THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, COMMERCE AND THE ECONOMY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 9, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy met with videoconference this day at 4:18 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair); and Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability).
Senator Tony Loffreda (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Hello, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy. My name is Senator Tony Loffreda, and I serve as the deputy chair of this committee. I would like to introduce the members of the committee. Instead of introducing them myself, I would ask them to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome to everyone. Clément Gignac from Quebec.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Varone: Toni Varone, Ontario.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, and welcome. Today, we will continue our examination of Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair). I hear that this panel will only discuss Bill C-244. We’ll proceed to Bill C-294 afterwards. For our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming in person Lucas Malinowski, Director, Federal Affairs, Global Automakers of Canada; Craig Drury, former chairman and Vice-President of Vermeer Canada Inc., Associated Equipment Distributors; and Christina De Toni, Vice-President, Policy and Government Affairs, Entertainment Software Association of Canada. And by video conference, we welcome Marla Poor, Senior Corporate Counsel, Policy and Government Affairs, Nintendo of America, also with the Entertainment Software Association of Canada.
I understand that all three organizations have opening remarks. We will start with Mr. Malinowski. Mr. Malinowski, the floor is yours.
Lucas Malinowski, Director, Federal Affairs, Global Automakers of Canada: Thank you, chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Global Automakers of Canada. As the chair mentioned, my comments will focus on Bill C-244.
Global Automakers of Canada is a national trade association representing the Canadian interests of 16 of the world’s most respected automakers with over 25 brands in the Canadian automotive market.
Auto manufacturing directly supports over 125,000 good-paying Canadian jobs, and we are working hard to ensure the Canadian industry remains a key component of an electrified North American value chain.
Automakers have always supported the repairability and sustainability of their vehicles, building increasingly reliable cars which, when properly maintained, serve Canadian drivers for hundreds of thousands of kilometres.
To that end, since 2010, the Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard, or CASIS, has been in place so that the aftermarket has the same access as the vehicle manufacturers’ dealers to service and repair information, training and specialized tooling to ensure proper repairs to vehicles. In the sudden absence of the aftermarket website that had consolidated original equipment manufacturer, or OEM, service and repair information, automakers developed casisonestop.ca to provide a single point of public access to individual manufacturer service and repair portals.
Automakers have significant emissions and safety requirements, including on privacy and connected systems, that their vehicles must meet to be sold in the Canadian market. We are also currently fighting against historic levels of car theft in Canada.
CASIS provides a balance between access to repair and maintenance information while ensuring the security and integrity of vehicle systems critical to emissions and safety.
The bill before you proposes to take a one-size-fits-all approach to the right to repair. Cars do not have the same planned obsolescence or sustainability challenges that we are seeing in other sectors. The committee’s study thus far has already raised the potential challenges of this legislation which should not be dismissed as something the government can figure out later in regulation or with additional legislation. There are serious implications for opening up critical vehicle systems to anyone and everyone. To that end, we would ask the committee to amend Bill C-244 to exclude vehicle safety and emissions systems, as was done for sound recordings.
Barring that, we would ask the committee to amend Bill C-244 to include a review mechanism, much like the triennial rule‑making process in the U.S., and, as a bare minimum, we would ask that the committee provide an observation for the need to ensure the government addresses the potential impacts of these amendments to the Copyright Act on vehicle safety, emissions and privacy systems.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Malinowski. Mr. Drury, we will now hear your opening remarks.
Craig Drury, former chairman and Vice-President of Vermeer Canada Inc., Associated Equipment Distributors: Thank you, chair. I’m here today as the past chair of the Associated Equipment Distributors and the Vice-President of Operations at Vermeer Canada.
Vermeer Canada is a full-service industrial equipment dealer specializing in equipment sales, parts, service and support. Our association represents companies involved in selling, renting and servicing essential equipment for industries like construction, farming, forestry and mining. In Canada, we employ over 27,000 people. These are primarily business-to-business transactions.
We fully support customers’ right to repair their equipment. In fact, the availability of diagnostic tools, parts and repair information is already available in most cases. We know that idle equipment means lost time and money, so it’s in our best interest to keep machines running, whether that’s through our service technicians, the customer or third party providers. I challenge this committee to ask those advocating for Bill C-244 to tell you specifically what they want equipment dealers and manufacturers to provide that isn’t available today. Nearly every repair can be completed by the customer or an independent repair company without needing a dealer service technician.
However, we do not support unrestricted access to critical software that governs environmental and safety protections, which is what Bill C-244 would allow. Allowing access to this software could have dangerous consequences. It could undermine emissions controls, and it could disable safety features that protect both operators and the public. Unqualified individuals attempting repairs on sophisticated machinery could put themselves and others at risk.
Other legislatures around North America have looked at this carefully and exempted heavy equipment. We are very different from everyday consumer products like phones and fridges. New York, California, Oregon and Minnesota have exempted off‑road equipment.
Parliament and this committee need to slow down and get this right. An amendment at this committee stage should be introduced to send a clear message to provinces: Exempting off-road vehicles will keep workers, communities and the environment protected.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Drury. Ms. De Toni, we will now hear your opening remarks.
Christina De Toni, Vice-President, Policy and Government Affairs, Entertainment Software Association of Canada: Thank you, chair and honourable committee members.
[Translation]
Thank you for the invitation to appear today.
[English]
The Entertainment Software Association of Canada, or ESAC, represents major video game console makers, publishers, large and small independent developers and national distributors. Joining me today is Marla Poor from Nintendo of America.
Canada is a prominent player in the global video game industry with over 900 active studios employing over 32,000 people from coast to coast. Our industry relies on technological protection measures, or TPMs, built into consoles to guard against sophisticated piracy efforts, protect intellectual property rights, support consumer safety and data security, and play a valuable role in encouraging and rewarding innovation in Canada’s video game sector.
While good intentions drive right-to-repair mandates, Bill C-244 takes an all-encompassing approach, not distinguishing between a smart fridge, a tractor or a game console. Three of the four right-to-repair laws in the U.S. explicitly exclude game consoles, while the fourth recognizes consoles as distinct from other electronic devices. Unlike most home appliances and consumer electronics, game consoles have no planned obsolescence.
For our industry, Bill C-244 could create a scenario where the piracy, illegal downloading and sale of video games increase in Canada, expose the industry to content theft, undermine player privacy and allow bad actors to modify consoles all under the guise of repair.
Game consoles are reliable products. Those released over 20 years ago are still enjoyed. This lifespan is in stark contrast to other consumer electronics.
Consumer satisfaction in console repair remains very high. We at ESAC believe federal legislation cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach, and we recommend game consoles, components and peripherals must be excluded from this bill.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I will open the floor to questions. I would remind members to keep questions and answers concise and to focus on questions about Bill C-244. We will start with Senator Marshall, a member of our steering committee.
Senator Marshall: Thank you to the panel for being here. Mr. Malinowski and Mr. Drury, you were both talking about the implications of the bill, and both of you referenced employees. Mr. Malinowski, you also mentioned car theft. Can you be more explicit on the negative consequences of this legislation on your organization? To date, all we have heard are the positives.
Mr. Malinowski: Thank you for the question, senator. Amending the Copyright Act to allow people to bypass TPMs can open up critical vehicle systems to, quite frankly, bad actors.
In Canada, with historic auto theft rates, we are asked, “Why don’t you make the cars harder to steal?” One of the ways we do make the cars harder to steal and harden those systems is by updating the software and protecting it. Having a blanket opening under the guise of right to repair or diagnosis will allow more bad actors to, potentially, access that software, bypass it and make it easier to steal a vehicle or change the safety parameters, or even the emissions parameters, of a vehicle. That’s a concern we have because vehicles are strictly regulated in the Canadian market for good reason.
Senator Marshall: Would this bill have any implications for any guarantees that are associated with your automobiles?
Mr. Malinowski: Are you asking about the warranty? I can’t speak to a specific warranty for a specific vehicle because they vary. Certainly, tampering with the software or the electrical systems could result in a warranty being voided, absolutely.
Senator Marshall: Could you reference the safety implications with regard to vehicles?
Mr. Malinowski: Certainly. Again, there are a lot of regulations under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, with requirements around seat belts and, increasingly, things like automatic braking systems and backup cameras. If someone doesn’t like that their car stops when a child suddenly crosses the street, they could theoretically bypass that system if we open up the TPM. Then there is the question of liability. If we enter a vehicle into the Canadian market with that system and we certify that system works, but then, God forbid, somebody bypasses that and something happens and there is an accident, you’d come to the auto manufacturer and say, “Why didn’t your system work?” Then we have to go find out if it is an issue on the manufacturing side or if someone bypassed that system.
Senator Marshall: Could you also elaborate on some of the issues that have implications for the organizations you represent?
Mr. Drury: I’ll be brief and try not to double up. One of our concerns on the safety side is in heavy equipment — farm equipment — there are a lot of safety systems in there. One example is a seat switch, so you have to be seated in the seat in order to operate the equipment. From an operation perspective, sometimes they don’t want to do that. They want to reach in and do something else. You can disable that if you have the right access to the right code in the software to get that disabled.
Senator Marshall: Does the bill have implications for the employees of the organizations that you represent?
Mr. Drury: Yes, because if customers do this and we are not aware of it, we may think the machine is going to react in one way, but it reacts in another way.
