Bill C-273 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (right to repair)

This enactment adds a definition of “product” in section 75 of the Competition Act to make it clear that that term includes technical information that is required by a person in order to provide a service to a customer. This ensures that the Competition Tribunal is able to require a supplier to provide this information to a customer in accordance with section 75 in cases where the supplier has previously refused to do so.
The enactment also amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide that companies that manufacture motor vehicles in Canada or that import motor vehicles into Canada are required to make available to Canadian motor vehicle owners and repair facilities the information and diagnostic tools and capabilities necessary to diagnose, service and repair those motor vehicles.

Copyright Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-272, a right to repair bill. It is actually very similar to one that I had passed in the House of Commons and I will talk about that in a little bit.

I want to congratulate the member for bringing this forward, because it is part of a cultural shift we have had in economics. It is about our economy, of course. It is also about rights and it is about a series of different things that are important. It is about competition too. Today, we had a boost for competition. I want to thank all those who were involved in the campaign to stop Nav Canada from closing airports.

In Windsor, we had this case brought forward and I want to thank Mayor Drew Dilkens, the Windsor Flying Club, Rakesh Naidu from the chamber of commerce, Brian Hogan from the labour council, and pilots Karan D'Souza and Dante Albano, just to mention a few. There are many others. I could go on and on.

I do not want to spend my whole time on that, but I do want to recognize them because they fought for public safety and for competition. We were successful today, when the government said that it could not do anything and there was no way to intervene. I offered a private member's bill, and even questioned the Prime Minister yesterday, and today we were successful in stopping that process. Again, this is about competition, fairness and public safety.

I had my original bill, Bill C-425, and also then reintroduced Bill C-273, which was passed in the House of Commons under a minority Conservative government. It went to committee, came out of committee and we reached a voluntary agreement. It provided information for the automotive aftermarket. Canada was being treated differently from many other countries in the world by some corporations. We were being treated as a colony, quite frankly. The United States was getting information to help fix vehicles in the aftermarket because it had provisions on the Environmental Protection Agency and through some of its consumer legislation. In Windsor, people could drive their car over into Detroit and get it fixed in the aftermarket. Meanwhile, over here in Windsor, flash software, which was important to reset the car, was denied, training was denied, and tools and other things were denied to the aftermarket, affecting hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country. In fact, my bill took me everywhere from the east coast to the west coast and even to some parts of the north. We found that many Canadians were losing out.

As I mentioned, competition is not just with regard to jobs for people in the aftermarket fixing the products and services, it is also about jobs related to servicing the industries. People were driving vehicles that threatened public safety because they were not fixed. They would have to wait for an opening in a shop to get it done, or have it towed somewhere to be safe. Environmentally, there was an impact: cars were on the road even longer and they were higher polluters. I commend the member for bringing this forward because it is more robust in many respects. It would provide some fairness and competition that is necessary.

Right now we are grappling with electronic waste. There is so much unnecessary ending of the life of products and services, in particular, hardware and devices. Later on, the small shops and small and medium-sized businesses are shut out. They cannot get the right information because of a monopolistic approach by some of the larger corporations.

This bill would help level the playing field. It would not interfere with intellectual property. It would not undermine the production and assembly of the first product to start with. It provides for what we have always had in our societies, which is secondary work on objects that are useful in our society. In the farming community, in the auto manufacturing community where I am, in the software industry or in the electronic device industry, we found multiple and continued uses of products. To have them denied just because of a monopolistic approach by a large corporation that is using basically a back door to prevent that type of an economy is not helpful.

We found some companies are very progressive on this. In my case, General Motors officials were open and shared their information. They treated Canada pretty much the same as they treated the United States. Right now, one of the problem companies we have in the automotive aftermarket sector is Tesla. The people at Tesla refused to sign the voluntary agreement that we have in place, and it needs some modernization. I thank the member again because this is going to bring to light some of those issues.

My agreement at the time was made with Tony Clement, who was the minister of industry then. Basically, we had it pass in the House of Commons, and the aftermarket association, at the end of the day, agreed at the time that we would settle with the voluntary agreement instead of bringing it through as an actual law. It is still on the paper and on the books, and it is still enforceable in many respects, but it is not as strong as it could be. However, that was okay. We were compromising to work together as a country and as political parties.

As a New Democrats, we found this to be a step forward right away, and it avoided, of course, the Senate. I have far too often had some of my bills, the sports betting bill, for example, and there are others, die in the Senate for a lot of different, complicated, and some not so complicated, reasons.

At that point in time, we decided to go that path, but that needs to be renewed and looked as well. Bill C-272 is an opportunity to build upon that agreement because it is about 10 years old. Now we are dealing with software, personal information and a whole series of different things that are more complex than they were a decade ago.

Again, the bill, if passed, would prevent, for example, electronic waste. How much money do members of the public, municipalities and taxpayers actually have to spend for the disposal of electronic waste that does not have the proper life cycle because companies will not provide the information or software, or they block the equipment, tools or the capacity to repair those things? I think we have all had frustration over phones or other electronic devices that had a cracked screen or something like that, which is a very modest problem, but it becomes a big complication for some devices just because of the proprietary nature of some of the organizations that will not allow a smaller shop or workplace to deal with it.

What is really important about this bill, which is kind of undercharacterized and sometimes under-reported, is that some of our young people who are very innovative, creative and tech savvy are looking at new parts of the economy and are very engaged in dealing with the new aftermarket devices. We do not want to stymie that type of innovation because they use it to bounce further innovation and further development of products and services that are very important for us.

We have seen how hard it is for young entrepreneurs to get going. Can members imagine, for example, if back in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s we were told that we could never have a shop that could even touch a vehicle, other than the major automotive companies?

