A Canadian company can pay full price for a machine and still need a foreign manufacturer’s permission to make it better. That belongs in Canada’s trade fight.

On August 21, Canada suspended its latest negotiations with the United States. Hours later, new U.S. tariffs of 50 per cent took effect on roughly C$28 billion of Canadian goods. Canada has promised a dollar-for-dollar response on September 8. This is the blunt arithmetic of a trade conflict: you raise our costs, and we raise yours.

Those bilateral talks failed, but CUSMA did not. Canada, the United States and Mexico began the first joint review on July 1. Discussions continue, and the agreement remains in force until 2036.

Retaliatory tariffs may be necessary. They will also raise costs and reduce choice for Canadians, as Prime Minister Mark Carney has acknowledged. If tariffs are our whole response, Canada could emerge from this conflict poorer and no less dependent than before.

Tariffs decide what Canadians pay to bring technology across the border. Digital-lock law helps decide what they can do with it after they pay. The second question will matter long after today’s tariffs change.

Once a tractor crosses the border, the duty is paid, the invoice is settled and the machine goes to work on a Canadian farm. If a local technician later finds a way to make it perform better, a software lock can still stand between the farmer and the change.

A foreign manufacturer can lock the software and use copyright law to block improvements or make independent repair difficult. You paid for the machine. Why should the seller still decide how good it is allowed to become?

That power matters more every year because software and AI now control more of what physical products can do. I run Kesis & Sisters, a Canadian company building with AI, so I have a direct interest in these rules. One deserves far more attention as economic policy: Canada’s law on digital locks.

You own the machine. Do you control it?

When a Canadian company buys a factory robot, it owns every kilogram of steel, every motor and every arm. Yet it may still need the copyright holder’s permission to bypass a lock and install replacement software developed by someone else. That is a peculiar kind of ownership.

The company does not own the copyright in the software, nor should it. It cannot copy the code and sell it. But copyright should protect the code without freezing the robot in its maker’s preferred form. The owner should be able to replace a worn part, connect a new system or make the robot work better.

If your child is stuck on fractions, the school can set the test and protect its textbook. It cannot use copyright to stop you from explaining fractions differently at the kitchen table. The analogy has a limit: changing software can affect other people’s safety. That is why safety rules should decide whether a change is allowed. Copyright should not give the original manufacturer a permanent veto over every improvement.

A digital lock can block that work. Canadian law generally makes it illegal to bypass certain locks and also restricts the people and tools that can help. The sale is over, but the seller’s control is not.

This is recent law, not an ancient feature of ownership. Parliament adopted the modern rules in 2012. Today, software and AI can decide how a vehicle communicates, how a robot behaves and what an instrument can do. A lock now reaches far more of the product’s value. Canada must reconsider the balance.

Consider a Canadian team with safer or more useful replacement software for that robot. If a digital lock keeps the owner from installing it, the team loses its first field trial and the chance to learn from a real machine. Without that learning, a second customer becomes harder to win, while the original maker feels less pressure to improve. Repeated across enough machines, those missed starts can keep a challenger from forming.

I cannot make this argument only about foreign companies. The same rule should bind Kesis. Copyright can protect our code from copying and resale. It should not give us permanent control over what runs inside a machine another person owns. We have to live by the freedom we are asking Canada to give others.

None of this gives an owner the right to enter someone else’s server, steal code or data, or ignore safety, cybersecurity and privacy law. Those laws address real harm. Copyright should not become a general power to stop lawful changes after a sale.

A better product can start with a repair

Every repair is a lesson. When a tractor fails just as a field has to be planted, the technician may find a faulty sensor while the farmer remembers the same failure last spring. A local shop may have seen it on other machines. Getting the tractor moving solves today’s problem; the freedom to modify it could turn that repeated failure into a better sensor or control system.

Consider a Canadian in a service bay with an affordable BYD. The car is worth keeping, these are impressive cars from what I’ve seen. But, the software connecting it to the world has not earned the same trust. The owner asks a qualified Canadian shop to inspect it, turn off an unnecessary connection or install a tested alternative. Digital-lock law may still make the path to a practical, accountable replacement legally uncertain or unusable.

Governments have raised broader concerns about connected cars. Canada’s 2024 consultation on Chinese EVs included cyber and data security. U.S. officials warned that malicious access to certain China-linked connectivity and automated-driving systems could expose sensitive data or permit remote manipulation of a vehicle. Neither warning proves that BYD has hidden spyware in its cars.

Even if the fear turns out to be wrong, leaving buyers without a practical way to choose a qualified replacement will not build trust. When people cannot check a concern or act on what they find, suspicion spreads to the whole car. Give them a third choice: keep the useful vehicle and replace the part they do not trust.

A qualified Canadian expert should be able to inspect the system and, where needed, offer a tested replacement that regulators and buyers can hold accountable. That would let Canadians keep moving toward our climate goals without being told to ignore their fears.

No one should be able to load untested code into a braking system. Digital locks and signed software can keep bad code out. Any replacement affecting steering or braking should face rigorous testing, any required certification and clear responsibility if it fails. The goal is not an unlocked front door. It is a second trusted key.

With a workable path, Canadian firms could inspect imported cars, test replacement software and build tools that work across brands. Copyright reform would not create that industry by itself. It could give qualified firms a chance to compete.

Trust requires a choice

The federal government already calls low trust a barrier to AI adoption. Its national strategy cites a study that ranked Canada 42nd of 47 countries for trust in AI. The ranking does not tell us how to fix the problem, but it shows that reassurance alone will not be enough.

An owner may trust the robot’s steel and motors but lose trust in the system guiding its behaviour. Throwing away the whole machine makes no sense. A qualified technician should be able to install a tested alternative, and the owner should know who is responsible if it fails. Trust should follow the system that earns it.

The copyright rule should be equally practical. If a change is lawful and does not infringe copyright, getting past the lock should not become a separate copyright violation.

Canada has moved partway. The law now allows some bypassing to check security with the owner’s permission, repair a product or make lawfully bought devices work together. For repair, however, people who build the tools or publicly offer services to bypass locks can still face liability. An owner can have a right on paper and no practical way to use it. A right that requires every farmer or factory owner to become a firmware engineer is not much of a right.

Changing copyright law will not reveal hidden code or prove a replacement safe. Canada will still need common standards, testing and clear responsibility when something goes wrong. But copyright should not stop a Canadian company before it can test a better option.

Cabinet can act without waiting for a new trade deal. The Copyright Act lets it exempt groups of locks when the rules place too great a limit on competition after a product is sold. The Competition Bureau has pointed to this power. The government should use it where the evidence supports it.

CUSMA is the harder part. It can make bypassing a digital lock that controls access a violation even when no one infringes copyright. It also leaves little room for the tools and services ordinary owners need. If the agreement continues, Canada should push to change that rule. If CUSMA ends or is replaced, we should not copy the restriction into whatever comes next. That loss would be painful, but it would also give Canada a rare chance to write better rules for ownership and competition.

Leave room to try

Canada does not need to make everything itself to become more independent. We can buy good hardware from anywhere and still insist on the freedom to improve what runs inside it.

The next important Canadian technology company may start in a barn, beside a tractor that refuses to recognize a perfectly useful sensor. That may be the first problem a local technician solves better than the original manufacturer.

Government cannot know whether that attempt will become an industry. It only needs to avoid using copyright law to close off a safe and lawful experiment before it begins.

Canada is fighting over what goods cost when they cross the border. Our longer-term strength will also depend on what Canadians are free to do with them once they arrive. If someone here finds a safe, lawful way to improve a machine, copyright law should leave room to try.

Key sources