Senator Marshall: You were saying you represent 27,000 employees. Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses. My question is for Ms. De Toni. My grandchildren have taught me what I know about game consoles. However, I was Minister of Economic Development for the Government of Quebec, so I know the importance of video games. I am therefore particularly focused on your concerns.
In 2023, Quebec passed Bill 29 to counter planned obsolescence. How does that bill address your concerns? Is it more complementary to what’s being studied here? Can you give me an idea of the steps the Government of Quebec has taken in this area?
Ms. De Toni: Thank you for your question, senator. Yes, Bill 29 has indeed been passed. The Government of Quebec recently published a series of regulations on the subject, and we are awaiting several more that will really target what I call the “warranty,” which will therefore really focus on the issue of the right to repair. There isn’t enough clarity for our industry currently, so we’re waiting for the regulations to determine the impact that this will have, firstly on our industry, but also on other industries.
Senator Gignac: Thank you. That helps me understand the issue better.
[English]
Senator Gignac: My next question will go to your colleagues in the automobile sector. Since 2015, I think American regulators are allowed to bypass technological protection measures when it is necessary. How does this bill compare to the U.S. legislation, please?
Mr. Malinowski: Thank you for the question, senator, and apologies for my lack of French in my response. The U.S. approach is quite different, I will say, in that there is a blanket protection of technological protection measures, and then you can apply for exemptions in specific cases. It is a much more controlled approach as opposed to a blanket amendment to the Copyright Act under Bill C-244, and then maybe we’ll figure out the issues down the line. That’s certainly the concern for my industry and, as you are hearing, from other industries.
If I can, I would like to just make one point on Quebec’s Bill 29 which is also important in this discussion. We hear from some proponents that we need Bill C-244 to amend the Copyright Act so that provinces and other jurisdictions can bring in right-to-repair frameworks. But as we see, Quebec is doing that already. They have passed legislation, and we are waiting on the details of the regulation. And Bill C-244 has not amended the Copyright Act, so that’s a question I struggle with.
Senator Gignac: To conclude, before going to my colleagues, at the Senate we are the place of sober second thought. In some cases, the bar is high to amend a bill, and that depends on what kind of bill it is and the support, as well as what kind of due diligence they have done on the other side. When they are not doing their own work, we are doing our own work.
Could a strong observation be fair enough for that bill, or do we have to go to amendments? Because if we amend, you know what that means. Maybe they will accept or maybe not, and maybe we will have an election in the meantime. So you know what that means.
Mr. Malinowski: Yes. Thank you, senator. I don’t envy the position you have of dealing with a piece of legislation that was passed unanimously in the other place. As I mentioned, our first preference would be an amendment to the bill, recognizing it will have to be sent back to the other place, and then the House of Commons will determine whether or not they want to accept that amendment. Certainly, I leave it to the wisdom of this committee to decide whether an amendment is appropriate, as we would prefer, or at the very least an observation, and we hope the government takes that into account.
Senator C. Deacon: Congratulations, chair. You’re doing a great job in the role already. What can we say?
The Deputy Chair: I have a great team.
Senator C. Deacon: To the witnesses, it’s lovely to have you here. Thank you for being with us. I might start looking at the auto side. The Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard, or CASIS, was first put in place in 2009?
Mr. Malinowski: It was signed and put in place in 2010.
Senator C. Deacon: Okay, it’s 2010. Technology advanced since then. As someone who has a 2010 car and has seen a lot of 2024 cars, the amount of computer involvement in those automobiles has extensively changed. The agreement is not complete. It has not been kept up to date with manufacturers. The other element is that it is not mandatory. Is that correct? So you are in a situation where what we have isn’t working. You cited it when we met, and you cite it now. It is not sufficient. As somebody who has lived under that regime and had to drive to dealerships unnecessarily, I felt that.
I want to focus on safety, security and integrity and around auto theft in particular. The TPMs are already being got around by the thieves. They have already breached the system. You need a new system. How is keeping this in place going to help that issue?
Mr. Malinowski: Thank you for that question, senator. Again, thank you for taking the time to meet with us in advance of this committee study on this issue. I have a few points: Yes, thieves are already bypassing automotive systems in some instances, and we continue to work to try to harden those systems, and these are sophisticated organized crime groups, so they will attempt to bypass those systems again. There is no silver bullet to the issue, but I don’t think we need to put more arrows in the quiver, quite frankly.
On the question of CASIS, I would suggest that it is working. The language of the agreement hasn’t changed, but the membership of the agreement has changed. I know MP Miao mentioned that not all automakers are members of the agreement. I’m not sure which ones he is speaking to. I know there was an issue around Tesla not being a party to the agreement. They are now. Even though they are not a member of my association or a member of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, we reached out to that manufacturer and said, “You should be a part of this.” We made the case to them, and they did sign on for CASIS.
Senator C. Deacon: It hasn’t happened. That is the challenge —
Mr. Malinowski: Oh, no, they are a party to CASIS, senator. I just want to be very clear. And access to their information, like all of the other OEMs, is available on our website.
Senator C. Deacon: But not complete. It is not mandatory and not complete.
Mr. Malinowski: Well, the agreement is not mandatory, but all the large volume manufacturers are signatories to it.
Senator C. Deacon: Are they keeping it up to date? My experience is it is not.
Mr. Malinowski: Is there a particular example? I am just trying to understand what —
Senator C. Deacon: They are not keeping it up to date with the advancements in their cars.
Mr. Malinowski: Are you suggesting that the information is old on the website?
Senator C. Deacon: Out of date for many manufacturers.
Mr. Malinowski: That is something we certainly can look at, and the intention of the agreement is that this information is up to date and available.
Senator C. Deacon: My only concern is that we are seeing the TPMs not prevent auto theft. There is a quote in The Globe and Mail from an economist who works at the Department of Finance, saying that our biggest high-value export from Canada right now is stolen vehicles. We have a challenge there. I remain unconvinced that this is going to make it harder, because they have already found a way around it.
I want to get to the issue of warranties. If we were to have our vehicles inappropriately serviced or tampered with, our warranty would be voided. You can see that has happened in the software. Would that not void a warranty? It’s a huge risk for an automobile owner to put themselves in that position, or an equipment owner. Is that not true?
Mr. Malinowski: Do you want to jump in?
Mr. Drury: For sure, it would void the warranty, and that is a risk on some of the expensive systems of the heavy equipment we have today. In some view, for example, if you delete emissions requirements in the engine, now you don’t have to use the DEF fluid, and you can probably get some more horsepower out of it. So that individual owner would see the upside on that over the warranty. That would be the trade-off in that argument.
Senator C. Deacon: They’re putting themselves at risk in terms of the warranty of their piece of equipment that’s worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, potentially.
Mr. Drury: Agreed.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
I will ask Ms. Poor about the Nintendo lawsuit. It is nice to see you again, and thank you for being with us. You were successful in fighting back against a pirate who stole private information from Nintendo, hacked a game and possibly — I can’t remember the details specifically — pirated components or information from within the game. You were quite successful, even though, in that case, it was done illegally. He found a way around the TPM and achieved it.
How is this a challenge? It will still be illegal for somebody to do that after this change. How does this make things worse for you, specifically?
Marla Poor, Senior Corporate Counsel, Policy and Government Affairs, Nintendo of America, Entertainment Software Association of Canada: Thank you for the question. It is very nice to see you again. Thank you for your attention to this issue.
The anti-circumvention provisions of Canada’s law — and the anti-circumvention provisions of all of the laws of the nations that are parties to the World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO, internet treaties — are critical for Nintendo to, as you said, fight against not just those infringers but also the traffickers to these circumvention devices.
The modding of our devices is incredibly important, as we know from the years and years that we have been fighting these battles. What we have with Bill C-244 is a situation where you are essentially granting a wholesale exception to these most important provisions in this Copyright Act. It is a wholesale exception that sends a message to anyone that if they only say they are just repairing their console, they can avail themselves of circumventing for the purposes of playing, again, not just one game but hundreds, if not thousands, of games that are already uploaded on the internet illegally.
Nintendo’s enforcement program, as is the case with many copyright holders’ enforcement programs, is not set on going after a particular user but rather the really bad actors. This bill giving a wholesale exception to one of the most important provisions in the Copyright Act for Nintendo is something that we challenge. It is not as if we don’t already repair our consoles in a really great way. We have an incredible record. We subsidize repairs, so we don’t make money off of repairs; we don’t make money off of hardware, in fact. The money Nintendo makes is from our software.
When we know a console needs to be repaired, the thing we want to do is get it back into the hands of the consumers as quickly as possible, because we want them to buy more software.
Senator C. Deacon: I still want to return to the question. If there have already been individuals able to hack around the TPMs, the protection there is limited. You have had to go to court to fight it.
You must be developing other ways to protect your software, I would expect, given what has been happening.
Ms. Poor: We’re always trying to protect our software. We’re always in a game of cat and mouse with these incredible hacking groups that, every week, are coming out with different kinds of circumvention devices for sale. They market them in the same way we market our brand. It is incredible.
We have customs authorities all over the world who seize circumvention devices.
