44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 27, 2023 10:00AM
- Apr/27/23 5:12:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member on most points. I do not think people will be surprised by that.
She talked about the government's recently announced, or reannounced, homebuyer savings plan. She raises a good point: Many people do not have $8,000 in their back pocket to set aside into a new account.
The government has taken over a year. This was promised in the last budget, and here we are in 2023 and it was available April 1. My information shows that National Bank is the only bank across Canada that has access to it.
Does she believe this is just more marketing from the Liberals and something that really will not help the next generation of homebuyers?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to express my appreciation for the member of Parliament for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his dedication and hard work in crafting Bill C-294. As someone who is familiar with the demands of crafting a private member's bill and who understands the complexity of the legal amendments, I recognize the effort and energy that goes into such a private member's bill. I believe that even small changes in law can profoundly impact an industry or an activity, and as such, I commend the member of Parliament for his foresight and fortitude in seeing the bill through.
I was part of the last review of the Copyright Act, and the process was like drinking from a parliamentary lobbyist's firehose. First there were calls from special interest groups to appear, and then there were calls asking to meet prior to the meeting. Then there were calls to come to committee to respond to the position of the first group by a second group, and by then the first group wanted a follow-up meeting. I think everyone gets the picture.
Copyright Act changes are full of winners and losers. Everyone wants to win, often at the expense of each other and especially consumers. This is where government is supposed to come in and make sense of it all. Unfortunately, we have seen time and time again that the government would much rather ignore issues such as these than make changes. It has preferred to make changes when needed to appease a trading partner by inserting a clause pertaining to copyright in an omnibus budget bill, rather than to see a comprehensive legislative change.
At a time when digital innovation is moving so fast, the government simply wants to wait around hoping no one will notice. Well, someone has noticed. We know that by tabling the bill, the member of Parliament for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has uncovered an important issue. I will go back to the copyright report.
In the report, we made several recommendations, which unfortunately the Liberal government has failed to pursue. For example, recommendation 19 states:
That the Government of Canada examine measures to modernize copyright policy with digital technologies affecting Canadians and Canadian institutions, including the relevance of technological protection measures within copyright law, notably to facilitate the maintenance, repair or adaptation of a lawfully acquired device for non-infringing purposes.
Most attribute this recommendation to the issue of the right to repair, which has been addressed by other private members' bills. In today's debate, I would like to focus on the last part.
Bill C-294 is all about the “adaptation of a lawfully acquired device for non-infringing purposes.” By the way, this is because some companies are utilizing technological protection measures, or TPMs. As we know, these technological locks are widely used to prevent users from accessing copyrighted content. While these rules were first put in place to protect the works of others from being stolen, such as a pirated video game or music album, we have seen manufacturers use these copyright technological protection measures to create new business models.
In one of these business models, they create a proprietary data ecosystem, one backed by terms and conditions, protected by law and copyright, and secured in the hardware by a technological protection measure. Farming is one of the first examples where this issue of interoperability has arisen.
Once a customer, like a farmer, agrees to purchase a piece of hardware, such as a tractor, a harvester or another piece of machinery, all the data and all the systems are powered using the manufacturer's technology. While this business model may seem reasonable and offer many benefits at first glance, it becomes problematic when a farmer purchases a separate piece of equipment and finds out that due to the TPMs they cannot use it. It is not that the tractor will not tow it, as it hooks up fine, but it will not function, as neither the data nor its operating system allows for interoperability.
First, this raises costs for the user, as the farmer paid for this expensive piece of equipment from another company, so there is that loss. Second, it hurts innovation and productivity, as that piece of equipment, despite it being from a rival company, may arguably lead the field among that kind of specialized equipment. That company would lose the sale, and the farmer would lose the productivity gain in using a different specialized piece of equipment. This hurts innovation overall, as firms that could make or used to make these specialized pieces are cut out of the game entirely due to this business model.
Some would ask what is wrong with that; that is competition. Well, real competition pits products and services against one another, rewarding innovation and productivity, not copyright and exclusivity. This is where Bill C-294 comes in. The bill proposes to amend the Copyright Act to allow consumers to bypass TPMs for the purpose of achieving interoperability, like in my example of the farmer.
