SoVote

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/8/23 4:54:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today, in response to a question asked by my colleague from Repentigny, who wanted to know why the government was issuing permits to oil and gas companies to allow them to drill in the habitat of the right whale, an endangered species, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources said they were not drilling licenses, but only exploration licenses. That surprised me. The Liberals claim they do not want to drill, but they issue permits so companies can go see if there is any oil to be found. The question I wish to ask the member for Winnipeg North is simple. What is the point of issuing exploration permits if, at the end of the day, they do not want to extract the oil? Is that not a flagrant contradiction?

134 words

Context: House Hansard - 209 - Jun/8/23

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/8/23 5:10:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our Conservative colleague mentioned our carbon exchange and the emissions permits we have in Quebec. When we sell emission units, a large part of the money, if not all, goes into Quebec's green fund and is used for various investments to make us more resilient to climate change and better able to adapt. Would my colleague not say that, in the western provinces that rely on oil, instead of complaining about the federal carbon tax, they should seize the opportunity to implement similar mechanisms to ensure that those provinces could also, independently, take charge of their own transition? Would it not be more constructive and rewarding for them to do that?

114 words

Context: House Hansard - 209 - Jun/8/23

Mr. Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.)

Jun/8/23 5:52:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-294

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-294, now in its final stage of consideration in the House of Commons. I am also pleased by the overwhelming support received for this legislative initiative thus far. I want to thank our colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands who brought this important initiative to the House that seeks to remove a copyright barrier to interoperability, which would benefit all Canadians, including those in my riding of Yukon. The Copyright Act, as it currently reads, represents an obstacle to Canadians who really wish to make their products with functionalities enabled by software, such as smart phones and farm vehicles, interoperable with other products, devices or components. The Copyright Act currently represents an obstacle to interoperability because it generally prohibits that circumvention of technological prevention measures, also called TPMs, or digital locks. Manufacturers often include digital locks to protect software in their products to prevent unauthorized access and copying. The Copyright Act also includes an exception that permits the circumvention of digital locks to achieve interoperability between two computer programs. However, being limited to the interoperability between computer programs, this exception is not sufficient to cover the needs of Canadians and the market. With the increasing number of products with functionalities enabled by software, interoperability also means ensuring that parts or components added to such products be compatible and exchange information with these products' software. As the member for South Shore—St. Margarets just explained, these parts and components actual can then talk to each other. Without being permitted to circumvent digital locks to access the product's software, it remains difficult to make these products interoperable with other products, components and devices. This obstacle can notably impact Canadians when manufacturers decide to introduce new technologies that are not compatible with the previous generations. In such scenarios, software-enabled products we can own easily become only good to gather dust next to our VHS players. Bill C-294 specifically seeks to address this issue. The bill proposes to expand the scope of the current exception in the Copyright Act, so the copyright framework allows Canadians to circumvent digital locks to make a computer program, or a device in which it is embedded, interoperable with another computer program, device or component. Bill C-294 does not call into question the importance of digital locks in the copyright framework but stresses the importance that the Copyright Act provides efficient exceptions and limitations to digital locks when they harm the legitimate interests of consumers to have control over the products they own. Legal protection for digital locks is an important enforcement regime in the copyright framework with roots in international treaties. Canada has obligations to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of digital locks used by copyright holders under the WIPO Internet Treaties and certain free trade agreements. Digital locks are meant to grant creators more control over the distribution of their creative works in the digital marketplace by preventing others from copying, accessing or using the fruits of their labour without their permission. This enforcement regime ensures the Copyright Act continues fostering Canada's flourishing creative economy by providing creators with an efficient mechanism to obtain a return on their investments. Protection for digital locks was originally promoted as a tool to encourage creative industries to offer their works, such as songs, books and movies, on the Internet and in other digital forms. It has never been the intent of the protection for digital locks in the Copyright Act to prevent the interoperability of products. Bill C-294 is an essential measure to rebalance the equilibrium of interests and provide consumers more control over the products they own and use, while also preserving incentives for creators in the Copyright Act. For instance, Bill C-294 would solely permit Canadians to circumvent digital locks for the purpose of interoperability. Bill C-294 would not facilitate copyright infringement. Protection for digital locks and copyright infringement are two distinct regimes in the Copyright Act. While persons may be allowed to circumvent a digital lock on a work to access it, they are not allowed to make unauthorized copies of the work unless an exception to copyright infringement also applies. Bill C-294, with the amendments reported to us by the committee, would ensure that the expanded interoperability exception permitting the circumvention of digital locks would not be available if it involved an infringement of copyright. I want to reiterate my support for Bill C-294, which is a pledge to Canadians that they should not be frustrated by digital locks when they seek to render the products they own interoperable with a new part, component or device. I acknowledge that the scope of this bill is limited. It is an exception to the prohibition to circumvent digital locks that addresses only one aspect of facilitating interoperability. As such, it does not encourage industries to develop standards ensuring interoperability between different manufacturer products and ecosystems. However, I am persuaded that the exception proposed in Bill C-294 would have positive impacts in offering more opportunities for Canadians to make their products interoperable. That is especially the case with the amendments reported by the committee, which ensure that the exception would apply to independent service providers, helping the owners of products to achieve interoperability. Bill C-294 also aligns with the government's commitment to provide Canadians with a right to repair by encouraging the prolonging of the life cycle of products and with its commitment to support innovation and foster follow-on innovation by small and medium-sized enterprises. This is practicality in action. It really is about the choice of products for Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers. I look forward to the vote and invite my colleagues to support Bill C-294 to send a strong signal to Canadians of the importance that the House of Commons gives to this great initiative.

993 words