The circumvention devices issue for Nintendo is not really akin to a copyright infringement, because that is just one infringement. When we are talking about circumvention devices, we are talking about hundreds of illegally downloaded and then playable video games. The risk to us is just so much higher.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I just have a quick question on that same note. Given the importance of these issues, are you surprised there haven’t been more court cases in Canada?
Ms. Poor: Court cases with respect to video games?
The Deputy Chair: With respect to interoperability, copyright issues and balancing consumer needs with copyright issues.
Ms. Poor: For Nintendo, I can tell you that taking a case like the one we took back in 2012, I believe — where we got the $12‑million judgment against the trafficker in circumvention devices — that cost us millions of dollars to take that case.
We often don’t have to go to the extreme of that type of legal case. We send many cease-and-desist notices. We track and try to work and negotiate with these people who are engaging in these activities. We try to deal with the issue before we have to actually go to the extent of filing the legal case, which can cost us millions of dollars.
I don’t know about others. I just know that we haven’t stopped enforcing in Canada. Perhaps we haven’t taken a circumvention case to the extent that we did. I can tell you this particular individual is a recidivist, and we have had to deal with him subsequently.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Massicotte: I’m having difficulty; I’m sure my colleagues feel the same. How do we get to the point you are getting at? I hear your concern. You are scared. It’s human nature — we’re always scared of things we don’t know. You are saying it could occur, and it could be disastrous, et cetera.
Help me out. How can I measure that? I hear you say that. I don’t expect anything else.
Let me try this. If you look at the G7, which country has such a system and exempted the system for cases like — we are doing it for medical, and should we be doing it for something else? Of the G7, who does what?
Mr. Drury: I’m just familiar with the U.S., and, as you said earlier, they have approached it a little differently in terms of just a pure right-to-repair legislation. In the states of New York, California, Oregon and Minnesota, they have exempted heavy equipment from it just because of the dangers they see in circumventing these TPMs and what it can — yes, it’s a safety risk.
Senator Massicotte: What is so wrong with trying it and, if it doesn’t work, changing it? If it is that bad —
Mr. Drury: In our case, you could be talking about life and death. I like to go to examples. You would have a crane lifting a weight, and there is software to ensure that it doesn’t lift more than that machine can handle. If somebody can get in there, they just need that little extra bit to get up over something — they do their thing, and then people are at risk.
Senator Massicotte: Like in many things, a lot of things could be done when you think about it. When you drive a car, you are totally dependent on the other guy staying in his lane. It’s pretty important, but it has nothing to do with software.
How do you deal with that issue of human nature? You are not going to cover yourself and remove all risks from our society. You cross the street; it is scary sometimes.
Mr. Drury: In our case, again, we just see the TPM as a measure to manage some of that risk.
Mr. Malinowski: Yes, senator. As you say, there are inherent risks, and certainly we try to minimize them as much as possible when you have a 4,000-pound car travelling down the road at 100 kilometres per hour, surrounded by other vehicles doing the same. We are introducing more and more technology to make cars safer on the roads, such as automatic braking systems and lane-keep assist systems. We are seeing more and more autonomous driving technology as well, where the vehicle in front of you —
Senator Massicotte: Do we need your systems? It may even be better without your systems.
Mr. Malinowski: But we want to make sure that the integrity of that system is secure. You want to know that your system is fine, and that the system driven by the person beside you on Highway 401 hasn’t been tampered with. As much as we can ensure that, I think that is a noble cause.
Senator Massicotte: But you don’t know if anyone in the G7 has done something similar? How about the experience in Quebec? You’re accusing my colleague of not having completed and done a good job — he smiles anyway. Having said that, how is it going in Quebec? Are we having problems? Any crashes of cars at 100 kilometres per hour?
Mr. Malinowski: The system, as mentioned previously, isn’t entirely in place in Quebec. Legislation has been passed, but we are still waiting on regulation. In our conversations with the Government of Quebec, we raised the issue of auto theft. Ontario and Quebec are the two jurisdictions —
Senator Massicotte: How have they responded?
Mr. Malinowski: They are looking into it now because they hadn’t initially considered it. There are two separate ministries, talking to Public Security and the Office of Consumer Protection. One hand sometimes doesn’t talk to the other in government, as I’m sure we’re all aware. We brought that to the government and said this could have implications as they are trying to reduce auto theft.
Senator Massicotte: You don’t know what their response was?
Mr. Malinowski: We’re still waiting.
Senator Massicotte: You may wait a long time.
Senator Martin: Thank you for being here. My colleagues have asked some of my questions, but I’ll add on to that. First, Mr. Malinowski, you did propose an amendment to us related to a review mechanism. Did you appear before the House committee? Did you propose this amendment to them? Obviously, if so, it was not adopted. It did receive unanimous adoption there, so here we are. But I would like to understand what you meant by the review mechanism in a bit more detail and more about the amendment that you are asking us to consider.
Mr. Malinowski: The first ask is really that the legislation be amended to have that exemption applied to vehicle safety and security and emissions systems. But barring that, at the very least, we should introduce some mechanism to review these amendments after a period of time because, as Senator Massicotte mentioned, it is hard to gauge the exact impacts until we make these changes. We may very well find ourselves in two or three years appearing before this committee and saying, “These were the unintended consequences of these amendments.” We could have some sort of mechanism within the Copyright Act to automatically review the changes down the road and to ask whether they are having the impacts we wanted on the right to repair, or if they are having the adverse impacts we were concerned about. That has some merit.
Senator Martin: Did you appear before the House?
Mr. Malinowski: I did not. I was not with the association at the time, but the association did appear before the House. At that time, the recommendation was exclusively on exempting vehicle security and emissions systems. We have modified our recommendations slightly, in a tiered way, recognizing that it did pass the House unanimously.
Senator Martin: Mr. Drury, in your earlier response to Senator Massicotte, you mentioned some of the states that have these exemptions. In the United States as a whole, that exemption is sort of a state-by-state law?
Mr. Drury: They are a little ahead of Canada, I would say, where they are going at the right to repair at the state level. So far, we have been exempted as an industry from those right‑to‑repair bills.
Senator Martin: You did give an example of the seat switch and the lift. As you were explaining it, I was thinking that for those who are operating those machines, it’s life and death for them as well. They would want to ensure that any repairs are done well. We’re all looking at this very seriously, and I’m just listening in.
Earlier, Ms. De Toni, you mentioned in your testimony that you are concerned about the exposure of the industry to content theft. You have elaborated on that.
I guess I am just looking at the importance of the right to repair and the choice that we’re giving to Canadians. The concerns that you are raising are ones that we are looking at carefully today. I don’t know if you want to further elaborate on just how much of a risk content theft is.
Ms. De Toni: Thank you for the question, senator. I would call on Ms. Poor to perhaps elaborate on that because it’s not just content theft but also players’ privacy that is at risk. That’s really important, given our industry.
Senator Martin: Ms. Poor, regarding the exposure to content theft, I am curious about the magnitude and what the risks really are.
Ms. Poor: First, it’s important to remember that it’s not like we prevent anyone right now from repairing their console. If someone wants to repair their console, they can take it into a shop and repair their console. They can do so. We don’t have prohibitions about anything like that.
The problem we’re having with this bill relates to just the scope of the exception to a fundamental provision in the Copyright Act, which is so important to us. That anti‑circumvention provision is one specifically designed to ensure that the security measures that we employ on our console to protect our intellectual property are not allowed to be hacked or broken into.
I’m not sure if that answers your question.
Senator Martin: I’m just trying to understand what kind of risk of exposure you are addressing. In your opening remarks, you said it would be dangerous to expose the industry to content theft. I was just trying to understand the breadth of the risk.
Ms. Poor: When you circumvent the technological protection measures that we employ, that allows illegal playing of infringing content on our system. When the system is opened, you can download any video game on the planet, basically, and play that video game. Almost all video games and content are up on the internet somewhere. The reason we use these technological protection measures for our system is to have that as a check so that those illegal games on the internet cannot be played on our system. The anti-circumvention provision or the TPMs that we use prevent those illegal games from being played.
Senator Yussuff: I have a number of questions, and I will start with Ms. Poor.
This bill does not circumvent any piracy protection for your sector or your industry. Am I right? The piracy protection that you currently have under Canadian law is not circumvented by Bill C-244?
Ms. Poor: Not circumvented? It is excepted —
Senator Yussuff: In other words, it will still be illegal for somebody to pirate your product?
Ms. Poor: Yes.
Senator Yussuff: So the bill in no way takes away from that. You have a concern that someone could do something that allows their console to download some device. If you could find that person, you could prosecute them or sue them or whatever you choose to do with them.
Ms. Poor: We know that repair shops engage in this activity. It’s not all repair shops, of course, but you can go to Reddit and do some searching yourself to know that some repair shops are places where people go to get their console modded.
Senator Yussuff: With all due respect, we have people doing a lot of illegal things that are not allowed under the law currently. We can’t simply design a bill to prevent that from happening. I think we have to find those people and deal with them, because those are illegal acts. They are not allowed under the current law and will not be allowed should we pass this bill going forward.
People are still going to do illegal things. I think, in fairness, our desire as a country to get the right to repair has been stalled for decades because of some of the false arguments that industry has made for us not to proceed. I think we are behind Europe, and we are certainly behind our American friends. I recognize there are some exemptions, and some issues have been raised.
