that we can get a bit out of it. Let us be real. There is no plan to get a complete battery industry here in Canada. We have heard many times in this place, in committee or in meetings with stakeholders, that Canada has all the resources and minerals required to have a very robust battery supply chain. However, we simply do not have the extraction and refining capacity to do what is required. To make matters worse, there is way too much red tape and over-regulation of the sector, preventing private sector investment into our country. Again, we have the raw materials to work with, but they are literally stuck in the ground. We would think that with all the abundance of natural resources that we have, private companies would be lining up at the door to invest their money in Canada. As it stands right now, if someone does not have massive government subsidies, there is nothing being built or done in this country. The investments of these companies would bring jobs, service companies and spinoff industries, such as restaurants and service-and-repair shops, not to mention the royalty revenue that builds our communities and invests in our rural communities. It still makes rural Canada a viable place to live. If it were not for rural Canada, urban Canada would not have all the luxuries it enjoys. If we think of the food that is eaten, it is all grown, harvested and produced in rural Canada. There is all the lumber and building materials required to build the housing that we talk about so much in this country. Where does it come from? It comes from rural Canada. We have to prioritize the rural areas. We are not seeing that from the government. We should also mention the opportunities that exist for the first nations people of Canada to be able to partner with these private companies, make investments and sign these partnerships. This will bring about opportunities for jobs and education for their people as well. That is missing because of government inaction. Natural Law Energy is a company from my riding. It tried to partner with TC Energy to invest in Keystone XL, and the government chased that off. That was an opportunity for six or seven partnering first nations to have jobs and opportunities, and the government said no. That is the terrible direction that we have been heading in. However, it is always possible to change course and direction. Budget 2023 presented the government with such an opportunity, but the government has a shocking level of disrespect for how it is handling Canadians' money. Here is a straightforward example: On page 223 of the budget book, the Liberals have a graph showing that we will not be on track to balance the budget until 2060. How can they possibly pretend that it is a responsible plan for the national finances to be left like this if it is going to be a few decades before they even have a plan to get it back into fiscal balance? It is a complete mockery of all the people who work hard and pay taxes in this country. How are they choosing to spend this money, the millions or billions of dollars at a time? The Liberals continue to give massive subsidies, as I mentioned earlier, to such things as a battery plant for giant companies that, quite frankly, could afford to pay for and do this on their own. However, as I said, the Liberals will also decide to spend millions and billions of dollars without worrying where that money is coming from, which is from the taxpayers and ratepayers of this country. The Liberals' policies are preventing us from developing our natural resources across the board, but they save their worst treatment for demonizing the oil and gas sector here in Canada. In the budget, it says that the government is forecasting the price of oil to be around $82 a barrel. That is actually not too bad. At that price, if the government could choose to support the idea, Canada could balance its budget within a couple of years and not a couple of decades. The Liberals would still be able to invest in all the social programs that Canadians have grown to like, enjoy and appreciate and be able to afford to do so by supporting natural resources development in this country. We have even had a few countries come to Canada looking for LNG, but the Prime Minister said no, that there is no business case for it. However, other countries around the world continue to beg for our resources. Instead, we are driving them off to other countries, such as Qatar. Therefore, we miss out on those opportunities to grow as a country while making the world a better place because of the high standards that we have here in Canada for human rights and for environmental protection. I proudly represent a rural riding where we have our own way of life, and the government does not understand it. Rural Canada is far from having the majority of our population, but as I was saying earlier, we produce all the things that people in urban Canada need to have the luxuries that people enjoy there. In return, too often, the Liberal government leaves us behind and forgets about us. Sometimes, the Liberals impose things on rural areas. They will make it harder, if not impossible, to continue to live there. Has anyone heard of the carbon tax? That is one of the biggest issues that people talk about that is driving up the cost of living in urban Canada, but predominantly in rural Canada, the place hardest hit by the carbon tax. For right now, the Liberals have been busy talking about a so-called just transition for oil and gas and for coal, even though they are still failing to make a just transition happen, whether they are located in the Prairies or the Maritimes. That is something that we also learned from a recent audit done by the Environment Commissioner. Since then, not much has been moving. We do not even see a budget item yet for the just transition for these communities. We are only seven years away from the end date for some of these coal mines and some of these coal power plants that the government is going to force off coal, and yet the government does not even have a plan or an allocation for how to deal with that. It is shameful. For the Liberals, it is not on their radar. I asked the minister what he planned to do with the people from coal-producing communities like Coronach and Rockglen in my riding, as well as in the Souris—Moose Mountain riding. As much as the minister tried to sound as if he would support rural areas, his answer and his examples actually suggest that rather than staying in the communities and working where they are, people are going to end up moving to other places, such as Regina, northern Saskatchewan, Calgary, Edmonton or the east coast. The Liberal minister might think that Regina is part of the rural area, even though it is the capital city of Saskatchewan. Regina is a great place. It is a fantastic place, but that is not where the people from Rockglen, Coronach, Willow Bunch or Assiniboia want to be. They want to stay in the places where they currently are, in their communities. The government is doing absolutely nothing to make sure that happens after it has mandated away the number one industry in their communities. I will just quickly mention that there is one thing I definitely appreciate in this budget, and that is the tax credit for tradespeople when they purchase their tools. Again, we are talking about a housing crisis in this country. How are we going to get there? We have to build houses. We need more workers. We need to incentivize people to be able to go to trade school and to want to work in these industries. That tax credit is going to help a lot of people as they enter into the trades. The Liberals also could have supported a Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-241. It has passed this place, but the government could have been proactive and provided that in the budget. However, it did not do that. The Liberals missed an opportunity there.

