Honourable senators, I rise today as the friendly critic of Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability).

We received this bill last June, and its progress so far is thanks to the important work of its sponsor, MP Jeremy Patzer, from Saskatchewan, and Senator Housakos in this chamber.

As I mentioned a few moments ago when I was speaking to Bill C-244, both Bill C-244 and Bill C-294 address the unintended consequences that have emerged in the application of copyright law following the rapid increase in digitization of all of our appliances, machines, devices and tools. Both bills relate to the unintended use of technological protection measures, or TPMs, specifically in ways that have resulted in increased costs and other challenges that are particularly harmful to consumers, farmers, fishers and small businesses.

I don’t want to repeat the background on TPMs, which I just provided in my speech as sponsor of Bill C-244. You likely don’t want me to repeat it either. Suffice it to say, a TPM is a digital lock. In the case of interoperability, a TPM prevents the seamless transfer of data, essentially rendering a replacement device or piece of equipment unusable because it cannot communicate with other devices.

Let’s focus on the importance of interoperability, how this bill is intended to enhance interoperability between devices and what possible concerns might result.

Why does interoperability matter? Our lives are filled with connected devices. Our wristwatch is connected to our smartphone, telling us how many steps we take each day, our heart rate and countless other things. Our smartphone wirelessly connects to our car screen and sound system, allowing us to play podcasts, take calls and find our way. We increase or reduce the temperature in our home or a given room without even being in the house or that room, or change a song that is playing without getting out of our chair. We can even see who is ringing the doorbell when we’re not home or even if we’re not in the country.

This world is known as the Internet of Things, or IoT. However, not every manufacturer is playing fair when it comes to this connected IoT world. Let me put this in the most basic terms in order to explain the importance of interoperability.

Just imagine that every time you bought a different brand of laptop, you also had to buy a new printer, new cables, new desktop screen and new headphones because your old ones would not connect to your new brand of laptop as a result of TPMs or unique cable connectors.

Imagine having a printer in your home that only worked with the laptop but not any other computer or mobile device in your home. A world without interoperability would fill our life with hassles, costs and waste. This is an example of the physical barriers that emerge when interoperability is not universally enabled.

Simply put, life is improved when barriers to interoperability are removed. Bill C-294 is designed to stop the Copyright Act from being used to prevent interoperability as a result of the unintended use of TPMs or digital locks.

I want to be clear: The bill’s application is limited to making devices, software and any other data interoperable in situations where TPMs have been used in an unintended manner. Just like Bill C-244, Bill C-294 does not protect any act that may constitute copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.

Now I would like to take the opportunity to address some of the main concerns raised in committee regarding Bill C-294.

First, Bill C-294 would create more risks to intellectual property through the circumvention of TPMs. This is not true. In fact, the Copyright Act already allows for interoperability, but it is only limited to making two computer programs interoperable.

However, as an Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, official said in committee:

. . . with the growing number of software products that include TPMs, such as agricultural equipment, achieving interoperability may require more than making two computer programs interoperable.

This bill would, therefore, expand on the existing interoperability permissions to allow compatibility of information from third-party add-ons without compromising core intellectual property.

This also means that for the big companies that are concerned about their proprietary or unique software, the legal system is still strong enough to prevent piracy or other illegal breaches of information. This bill, therefore, ensures that proprietary software remains protected, which is crucial for Canada’s trade and intellectual property, or IP, agreements, including the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA.

This leads me to the next concern raised about the bill, specifically, whether it would jeopardize Canada’s international trade agreements and obligations. This is a valid concern, as it is crucial that we remain a reliable partner by complying with global standards. Again, we were reassured in committee that this bill aligns with CUSMA. In fact, the House’s Industry and Technology Committee accepted amendments from the government to ensure that the bill was in line with CUSMA and other trade agreements, ensuring that we maintain our international obligations while empowering our domestic industries, such as farming and agricultural equipment manufacturing, that would greatly benefit from the bill.

Lastly, there have been concerns that Bill C-294 presents a piecemeal approach to legislative reform rather than a comprehensive overhaul of the Copyright Act. I agree that a more comprehensive review is necessary to fully address modern-day challenges of copyright in the digital era. However, this bill is a step in the right direction. We were assured by a department official of the support for this bill, as it aligns with the minister’s mandate and the government’s ongoing consultations on interoperability.

The question of whether this bill goes far enough also came up in the committee’s deliberations. Professor Alissa Centivany from Western University, who is also a respected researcher in this field, suggests that the legislation does not go far enough in mandating interoperability. In a brief she submitted to committee, she argued that:

The government should implement comprehensive legislation that mandates RID —

— that is, repair, interoperability and durability —

— by design. . . . It should create programs, policies, and initiatives that empower consumers, businesses, and institutions to increase efficiency and reduce waste through RID. . . .

Other jurisdictions — most notably the EU — are leading by example in interoperability by design, an instance being the recent adoption of USB-C as a universal standard for charging devices.

When asked about the bill’s limitations, an ISED official acknowledged that while the federal government cannot directly enforce product standards, which often fall under provincial jurisdiction, this bill also would not prevent any future advancements in Canada’s interoperability framework. He emphasized that the Copyright Act would not hinder the progress of new developments and interoperability standards. This is important to ensure that the Copyright Act supports rather than impedes technological advancements.

Colleagues, Bill C-294 represents a crucial opportunity to create a more competitive and innovative Canadian economy. It would unlock further opportunities for Canadian innovators to develop technologies that are compatible with existing platforms. It would also bring Canada up to par with our major trading partners like the United States and the EU, levelling the playing field for our businesses and fostering a healthy competitive environment.

I congratulate MP Jeremy Patzer on the tabling of Bill C-294. I very much support the bill. I hope you will too, and I encourage the chamber to call the question.

Thank you, colleagues.

Absolutely.

With the willingness of colleagues in the chamber, I completely agree with you. I would love it if we did that because Parliament is tenuous at this time. This is work that has been ongoing for years in our own Parliament, and progress has been made around the world. Thank you, Senator Housakos, for the question.

There is every win here for Canadian consumers. I don’t know that there is a lot more to debate, and it’s something that I hope we could move to a third reading vote and receive Royal Assent on these bills. Thank you.

Absolutely, Senator Burey.

Thank you, Senator Burey. What amazes me is the extent to which companies that exercise monopolistic power can have a negative effect on the lives of millions of people around the world on a daily basis.

I’m a big believer in competition. I believe competition moves the world ahead. It provides consumers with more innovative, cost-efficient services — businesses, as well. I can only imagine, when you get into a space where the margins are so significant — like in health care — and where recurring revenue is so relied upon, if we don’t help consumers, business and governments in Canada ensure that manufacturers are competing fairly and not putting up artificial barriers, the whole system slows down, everything costs more and the time spent trying to get around these artificial barriers takes away from the productivity of important services like health care.

I couldn’t agree with you more. Thank you.