Let me get to the point that my friends are making, from the automakers and from the heavy equipment industry. I appreciate that environmental protection on cars and, for that matter, safety should be protected. I would assume under provincial law — because they license the people who will be working on this equipment, and many of them are licensed under provincial law — that’s a very small technical amendment that a provincial jurisdiction could bring in to ensure that the safety and environmental protections built into vehicles need to be protected if you have the right to repair. I don’t think Bill C-244 is attempting to circumvent that reality.
As you mentioned in your example, Mr. Drury, using a crane is a very serious business. You need to be trained properly but, equally, if you are going to repair a crane, given the implication it could have on people working, you will be liable if you circumvent that. If I were the owner of a crane, I would want to ensure whoever is fixing my crane is responsible and bonded before they start touching my crane, because should my crane fall and kill somebody, they would be liable.
I’m trying to reconcile my common-sense approach with the kind of argument you are making here, which I think is not valid. I do recognize that there needs to be some regulation to deal with the issues you are raising, but I think you are stretching the rubber band way too far to get me onside to appreciate where you are coming from, even though I have some sympathy for you.
Try to reconcile this because Canadians have been waiting for this legislation for decades, and we have been sitting here pretending we can’t do anything while our trading partners around the world are moving ahead. We look like idiots, to be honest with you.
Mr. Drury: First of all, I want to be clear that we, as an industry, support the right to repair. We want our customers to look after their machines. We support them. You are right; if they are good contractors and good people who understand and take the training, we are there to support them. The unfortunate reality is that there is a whole group of other people out there who are not interested in safety or protecting the machine. They are interested in getting a job done and making money from it.
Our view of this legislation is that if you make it easier to remove that TPM, you are going to increase the risk for that to happen. That’s our view. It’s just a public safety issue for us.
Senator Yussuff: Let me be clear: I was a certified mechanic. I’m not anymore. It’s a long part of my history. I had a legal responsibility when I touched a vehicle to ensure that my performance in regard to everything I did was complying with my legal training. Whatever I did, ultimately, I could lose my licence for circumventing what were supposed to be safety measures.
Mr. Drury: Me too.
Senator Yussuff: I would like to recognize that people who do bad things in our society will do bad things, and the law in itself should be able to catch those people and prosecute them. But passing this bill, to be fair, is a necessary requirement for us to give Canadians the rights they have been demanding for decades in this country.
Mr. Drury: Again, we support the right to repair your stuff. I want to make sure that you are all aware that there is some significant risk in our industry when you allow people who don’t know what they are doing into modifying.
Senator Yussuff: I would say to all of you that I would be happy to make some observations in regard to some of the points you are making about safety, because I think they are necessary. That doesn’t harm us in passing this bill. I would make this an observation. I just don’t want us to be chill to think we shouldn’t do what is right for this country and pretend that somehow we are doing the right thing. I think this is wrong, and we have waited too long for these bills to get here.
Mr. Malinowski: Thank you for your comments, senator. They are well received. Like Mr. Drury’s industry, we also support the right to repair. I am not a certified mechanic, but I am a little mechanically inclined. I like to keep my cars on the road myself. I find pleasure in doing that, and I think it is very important that we maintain that ability for consumers.
A lot of the frustrations we are hearing about the right to repair are not necessarily in heavy industry or in cars. There are real right-to-repair issues in this country, and they absolutely should be addressed. The concern we are bringing forward is that a blanket amendment to the Copyright Act in this way might have some unintended consequences, and it is our responsibility to make legislators like yourself aware of them.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you.
Senator Varone: Thank you for being here. I have a strong sentiment to allow the right to repair and how it is contained in this bill, but I have an equally strong sentiment not to allow tampering, breaking the law, compromising emissions safety or copyright infringement. That is part of, I guess, the struggle that we have here.
Other industries have managed a way to allow access. I say “access” not in the sense of the right to repair, but just access. I can’t access my bank accounts without two-factor authentication. I can’t access Uber Eats without two-factor authentication. Is there a manner in which — and I’m looking at observations — before somebody can circumvent a TPM, there is a recorded log so that you know who is going in, repairing, circumventing or doing something. Banks do it daily. I can’t access my Senate computer without two-factor authentication. There are methodologies available. I see what you are trying to do in terms of raising the bar to have questions, but I think everything that you talked about is circumventable.
Mr. Malinowski: If I may, senator, the technological protection measure is akin to that two-factor authentication. It exists to ensure that those pieces of software and pieces of the system are being accessed by people who should be qualified and authorized to access that part of the system for the vehicle. What you are looking for is what’s there. What we are trying to do is make sure that is protected as much as possible. Our concern with a blanket statement is that if it is for repair or diagnosis, you are good to go.
Senator Varone: The bank logs me in all the time. They know it’s me accessing it because they have all my other credentials. There has to be some kind of methodology if this passes that allows you to control that destiny as well, knowing who is going in and if it’s fraud.
Mr. Malinowski: If it’s fraud, potentially. For example, if you need to replace a key for a vehicle because you lost your keys, there is a manufacturer’s system to ensure we know who is asking for a replacement key for that vehicle.
Senator Varone: I lost my vehicle because they stole it, and it was an unstealable vehicle, so they needed a key. They broke into the house. But for all intents and purposes, it’s theft. Criminality is still criminality.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Varone, are you okay?
Senator Varone: I’m fine. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Any other panellists want to comment on that?
Mr. Drury: In our industry, we do that. That essentially is our TPM. We train people, we give them the right tools and we make sure they understand what they can do when they go past that. As an equipment provider with Caterpillar engines, they train us, and they recognize us as a subdealer — if you want to use a quick and easy term to describe it — so that we can go in and do this. But they are comfortable that we have gone through the training. As an industry, we are already there. We are already doing this and letting customers look after their equipment with the proper training in safety and making sure they don’t wreck their machine. To your point, we know who goes in and out of it.
Senator Massicotte: Good for you. Your client will go to you directly. They won’t go to somebody else to unlock the system. You have to sell your goods and your brand.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I don’t know much about copyright. However, as legislators, we know that bills introduced by MPs and senators are bills that they really care about, since they address important issues. There are often ways to simplify a problem that may seem complex. I think that the right to repair is a concern that everyone shares. We’re lagging in that area, and we need to move forward. If I understand correctly, you are saying that the bill is too all-encompassing and too broad.
My question is this: What framework should the bill have set out to align with bills that exist elsewhere, ones that have been implemented by other levels of government? It’s a simple way to meet needs, but, in your view, what approach would be more appropriate?
[English]
Mr. Malinowski: Thank you, senator. I recognize that private members’ bills and senators’ private bills have the challenge of simplicity and the complexity of many of these issues. Perhaps amending the Copyright Act to create a provision whereby exemptions to bypassing the technological protection measures could be applied for in a similar way as in the United States because in the United States, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, there is a blanket protection of TPMs. But there is a mechanism by which, every few years, applications can be made for exemptions to that. There is a process: Here is the potential risk. Here is the potential gain. That’s reviewed every few years. It is an inverse approach. But that’s not what Bill C-244 takes.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: In the United States, is a bureaucratic system necessary to make this process work? No such system exists here. Does it mean that the United States has a government department with public servants who grant permissions?
[English]
Mr. Malinowski: I don’t entirely understand how this works, but it is done through the Library of Congress.
Senator Bellemare: Okay.
Senator Ringuette: Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but when I look at car safety, for instance, I think of airbags, brakes and steering. Right now, I’m in the market. I’m looking for a new car, so I visited many different dealers. One thing that they all have in common is all these gadgets that have nothing to do with safety. If you have a licence to drive, you should be able to understand and see when you are crossing a line. I said to all of them, “I don’t need these gadgets. I can drive myself.” Whatever the make and whatever the brand, all their answers were, “You just need to disconnect them.” That’s from the dealers. I’m trying to reconcile my experience in the past two months of shopping with what you are saying regarding what the auto industry considers to be safety.
Mr. Malinowski: Thank you, senator. First of all, congratulations on shopping for a new car. I hope you find something.
Senator Ringuette: It’s going to be expensive.
Mr. Malinowski: I hope you find something you will be happy with. You raise important points. I’m happy to address them. A lot of these technologies are being mandated and required by federal regulators, whether it is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the U.S. or Transport Canada. More of these technologies are being mandated because they have done the research and have found that they increase safety and reduce the incidence of serious injuries and crashes.
In some cases, these systems can be disabled. For example, if it’s because you wandered out of the lane, or because you are an excellent driver, then you can turn that system off. Down the line, regulators will say, “There are systems that we don’t want you to be able to turn off.” For example, on the automatic braking system, if you happen to be looking at your passenger and the car in front applies the brakes, your car will apply the brakes for you. Regulators may decide that will be mandated, and you can’t turn that off. That is a regulatory requirement for automakers to bring new vehicles into the market.
Our concern is this: If you don’t want to turn that system off, you will want to ensure it is operating as it should be. If someone can bypass the TPM and make changes to that system that the automaker didn’t intend, you are expecting the safety systems to work a certain way, and if they don’t because someone has tampered with that, then that would have safety implications.
Senator Ringuette: They told me already that I can remove the system.
Mr. Malinowski: Some automakers will have an option to turn it off. In some instances, the system will turn on again when you turn the car on. I have my own opinions about that, but we don’t need to get into it here.