1923 words

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Apr/27/23 9:52:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, after eight years, what we continue to see is the Liberals spending record amounts of money to accomplish so little. They value and rate their success by how much they spend, not by how much they have been able to accomplish. They can spend all the money they want on housing, but they have not been able to properly develop housing in this country because they cannot get out of the way to allow developers to get to doing what they do best, which is to build housing for people. Volkswagen has a lot of money. It could invest in building this battery project without the government dumping $13 billion into it, which my great-grandkids, quite frankly, will be paying for. The Liberals are not spending their money. They are spending the money of my great-grandkids. That is whose money is at stake here. They need to remember that because without taxpayers they do not have any money to spend.

164 words

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Apr/27/23 9:54:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree. The Liberals are spending the money of future generations. I was talking in my speech about how on page 223 of the budget the Liberals are not even on track to balance the budget until 2060. I will be a grandpa. That is when they will balance this budget, when I am a grandpa. That is absolutely crazy. We want to make sure we have a plan to develop the economy. That is why we talk so much about natural resources. Our critic from Lakeland does a fantastic job of speaking on behalf of the industry, and my colleagues from across the country do that as well. They know that when companies invest in Canada we are better positioned to be able to invest in our people and our environment, and then we are able to share our riches with the rest of the world. We do that by attracting investment and because the private sector has invested in Canada, not because the government took money away from its citizens to invest in things that are not producing great results for people.

187 words

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Apr/27/23 9:55:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things that is really fascinating is that we do not see any outrage from the NDP about the record revenue the government has been bringing in because of the extra taxation. We would think with all that extra money in revenue it is bringing in the government would be able to get results with the money it is spending, but it is not. It is spending insane amounts of money and not getting anything done. At the end of the day, we want to see businesses investing in Canada, creating jobs and creating investment. That will bring money into government coffers, but it is also going to bring more power to people's paycheques so that people can invest in the goods they want in their homes. I just want to make one point quickly. If the member wants to talk about transparency at the grocery store, the prices should show how much carbon tax is charged on each item on the shelves. We do not see that. That is why Conservatives continue to advocate to scrap the carbon tax, because it is not marked on every good, yet it is applied to every single good and is paid by every single person multiple times over.

211 words