The right to interoperability is critical for consumers. In today's digital age, consumers expect to be able to access their software seamlessly on different devices and platforms. Technological locks prevent this from happening and limit consumers' right to use their purchased equipment for non-infringing purposes. Therefore, as we have heard, this argument applies to more than just farming.
The Internet of things, where every device or part has sensors or relays information, raises important questions. A good example is the standard charging cord. If a consumer purchases a generic charger that meets the specifications of a device like a phone or tablet, it should work. I contend that a phone or tablet company should not be able to deny a consumer's wish to use a different charging product just because it was bought from another supplier and works as well as the one the tablet company might offer.
If I bought a car and was only allowed to have it serviced by the manufacturer's approved vendor or was only allowed to install its approved parts, which of course would have a chip in them, there would be benefits to me and to the company. For instance, I would be eligible for a longer warranty or for discounts, I would get performance data and I would have a plan for when each new part should be replaced, so I could budget accordingly. However, what if I chose a different part or wanted to stick with a trusted mechanic? What if the car manufacturer designated under my warranty that if I used a generic part that worked as well but was not the official authorized part, the car would not start or the manufacturer might void the warranty? I am picking on that industry, and those who work in it would say this is unfair. However, is it unfair? What if a company decided it would change its model, as Microsoft and Apple did in the 1990s and 2000s, in terms of what browsers, programs or apps would be available on their networks or devices?
This is why Bill C-294 is so important. We want to see competition and innovation. We want to see profitable companies hiring workers, making investments and paying taxes, but not with a business model that disables choice by limiting interoperability.
It is also my hope that other members of Parliament will look at the example of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands and show the same entrepreneurial, competitive spirit, looking at how they can make changes to the Copyright Act that are necessary and needed. This is particularly important because the government looks more and more listless; it does not want to tackle these tougher issues outlined in the recommendations in our copyright report that. To this day, they have been ignored or, worse yet, sold out policy-wise for expedience. The government has done this rather than trying to build a truly competitive copyright system.
In conclusion, the right to interoperability is crucial for consumers, and Bill C-294 proposes to amend the Copyright Act to allow consumers to bypass TPMs to achieve interoperability. This amendment would benefit consumers, promote innovation and create a more competitive marketplace. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I will start with you, but I encourage all members of this place to support Bill C-294 and to recognize the right of interoperability and how important it is for consumers and businesses alike. I hope that members of this chamber support the bill and that the other place takes it up quickly.
1446 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 7:16:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, being from B.C., I know there are many issues the member and I share in many areas. I get lots of people asking about health care. I have asked another member of her caucus the following question, and being from B.C., I think it is important to hear her answer. John Horgan, the former premier, was actually the chair of the Council of the Federation. All the premiers had asked the government specifically not to fund new, expensive, untested and, in some cases, duplicated programs, like dental care, and instead to focus on health care and giving provinces what they need. We saw for the longest time the government did not give any of those things.
How does the member square this expansion of a program, when B.C. already has a program for low-income seniors as well as for children under the age of 12? Why has she said that, instead of funding those important programs, now we have bigger government in Ottawa doing duplicative things that do not actually help people in her riding?
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 8:37:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see a member of Parliament who knows his riding well and who makes everything about his riding, which is really about wine and tourism.
From what I can see, he is right. The carbon tax raises the cost for people to drive to Niagara and visit the wineries. In this particular BIA, the government is raising the cost of security at airports, so the average airport ticket will be higher. There is a lack of investment because the government is pulling out from the wine sector, and there is the extra excise tax. If there is no more investment in wineries, there is less tourism and fewer places for people to go.
Can the member bring this home and talk about exactly why this particular budget fails on so many of those fronts?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 9:37:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contribution tonight, although I have to disagree with some of the flaky theories he has.
For example, provincial jurisdiction allows for price controls or for information systems to basically force gas companies to post ahead of time what their prices and inputs are. That is something the provinces can do right now. However, in my home province of British Columbia, the NDP government has chosen not to. In fact, it has backed away from all the big talk about excess profits and people being gouged.
The member continues to say that if we just had another tax, we would make all this money go to the people. It used to be government asking the big oil and gas companies to hire lots of people, expand their projects and invest back into it. However, at the end of the day, they cannot because of NDP and Liberal policies that have made it impossible for them to do so. What does the member have to say about that?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