Senator C. Deacon: I’ll be very quick. The Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations cite that no device shall be used or operated while any safety device is inoperative, and no safety device shall be altered or interfered with or rendered inoperative. Our health and safety guidelines are very clear, and the liability that this would render for somebody repairing a device, somebody who owned the device or somebody who contracted the use of that device would be substantial.
Mr. Drury: I’m here to tell you that I know of deaths in our industry because people have not done that. You can have all the laws, rules and regulations you want, but there are people out there who don’t abide by them, and sometimes it turns out very badly for them. We think the risk is going to go up a little bit if this gets through in our industry.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much for being with us today.
Senator Gignac: We have a lot of experience. This is a private bill, but you are lobbying. When it is a private bill, the due diligence is not the same as when it is a government bill because when it is a government bill, you can talk to the officials of government and all the experts. When it is a private bill, it is more complicated, and very often it’s at the last minute when industry suddenly wakes up and realizes that this private bill is going through the other side and now the Senate.
Are there any lessons to be learned, particularly when it is technical like that? Like many of my colleagues, or at least for me, I don’t have expertise in this. I heard good arguments on both sides. It is complicated.
Are you of the sentiment that you have learned a lesson? Is it quite different when it is a government bill versus a private bill, from your point of view? Thank you.
Mr. Malinowski: Absolutely, senator. I’m sure your experience when bills come over from the other place shows that. There is a significant difference.
Senator Gignac: Have you been able to reach officials, or are the officials hard to reach because it is not a government bill? It is a private bill. Have you had the opportunity to chat with officials or not really?
Mr. Malinowski: On occasion. I have one last point: A big part of the difference will be that government has a greater capacity to consult with industry and say, “We are thinking of doing this.” Before a piece of legislation has been tabled, a lot of that work has been done versus the capacity that a private member has to consult with industry and say, “I’m thinking about doing this.”
Senator Gignac: You must be taken by surprise when it is a private bill rather than when it’s a government bill. Is that fair to say?
Mr. Malinowski: It depends.
Mr. Drury: In this case, first of all, I am in the industry. I’m not a lobbyist. I represent the industry. Second, we have been working on this on the prior bill. I forget the bill number. It was a private member’s bill with Bryan May who brought it originally on the right to repair. And MP Miao brought this, so we have been working on this for probably five or six years. In fact, we have had meetings with Patrick Belanger who is part of the policy writers. We have not been taken by surprise on this. We have been working on this for a while.
Ms. De Toni: From the video game perspective, we have been engaged from the very beginning on this particular file with government as well as with the MPs on the committees. We have not been taken by surprise. We have consulted and dialogued with a number of folks within government and on the House side on this particular issue.
Senator Gignac: In the last budget, they reiterated that. Thank you to my colleague for flagging that it was pretty clear in the last budget that the government supported these bills.
Ms. De Toni: Yes.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
Senator Varone: You talked about exemptions before. Do exemptions need to take place inside the bill by way of amending what we have in front of us, or can it be done by regulation thereafter?
Mr. Malinowski: That’s an excellent question and one perhaps for officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. I know that in instances of sound recordings, for example, that amendment was made in committee specifically to the legislation itself. That wasn’t put over to regulations.
Senator Varone: Yes, but on the right to repair, I’m thinking there will be a slew of regulations thereafter if this gets approved, and I’m trying to think whether that’s the appropriate place to create the exemptions.
Mr. Drury: We think it needs to be an exemption. I’ll give you an example. I would argue there are thousands of diesel engines right now running illegally, and there is no enforcement. On the ability to enforce this stuff, I don’t think we have the resources to do that. That’s why we are asking for an amendment.
Ms. De Toni: Our preference as well is an exemption in the bill.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Poor, would you want to add something to that?
Ms. Poor: Thank you so much. We really appreciate this time.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to our panellists, and welcome to our second panel. Senators, we now have the pleasure of welcoming our second panel, who will speak to both bills, but we’ll break it up with separate questions on Bill C-294 and Bill C-244. We will start with Bill C-244 until close to 5:50 p.m., depending on how it goes around the table. We have a hard stop at 6:15 p.m. I’ll try to manage the time as best as possible.
I just ask that when there are conversations between senators around the table, I don’t want to stop that, but while the committee is going on, try to keep it at a low level so that we don’t hear the noise with respect to who is trying to put the question forward and who is trying to speak. I’ll ask for that favour.
We welcome the following witnesses: On behalf of the Grain Growers of Canada, Kyle Larkin, Executive Director; and Andre Harpe, Chair. On behalf of the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, Jean-François Champagne, President and Chief Executive Officer; Chris Kinghorn, Vice-President, Strategy and Growth, NAPA Canada and Traction/TruckPro Canada (UAP Inc.); and Daryll O’Keefe, Senior Vice-President, Fix Network Canada. On behalf of LKQ Corporation, joining us only for the discussion of Bill C-244 is Tyler Threadgill, Vice-President, External Affairs.
I understand that all three organizations have opening remarks. Mr. Harpe, we will start with you. The floor is yours.
Andre Harpe, Chair, Grain Growers of Canada: Thank you very much, chair, and thank you, members of the committee, for inviting us today and hearing us.
I am a grain farmer from the Peace River Country region of northern Alberta. I am also the Chair of the Grain Growers of Canada, known as GGC, and I am joined today by our Executive Director, Kyle Larkin.
As the national voice for Canadian grain farmers, GGC represents over 65,000 cereal, oilseed and pulse producers. As one of those grain farmers, I understand first-hand the need for right-to-repair policies in Canada. Canadian grain farmers have a long history of repairing their own equipment, including tractors, seeders, sprayers and combines. These pieces of equipment can cost over a million dollars and are significant asset purchases for many farmers.
Unfortunately, though, technological advances in farm equipment have created barriers that are preventing farmers from continuing to repair their own equipment. Due to a lack of right‑to-repair policies in Canada, equipment manufacturers have either been holding back diagnostic software or have been selling it at a premium, typically on an annual subscription basis. This has forced farmers to spend thousands more dollars on seeking the assistance of their local dealer or has forced them to purchase expensive subscriptions.
Furthermore, Canadian labour reports and the Associated Equipment Distributors, or AED, Foundation have found that dealers are facing vast labour shortages. Due to this, service calls can take days and sometimes weeks to respond to. During critical periods of the year, particularly seeding and harvesting, these delays can be detrimental to crop production.
Bill C-244 is the first step in creating a federal right-to-repair framework which would allow farmers to continue repairing their own equipment.
Another critical part of the right to repair is the interoperability of different pieces of equipment. Farmers have relied on interoperability of parts and equipment for decades to increase their own production efficiency. Many use parts and equipment from different manufacturers; however, the interoperability of these systems is becoming more difficult due to new original equipment manufacturer, or OEM, software restrictions. For example, parts from Honey Bee Manufacturing, a company that produces headers, swathers and grain belts for combines, are no longer interoperable on some of the latest John Deere combines.
Similarly, other agricultural technology innovations, such as farm management platforms, use a controller area network, or CAN, bus to tie into machinery hardware, and these connections are often rejected by the equipment’s software.
Just like other Canadian consumers, farmers should have the right to purchase the equipment and the parts that work best for them. However, without Bill C-294 which supports interoperability, they are being forced to only purchase from one OEM. This anti-competitive behaviour also stiffens agricultural innovation in Canada, which is necessary to increase productivity of farmland. Bill C-294 supports the farmers’ choice and the technological innovation necessary for productivity gains.
Thank you, and I would be happy to take questions later.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Champagne, we will now hear your opening remarks.
Jean-François Champagne, President and Chief Executive Officer, Automotive Industries Association of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to these bills. Our comments will focus mostly on Bill C-244.
[Translation]
Good afternoon. I am Jean-François Champagne, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Automotive Industries Association of Canada.
[English]
The Automotive Industries Association of Canada, or AIA Canada, represents the auto care sector with over 4,000 member locations across Canada, supporting close to half a million jobs in this country.
I’m joined today by Daryll O’Keefe, Senior Vice-President of Fix Network Canada, a global leader in collision, glass and mechanical repair, and Chris Kinghorn, Vice-President, Strategy and Growth at UAP Inc., a leader in the distribution and sale of parts, replacement accessories and tools for automobiles and heavy vehicles in Canada.
Car costs typically are the second-largest expense for Canadian families. Aftermarket access to repair and diagnostic information is essential for maintaining a competitive marketplace and keeping repair costs low. Bill C-244 addresses digital locks and represents a step forward for the aftermarket and for drivers. However, gaps remain, such as a lack of penalties for manufacturers who restrict access to repair data.
We have heard from automakers that the right to repair isn’t a problem, but real-life cases prove otherwise. We hear stories regularly about how local repair shops can’t access repair information, which then forces drivers to go to a dealership at higher costs.
Meanwhile, other jurisdictions are moving ahead with right‑to‑repair legislation. Many U.S. states, the EU, Australia and, most recently, Quebec have passed legislation mandating OEMs to share repair information. It’s time for Canada to catch up. It is critical that vehicle owners — not automakers — are the owners of their vehicle data.
In closing, Bill C-244 should be passed quickly, and the federal government’s right-to-repair framework must include vehicles to be truly effective.
Thank you, and I am looking forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Champagne.
[English]
Mr. Threadgill, we will now hear your opening remarks.
