Canada’s “right to repair” bill explained

A private member’s bill to allow Canadians more right to repair devices, including farm equipment, will be resurrected after it died when Parliament was prorogued for the recent election.

Bill C-272 proposed to update Canada’s Copyright Act to allow Canadians more freedom to repair digital devices, including smartphones and farm equipment. Bryan May, Member of Parliament for Cambridge and initiator of the bill, plans to again push for better right-to-repair legislation. 

Why it matters: Canadians face liability risks when attempting to repair a wide range of digital devices – and the number of those devices continues to increase. 

In an interview before the election, May detailed how such legislation could impact Canadians, as well as the subsequent role of provincial governments. 

Q: What’s the main problem are you trying to address with C-272, and how did these problems originate?

One of the major problems with right to repair is the fact that, even if repairs are technically possible and spare parts are available, etc. the person making the repairs might still be falling afoul of the provisions of the Copyright Act if they have to break a password, digital lock, or other DRM system in order to conduct this repair. This is becoming more of an issue as digital systems and software become embedded in almost everything. Manufacturers know this, and some seem to be counting on this because they bake things into the digital side that make repairs harder or even impossible. There’s no law against this, and I expect we will see more of it in the future, particularly for manufacturers who also sell spare parts, replacement parts, and accessories that fit into their ecosystem and try to lock out competitors.

In Canada, so many aspects of right to repair fall within provincial jurisdiction, but copyright law is federal. Even if provinces create new tools and a robust right to repair framework, people could still be forced to violate copyright to conduct their repairs if there are embedded digital systems. My private member’s bill is a federal bill that seeks to solve that problem – it allows people to break copyright if, and only if, they are doing so to make repairs, conduct diagnostics, and provide maintenance.

Q: Why is the issue a sensitive one for the public as a whole?

The public buys things, owns them, and expects that repairing them is well within their rights. It makes sense, and it’s the way we treat everything we own. Broken table? You can fix it as you see fit. Broken toaster? Go for it! But if you have a broken appliance with a digital system embedded it becomes a whole different world once you consider the copyright implications, and that’s not the way people intuitively understand things, nor is it how we understand our ownership of products. I’m trying to fix that to make sure you can repair anything you buy, because it’s yours.

Q: What are the similarities or differences between your bill and other legislation from other jurisdictions, such as individual provinces or American states?

C-272 is similar in that it’s one component of a right to repair framework, but more work still needs to be done at the provincial level to ensure that more right to repair systems are in place, enforceable, and made legal. There’s a lot for the provinces to do including making repair manuals and methods available, providing for spare parts and tools, ensuring manufacturers don’t make products that are unrepairable by design, and reducing the number of these products that are designed to be obsolete and ultimately destined for the junkyard.

My bill is a specific, highly targeted bill, that’s designed to be passed into law because it is so specific and highlights just one single problem in the Copyright Act. It’s not going to solve right to repair overnight, but it’s a key step in enabling provinces to be able to pass their own legislation and preventing the Copyright Act from making their efforts moot.

Q: Has there been pushback from tech manufacturers? If so, what are their arguments?

There hasn’t been much pushback because I think they see how specific and targeted this bill is. I also think that, because this bill targets all products equally, it’s hard for a specific industry or category of product to claim that they are being unfairly punished. Copyright was never intended to be used as a way to prevent people from repairing a tractor or an Xbox, and this bill fixes this. 

I also think they recognize the impact these copyright rules can have on stifling innovation across the country, and recognize reducing that stifling influence is in everybody’s best interest.

Post-election update

Canada’s 43rd Parliament was dissolved in August of 2021, causing all bills standing before the House of Commons and Senate to be dropped. Speaking on October 7, May says new legislation echoing the goals of C-272 could be re-introduced when the new session convenes. 

“Right to repair was also included in the most recent platform, so I’m looking forward to this topic being considered for legislation and being discussed in the upcoming Minister’s mandate letters,” says May.

“I’ll continue to fully support any efforts to give more autonomy to Canadians when repairing their own items. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this type of legislation will be considered in future for the betterment of all Canadians, as no one should be punished for repairing an item if they have the means to do so.”