Tyler Threadgill, Vice-President, External Affairs, LKQ Corporation: Thank you. Honourable chair and senators, my name is Tyler Threadgill, the Vice-President of Government Affairs for LKQ Corporation, covering the United States and Canada. My colleague Derek Willshire, who works in Lévis, sends his regards and regrets not being able to attend today.
It is a privilege to be with you to discuss Bill C-244 — a critical step toward improving the right to repair in Canada. Given the unanimous support it received in the House of Commons, it is essential that this bill moves forward swiftly to prevent Canadians from losing the benefits it promises. I’m encouraged by this committee’s commitment to advancing this legislation.
Bill C-244 is crucial for ensuring the right to repair, particularly for small businesses and consumers in rural areas, who will face significant challenges if no action is taken.
At LKQ, we specialize in the distribution of automotive replacement parts, including original and alternative brands, across North America. Additionally, we’re the world’s largest recycler of vehicles, recycling over 900,000 vehicles annually across North America.
In Canada, LKQ employs over 1,100 people across 37 locations. However, our workforce represents only a small fraction of the more than 490,000 workers in Canada’s automotive aftermarket. With vehicle maintenance becoming increasingly complex, consumers are finding fewer options for repairs. The Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard, or CASIS, agreement, established in 2009, is outdated, as it does not address the technological advances that have transformed the automotive industry.
Bill C-244 seeks to preserve consumers’ freedom to choose where and how they repair their vehicles. We strongly believe that this bill should become law.
Nevertheless, more needs to be done, and we look forward to collaborating with you on a comprehensive framework that solidifies the right to repair for all Canadians.
Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
I will now open the floor to questions, reminding members to keep questions and answers concise. Please also try to keep your questions to those about Bill C-244, and, at about 5:45 p.m., we will transition to discussion on Bill C-294.
Senator Marshall: I’m going to start with Mr. Threadgill, although other panellists might want to comment.
I read your brief, Mr. Threadgill, and while you support Bill C-244, you kept referencing other pieces of legislation — other bills — that are also supported. One of the concerns I have is that all of these amendments are being done almost in isolation of each other. If you are looking for a right-to-repair regime, how do you know all the pieces are going to come together and look like something that is sensible?
Can you speak to that? You support Bill C-244. I think you said you support Bill C-231. You liked what was in Bill C-59, so why would you support this bill, which is like a small piece of the puzzle? What would you like to see? Do you think, at the end of the day, it will be something that you could support?
Mr. Threadgill: Thank you very much for the question.
This bill is a critical part, as we have seen digital locks used to keep repair shops out of the access that they need to repair cars.
But your point is also true that what we need will end up being more than just this bill. We think this bill is a great step; we would love to see it become law. Then we would like to continue to work toward building out that broader framework that will ensure the consumer and the small businesses have access to all of the data they need to repair a vehicle.
Where that will come into place, too, is that the responsibility will need to be placed on the automakers to provide access to the data. Otherwise, if you are a small shop in rural Canada, and a consumer comes to you with a car that needs to be fixed, but you have to request access to data from the auto manufacturer, then that process will simply take too long. You will lose a customer, or the customer will be without access to their vehicle for an extended period of time.
While we see Bill C-244 as a critical piece of this, we do think more will need to be done.
Senator Marshall: How much of the puzzle do you think Bill C-244 represents? Do you think it’s a small step or a big one? Do we have a long way to go, or are we halfway there?
Mr. Threadgill: I’d call it a medium step. We have a ways to go, but it is a strong step. It shows, I think, the government’s commitment to the right to repair more broadly.
Senator Marshall: Okay.
I would like to hear from Mr. Harpe and Mr. Champagne because you support the bill also. I would like to hear if you have any concerns about this bill being just a piece of the puzzle and where you would like to see government going in the long term.
Kyle Larkin, Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada: Thank you for the question.
I agree with Mr. Threadgill’s comments. Bill C-244 is the start of a conversation. In the United States, each state is coming up with their own right-to-repair bill that responds to constituents’ needs. In Canada, many provinces are held back from passing their own right-to-repair legislation because they are held back by the Copyright Act.
Bill C-244 is the start of a conversation that opens up the right-to-repair framework so that provinces, like Alberta and Saskatchewan, can pass their own legislation to enable their farmers to have that right.
Senator Marshall: Are the Americans doing it bit by bit like us, or are they doing something more comprehensive? I’m concerned about the bit-by-bit piece.
Mr. Larkin: If you look at the U.S., it is state by state. Some U.S. states have a population larger than Canada’s population. It’s to respond to the constituents they have.
Here in Canada, again, it falls to the provincial level. Quebec has been able to come out with their own legislation, but if we pass bills like Bill C-244 — if legislation federally changes — they can go even further. That’s why we see provinces like Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, et cetera, that would love to pass right-to-repair legislation but haven’t been able to because they are locked due to provisions in the Copyright Act.
Senator Marshall: So you support the bill and don’t have any concerns that it is only a piece of the puzzle?
Mr. Larkin: Correct.
Senator Marshall: Okay.
I think Mr. O’Keefe wanted to say something.
Daryll O’Keefe, Senior Vice-President, Fix Network Canada, Automotive Industries Association of Canada: I speak on behalf of and with AIA Canada.
When we think about Bill C-244, we don’t think it is incomplete; we think it addresses one issue, and those are the data locks — the protection measures that deny us access to the information that we need to safely repair vehicles in the aftermarket. Fundamentally, 75% of Canadians live close to major manufacturing centres where there are dealerships, so 25% of Canadians simply have no access. Imagine you are driving a sophisticated vehicle in Sudbury, Ontario, and there is no dealership service point that allows access to the safety devices that are within the vehicle. Maybe it’s a Tesla or Nissan Leaf; these are sophisticated vehicles. The burden of commerce, then, upon the repair centre is this: What do they do? Do they transport the vehicle to Toronto, which is the nearest centre that might be licensed with access to those data points? Do you unsafely drive the vehicle yourself because you can’t afford to do it?
Those are the fundamental concerns around access to data.
There is a further conversation, certainly, around the right to repair, and it transitions into access to the proper training from the OEM to know how the vehicle was built. Those are more fundamental mechanical things that I’m sure you can appreciate from a mechanical perspective.
Then there are the procurement issues around these programs, too. Parts availability is also restricted. These are separate parts that fall under the conversation of right to repair, but this one point about the data locks is specific. It is the leading edge of the wedge. It is what we need first to safely address the repair of vehicles.
Senator Marshall: So you don’t have any concern. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I find the comments very enlightening. If I understand correctly, Bill C-244 helps open the door to more advanced legislation at the provincial level. There is a federal dimension to the issue of the right to repair, and this is a small key to it. How do you explain that bills C-244 and C-294 address the same issue? I would like to immediately understand the link between the two bills.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question, senator.
[English]
I would be happy to answer that question.
In our opinion, Bill C-244 really addresses the larger right‑to‑repair framework, and Bill C-294 is very much focused on interoperability, which is important in the farming sector where you have a variety of different parts from a variety of different manufacturers that could be different or the same from the manufacturers. As Mr. Harpe said in his opening remarks, you can have a John Deere combine that is now rejecting parts from other manufacturers. We highlighted Honey Bee Manufacturing, for example. They are a manufacturer of headers in southern Saskatchewan. They employ over 100 Canadians. With the new versions of John Deere, they are unable to put their new headers onto those combines. They are very much being challenged by that.
We very much do see them in the same bucket but distinct and addressing two different challenges that farmers are facing.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Does that mean that we could see other bills for other sectors in the future, since there isn’t a more comprehensive government policy?
[English]
Mr. Larkin: The good news is that the Government of Canada has finally started consultation on the right to repair. They promised something two years ago. They finally started this summer. KPMG reached out to a number of us to start a consultation. So they are just starting that. There is certainly a wider conversation.
However, as my colleagues said, we believe Bill C-244 and Bill C-294 are the start of the conversation. They are addressing particular pieces and opening it up for those provinces to really come out with more targeted legislation.
When you look at the U.S., you have legislation in New York, for example, that exempts a number of different goods but more so targets cellphones, let’s say. But when you look at other states, like Wisconsin, for example, that have a significant larger farmer base than a state like New York, they might be more targeted on combines and tractors. They are very much responding to their constituents’ needs.
That’s probably what we would see in Canada, where a province like Saskatchewan would likely be more targeted on combines and tractors, and maybe a province like Ontario would have a number of other goods included in that.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Massicotte: I hear all this and try to put it out there. Sometimes we didn’t do enough. Some are worried we are doing too much, and we should give more slack. My response is a little bit like my colleague’s response, where maybe the best thing that would occur is to say in the bill — make an observation — that there should be a five-year review. Things change. Maybe for some, it looks like it is not enough. For some of you, it’s too much. At least if we miss something or something changes, with a five-year review, the government is forced to review it. Is that a good idea?
Mr. O’Keefe: It is probably a wise approach, if you think about the acceleration of the technology in these vehicles. There was a report in an industry magazine talking about the adoption of these advanced driver systems that are protected, and we need to be able to readjust when we do repairs to vehicles. But 50% of the cars that are sold today have 94% of the 14 most popular advanced systems that require this access to the data points so that we can recalibrate them safely. Even if we change a windshield, adjust the seat belt or do an alignment on a vehicle — you hit a curb with a car, you need to do an alignment now. When you do that on these cars that contain these safety systems — these advanced driver assistance systems, or ADAS — then you have to recalibrate the systems that then do the lane departure and all of the various radars.
There is very little you can do to a car from a maintenance perspective that doesn’t require access to these points of data to be safely recalibrated. This can’t always be sent to an OEM’s site to be done. With this adoption rate changing, my point is that the curve is very steep. I don’t know what these systems will look like in two years. They might be very different.
There might be a checkpoint for the revalidation of what the perspective is on the access. We might need more access in three years.
Senator Massicotte: Does anybody else agree? Is that a good idea?
Mr. Harpe: As far as farm equipment goes, reviews are always good. I would see no problem with that. I would agree. The fastest technology changes that we’re seeing now are in agriculture equipment. Things are moving extremely fast. It is always good to look and see how things are going.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: That never happens here. I would love you to just speak to, if you could, the business opportunities and the opportunities for consumers that this would open up, just to give us a sense of how life will be easier for so many folks. As a rural Nova Scotian, my life would be easier, but can you give some examples to the committee in that regard?
Chris Kinghorn, Vice-President, Strategy and Growth, NAPA Canada and Traction/TruckPro Canada (UAP Inc.), Automotive Industries Association of Canada: I would love to comment. Thank you, senator. At NAPA Canada and TruckPro Canada, we have many service facilities that are rural. If you look at the makeup of the Canadian marketplace, the two biggest markets are metro and the second biggest is rural. We have a lot of repair facilities which are independently owned. I actually broke up that part of the market. It is basically 53% of the aftermarket service facilities, which represents almost 10,000 locations across the country that are in rural and tertiary marketplaces. This would give them the ability to perform advanced repairs and diagnostic services on today’s vehicle.
To further put that into perspective, of the 26 million vehicles in the automotive car park, 3.8 million are on warranty. The rest are not, which would represent the greater majority of people looking for alternative choices to service their car, not to mention the proximity. Of that 10,000, to put it into perspective, in total, there are 3,600 OEM dealers across the country. We love the dealers; we do a lot of business with them. They are great partners and help us in a lot of cases. But these locations that are remote or have skilled labour trades who have completed a four-year program to become a Red Seal licensed technician — who are qualified to repair a vehicle — are limited in their ability to do so.
Further to that, right now, there is an overinvestment in tooling because the shop owners have to invest in multiple systems to access different types of systems, so they could have four or five different scan tools because they have to find alternative solutions. So you think about that.
You can also think about the time for the consumer. If it is advanced and they’re limited in ability, we can’t turn around a repair for them quickly, and it will drive up the cost for the training of people, the cost of the repair and, importantly, the time for consumers.
Senator C. Deacon: When I was younger, I used to be lying on my back in a field with a combine that had something gone wrong in late November, and you are up against it.
Mr. Larkin: Exactly. Farmers have maybe centuries of experience repairing their own equipment, but they have been challenged recently, especially during critical times of the year. There are two very important times of the year. There is seeding that typically takes place in the spring and harvesting which is happening right now.
Whether it’s your combine, your seeder, your sprayer or whatever type of equipment you are using, if it breaks down and you need to wait a week or two weeks for your dealership to respond, you don’t have that time. You have to combine your grain and your crops right when it is ready when the moisture level hits that.
That’s a business opportunity when we’re talking about food production and food productivity. If combines are lying dormant for two or three weeks to wait for a repair, we’re risking food spoilage, yields, et cetera.
On the flip side, the second business opportunity is with independent mechanics. What we see, especially in rural Canada and especially in the Prairies, is there are less and less dealerships as the years go by. If you go back 20, 30 or 40 years ago, there were many more dealerships across the Prairies that farmers could access. Nowadays, we’re talking hundreds of kilometres that some farmers have to travel, or the mechanics have to travel, to access that equipment. What we could see through Bill C-244 and Bill C-294 is this: By independent mechanics being able to access that diagnostic software, they can now perform those repairs. They may be based in more local communities rather than hundreds of kilometres away.
We know that dealerships and the sector are dealing with vast labour shortages. The situation isn’t looking so good there, so we need policies that will allow repairs to continue to happen, and this is an easy way of doing that.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Varone: Thank you for being here.
The question I have follows from the panel before you. Inasmuch as that panel suggested that they believe in the right to repair as you do, they were quite hesitant in extending it to certain exemptions that they wanted, whether it be for the safety of the vehicle, the safety of the equipment, emissions control and copyright infringement. I just wanted to gauge your position on those points: the exemptions that they were seeking to the right to repair.
Mr. O’Keefe: Thank you for the question. It was interesting hearing that because my perception in listening to the gentlemen before us was it was very protective in nature, and it was always about not allowing access because of things that might happen in the future.
I can tell you the flip side of that: What happens if you don’t have access to it? I spoke about the cars in remote areas. If a safety system has been compromised and we have an infrastructure in Canada — we have licensed technicians who go through the Red Seal Program and operate in legal, licensed businesses. These are small family businesses investing heavily in upskilling, training and equipment for these facilities. They are perfectly and legitimately capable by all the mandates in the country that we live in to fix these vehicles. So we’re protecting against I’m not sure what. Those guys breaking laws? I don’t think that will happen.
And regarding the folks who might be inclined to, I don’t know, mess with somebody’s braking system, I don’t know who that might be. I don’t know, legislatively speaking, what we are trying to protect against that the general laws in Canada don’t already protect against.
Mr. Harpe: In the ag industry, it goes back to the right to repair, not the right to modify, I don’t think. We have to remember that for the most part, we’re family farms, and we want to go home every night to our families. It goes back to this: We want to be able to fix our equipment when we want to or when we can, because Mr. Larkin was exactly right; sometimes it can take days to get a mechanic. I know I would have more hair if I could fix it when I wanted to. It can be quite stressful.
As far as modifying agricultural equipment, safety is always number one. For the most part, everybody recognizes that. I don’t think this will change that.
Senator Varone: You don’t think the exemptions are warranted in this particular case?
Mr. Harpe: No.
The Deputy Chair: Glad to hear that safety is number one.
Senator Yussuff: Give my time to Senator Fridhandler.
The Deputy Chair: Before Senator Fridhandler, I have Senator Ringuette.
Senator Ringuette: If I purchase a car, a refrigerator or a combine, I’m the owner of that. Why can I not be the owner of the data? If I choose to go to a certified mechanic, then I will give them the password to my data. If I choose not to, that’s on my own. I would like to have your comments on my statement here.
Mr. O’Keefe: I don’t mind talking to that. In my role, I spend a lot of time in the field. We have a network of over 600 repair facilities in Canada. I have been coast to coast in the last three weeks visiting with a great number of those in regional meetings. Comments are made to me from the operators who are face to face with customers just like yourself who own the car or whatever vehicle it is; they don’t understand why it is that they don’t have access to some of these systems so that they can have their car repaired at their place of choice. Perhaps the car that they owned two years ago didn’t have these systems — maybe they were still driving their 1989 Ford F-150, and they went to Tony at Fix Auto Sudbury to have it fixed for the last 25 years, but now they go there and they are told, “We don’t have access to your vehicle anymore because the vehicle you bought has systems that we can’t access.” And they say, “I wasn’t aware of that when I bought this vehicle. Nobody disclosed to me that my purchase didn’t include the data nor access to the safety systems that I require to drive my car safely.” Nobody tells them.
Senator Ringuette: In reality, we’re buying something that we believe, as a consumer, that we own, but we don’t really own it.
Mr. O’Keefe: Absolutely not. I’m not an expert on this from a commercial perspective, but I’m always told that data is the new gold. It seems to me that somebody is trying to retain ownership of your gold through this relationship.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
Senator Fridhandler: I have sympathy for the need to have a right to repair, but the Copyright Act is intended to protect people who develop intellectual property. To say that anybody is entitled to take a dealer’s systems for repairing their car without compensating them for the intellectual property that they have developed is something that I weigh on the control side of the OEMs. I don’t think you get to buy a painting and then go publish it and sell books of copies of the painting. You don’t buy the copyright. You don’t buy the intellectual property when you buy a car. You can’t build more copies of the car. At the same time, I think there is a bit of a legal issue there, but it’s the government’s role to try to accommodate and find the right balance.
I’m wondering why there is such collusion in the marketplace if there haven’t been dealers or manufacturers that break out and make it easier for anybody. If I can sell you a tractor that you can repair on your own, and I’ll give you a bunch of the technology that you need to do it, then you are going to buy my tractor if you live in northern Alberta quicker than you’re going to buy from the person who puts up all these barriers. Is there such collusion in the marketplace amongst manufacturers that you don’t have someone breaking out and making it easier to repair a car or a combine? That’s the free market side of it. Can you comment on that dynamic? I think it is anti-competitive if they are colluding to put up all these barriers.
Mr. Harpe: Obviously, I can speak on the ag side of it, but “yes” is the short answer. For the most part, for what I would call a commercial-sized or a normal-sized farm, you cannot buy equipment now that you can actively get into and fix yourself.
I’ll give you an example. I have three-year-old combines, and I had an issue with one this fall. I phoned my dealer — because it gets back in, and it just wasn’t working. I phoned my dealer because I thought I might know what it was, but I couldn’t know for sure. Long story short, the first thing any mechanic does now is plug a computer in. But the thing is, to have access to that, it goes back to this: My service manager would love it if I could do that and tell him what’s wrong with it or where we are going with it. But, at the same time, it doesn’t matter if it’s John Deere, CLAAS or everything. It is their equipment and — I think we just heard this — it’s their data. The data is what they want.
There is another example I can give you, and this happened two years ago. John Deere had a sprayer that had come in; it was a new model. It was for demonstrating only. Anyway, they had tried starting it up to let somebody take it for a drive before they were allowed to. They actually got a phone call from John Deere, wondering what they were doing with that sprayer. That’s how close everything is watched now.
Senator Ringuette: Big Brother.
Mr. Harpe: Yes, they know exactly what they are doing with your equipment.
Senator Fridhandler: And there is no competition in the vehicle space either, where somebody is accommodating more than the people putting up barriers.
Mr. O’Keefe: It’s interesting, and it’s a very valid question. I’m not a lawyer, and there are some elements of that I don’t want to talk about.
We talked about the Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard, or CASIS, agreement from some years ago, where most manufacturers were signatories, and they agreed that the repairing aftermarket should have access to the modules that were in cars. Regarding the OBD-II ports — where you would plug in a scan tool so that you could see certain modules in the car — those were for a safety perspective. Everybody agreed that every automotive aftermarket service, whether it be a dealership or an independent aftermarket service provider, needs to have access to keep that car safe.
Now with the new vehicles, the kicker and the issue are that CASIS didn’t keep up, even though it was voluntary and it was flawed in itself. That’s not how we access the modules anymore nor the extremely sophisticated data that is also required to keep the car safe, because those ports are not in these new cars. That information is all contained — it is over the wire and sent via the internet or when you go to the dealership, but only the OEM dealership has access to it, unless they allow it. And that is the difference in this situation.
If they agreed at the time, when the systems were simple, that you needed to be able to access the modules for safety, why wouldn’t they also agree — now that it is more sophisticated — that we simply need access to the same idea even though it is more complex and more data rich? I think the differentiation, as you suggested, is the data and the ownership.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, gentlemen.
We’ll move on to Bill C-294, if we have any questions on Bill C-294. Given that we don’t have anybody on the list, I’ll kick it off, or I’ll attempt to. You did mention that there is a right to repair and not a right to replace or modify. I have a general question: What measures are in place to prevent potential abuse of copyright exceptions, particularly in cases where interoperability might infringe on intellectual property? This is for any of our panellists who would want to take that question. Mr. O’Keefe, I see you nodding. I have to choose one.
Mr. O’Keefe: I’m not an expert on Bill C-294, but I do understand the implications of the replacement parts. In the world we live in, for the functionality of vehicles, it is absolutely necessary that we rely on the aftermarket to come up with substitute parts to keep vehicles viable past their warranty period. We can’t necessarily buy new parts from original equipment, or OE, dealers because it just doesn’t support the longevity of the vehicles.
If you get into a car that is five years old, for example, even an insurance policy will not pay for a new OEM replacement part when there is a certified aftermarket part available. I’ll say “certified” because there are all sorts of organizations. We live in a regulated society where manufacturers, whether it’s OE or aftermarket, have to build safe, reliable replacement parts. If we have said, as Canadians, that you can replace that part with an aftermarket part, I don’t know why that wouldn’t be a legitimate argument.
The Deputy Chair: Any other panellists want to take a crack at that?
Mr. Harpe: I’ll maybe add to that quickly. This is [Technical difficulties]. We have mentioned attachments to combines or things like that, but what should be fairly simple is a GPS system for a tractor. When you buy a tractor, you have to tell them which GPS system you would like. There are only about three or four. There are not too many. You tell them, “I would like to put a John Deere in there.” And you actually have to buy — we talked about this — a digital unlock for it at quite a cost. A couple years down the road — GPS is a changing technology also — you might say, with this new technology, “I want to change my GPS system.” I can’t do that anymore, because you bought the unlock for the other one, and if I want to change it, they may allow — you may have to buy another unlock, but, for the most part, they just will not allow it.
Mr. Kinghorn: I will speak on behalf of the heavy trucking industry. That’s a large part of the Canadian economy, of course, with transport trucks and so on. A lot of that equipment can be ordered on spec. For certain engine and transmission combinations, those are configured when the vehicle is ordered and could fall under the system of that nameplate of the OEM. But when configuring a certain transmission type or differential type that may have electronic components — the interoperability between those components — without open access to that information, it becomes very challenging for the aftermarket to be able to service those on-road vehicles.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I will ask a broader question to come back to the discussion with the previous panel. We have bills that seem to meet your needs. In a perfect world, would you have preferred more substantial government bills?
[English]
Mr. Larkin: I can certainly answer that question. I think the answer is “yes.” At the end of the day, we would have loved to see a government bill that would have covered all of the right‑to-repair framework, but, at this point in time, we have to obviously deal with what we have, and we are pleased with Bill C-244 and Bill C-294, yet it is certainly a first step. It is the start of a conversation on the right to repair. These are some of the first pieces of legislation to be passed on the right to repair, so we are very much supportive of these bills, but we want to continue the conversation. We are with the government, and we certainly will with you as well.
Senator Yussuff: This always seems like a complicated question, but it is not a complicated question. As I understand it, not a single manufacturer in the world builds all of the pieces of the equipment. They always contract out for somebody to build the pieces, and then they assemble them. We always get this notion that when you go to buy a car, whatever the brand may be, that manufacturer built that car. The reality is that, in Ontario, there are 1,000 different car parts manufacturers that supply the industry.
This question of interoperability becomes such a frustrating one because they allow for all of those parts to come together when they assemble the car, but after they sell it, they make it very difficult for you to buy a part from somebody else to put on that car, yet they don’t manufacture it. In the old days, they used to. Today, they don’t do it anymore.
As a society and in the legal system, we have not kept up with the reality of what we are dealing with. In Ontario, Magna produces a lot of car parts for the auto industry for a variety of brands. But the reality is that when your car needs something, whether it is NAPA parts or one of the other manufacturers of car parts, they make it very difficult for these parts to go on the same vehicle, which they don’t manufacture in the first place because they own the licensing provision.
I think Canadians need to understand that, in a complex way, the same goes for — to shift away from cars because they don’t have other manufacturers — a refrigerator. It is the same thing. The guy comes to my house, and he says, “The circuit board is gone. I can get you the KitchenAid circuit board, or I can get you the following circuit board. They do exactly the same thing, so what would you like, sir?” I say, “I want you to fix the bloody thing, so tell me what it’s going to take.” My point is that, as consumers, we are like idiots. They treat us like idiots because we don’t understand how the thing functions in the first place.
I think Canadians need to really appreciate how these bills complement each other, because the interoperability is a fundamental part of making that thing not be something we throw in the garage and also something we can fix at the same time.
Going back to the heavy equipment or, for that matter, farm equipment, of course you should be able to buy a piece of equipment that would add to your tractor, if you want to do something else with your tractor, yet our legislation has not kept up with this. I think it is really important for consumers to understand this, but also as a society, if we want to provide options for consumers and make it a bit cheaper. OEMs are very expensive. I think it is critical that these bills will complement each other. I do agree that we could have a more comprehensive piece of legislation, but given they are both private members’ bills, it is the best option we have in front of us, from my perspective. I think we need to move down the road. Yes, it would be good if the government came and complemented it at some point, but, right now, I think these two things are necessary in the context of moving forward on the whole question of right to repair in this country.
The Deputy Chair: If anybody disagrees, feel free to comment.
Mr. Kinghorn: I don’t disagree. Thank you for the question and comments, senator.
The reality is that we operate in an oligopoly type of market. We have a small number of players operating in a heavy asset‑based business. Speaking from the NAPA side of the business — and my peer here from LKQ Corporation — we have over 600,000 SKUs in our system, which requires a major investment. If you look at the scale of our businesses to be able to support the automotive aftermarket — repair and maintenance — we are not buying parts from small operations but from tier 1 manufacturers. There are a lot of cases where it is the same manufacturer that would be supplying the OEM that would be able to meet the demands of the automotive aftermarket: myself or my counterparts.
To build on your point, it is certainly valid. Most consumers wouldn’t realize that or recognize it, but that is the case.
Senator Varone: In your mind, does the right to repair infer that the equipment must be reparable?
Mr. Harpe: From where I’m coming from, yes, it should be. Unfortunately, as we discussed, it goes back to the fact that in agriculture, we don’t have it. We can’t replace. We think it takes a long time to get a mechanic — to get a piece of equipment takes even longer. Yes, it needs to be repaired.
Mr. Kinghorn: The reality is since the price of vehicles has increased drastically, the longer we can have Canadians be able to service and utilize that vehicle over a longer period of time, the better. Giving them options and the ability for the aftermarket or mechanics to be able to repair is critical.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. If you do have additional comments, feel free to send them in writing, and we’ll be more than glad.
Thank you very much, Lucas Malinowski, Craig Drury, Christina De Toni, Marla Poor, Kyle Larkin, Andre Harpe, Jean‑François Champagne, Chris Kinghorn, Daryll O’Keefe and Tyler Threadgill. Thank you for being with us today.
(The committee adjourned.)