However, Bill C-272 also deals with farm equipment, which was, sadly, left out in my proposed legislation. This is an improvement, because there is high tech involved in that equipment, which is very important. As well, we have the whole aftermarket for vehicles, such as emergency vehicles, heavy equipment and a series of things that were really left out.

As New Democrats, we are very proud to support Bill C-272, because it builds upon what we believe is very solid consumer protection, very solid environmental protection and very solid competition elements. In the industry committee, we have been dealing with the competition in this country, and our Competition Act is far outdated. It needs a lot of work and needs to be revived basically from the front to the back cover. Canada, at one point, was a leader in competition, but we basically left that on the shelf.

What are we going to do in the meantime? We only have limited opportunities to put on the pressure to get some good change for the economy and for the consumers, and Bill C-272 is part of that. There are elements that we could probably find some agreement on for the Competition Act right now that could pass rather quickly. However, other things that are much more complicated and complex, but the bill before us is not that. The bill is actually part of something that could, right away, protect consumers and a lot of jobs.

I am going to conclude by saying that Bill C-272 is more important than it might seem on the surface. It is not just about fixing a device in the kitchen, a phone, or any other electronic device. It is much more complex than that. It is about hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country that are at risk.

It is also about public safety, because many devices continue to be used improperly or are tinkered with and not fixed correctly because of not having a good third-party that is actually responsible in getting the proper parts, services and information from the supplier. As well, environmentally, it would very much be an improvement, because we would extend the lifespan of things.

Again, I congratulate the member for putting this bill forward. I really appreciate it.

Industry, Science and Technology

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much of the House's time. All hon. members have had an opportunity to hear an important story that took place surrounding the subject matter of Bill C-273.

I became involved in this issue a number of years ago when a couple of constituents who owned repair shops told me about the movement that was happening and that they were very concerned about what was coming down the pipe.

As has been explained, this is a matter of competition and competition is a good thing. Competition means that people have choices and it also ensures that the purchase of goods or services is competitive and fair.

Automobiles have become more and more complicated to the point where independent auto repair shops were unable to provide the kind of service necessary for certain makes and models of cars simply because they required specialized tools, manuals and diagnostic equipment and training. This was just not possible and not really affordable.

It is interesting to note the parallel that is going on right now before the CRTC with regard to television and cable companies. The chair of the CRTC made an impassioned plea to the disagreeing parties and he basically asked them why they could not negotiate a way out of the problem. He asked them why they could not get together and deal with it. He was aware of both the issue and the problem.

The parallel is that the United States already has an arrangement between the major automobile manufacturers and the repair shops to provide the resources necessary for those businesses to continue to operate.

What we have now is basically an arrangement, and it is one of the reasons why this bill does not have to proceed. Repair shops and manufactures have come to a voluntary agreement and this agreement is in the public interest.

This issue caused members of Parliament to inform themselves, to meet with the automobile industry and the manufacturing industry, and to consult with the repair shops to determine what was going to happen.

One of the reasons I took a particular interest in this issue is because it was clear that business opportunities for independent repair shops was going to be contracted as a result of cars becoming more complicated. That meant people were going to be put out of business and families would have to find other ways to provide for themselves.

This issue became a consequence of a technological change. After warranty issues disappear, cars are lasting much longer, and there needs to be an alternative because if there is no competitive environment it means that consumers can be at risk.

A good thing has happened here. The subject matter has been discussed by Parliament under the proxy of this bill. The bill wanted something else, but ultimately the same result came out, and that is a good thing.

I am a big fan of private members' business. I know that the member for Windsor West has worked on this bill very diligently. I know he is pleased with what he has been able to bring to the table and send a message that one way or another we can make things happen here. It is always better if the parties who have a competing interest can see that there is a way for mutual benefit and that the public interest can be served at the same time. That is a good outcome no matter what we are talking about.

I want to congratulate the member for Windsor West. It has been a long-standing problem to resolve, and I think that the resolution is appropriate. The House should be proud of its participation in resolving an important issue in regard to a certain segment of our economy. To the extent that a small segment is a little bit more stable, a little more secure, then so is our country. Congratulations to the member.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to this seventh report. It seeks to stop the process regarding Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which was put together by the member for Windsor West. Essentially, the bill sought to provide a real balance in the market place, provide information to independent repair facilities, and help Canadian consumers.

I know that a number of the other speakers have already spoken to the incredible diligence and energy of the member for Windsor West. He has done Canadians a fantastic service by conceiving the bill. Primarily, he understood that there was a problem and that the problem was not only becoming a bigger challenge for independent repair facilities but resulting in higher costs to consumers.

The member for Windsor West got to work and drafted the bill, even before people were really aware of the growing extent of the problem. Over the past couple of years, he pushed ahead with the bill so that it could come forward to Parliament. In doing so, he was able to provide the incentive to have the industry resolve the issue.

On May 1, 2010, as a result of the efforts by the member for Windsor West, we will be in a situation where the information is going to be provided to independent repair facilities. Costs will inevitably come down as a result. I would like to add my own bouquet to the many flowers that have been tossed in the direction of the member for Windsor West. He is a member of Parliament who has truly shown what honesty, hard work and diligence in advocating on behalf of his constituents and Canadians right across the country can result in. He is a real model for all of us. I cannot stress that enough.

The member for Windsor West came to my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster with his family. Terry, Alex and Wade are fully supportive of everything that the member for Windsor West has done. They came to my riding. We held a press conference at the Market Crossing Canadian Tire. As was mentioned by the member for Windsor West just a few moments ago, Mario Schuchardt, the manager of that Canadian Tire, was kind enough to open up his facility so that we could do that press conference.

The reaction from people in my riding and right across the lower mainland of British Columbia was strongly in favour of the legislation and the change. There was no doubt. It was essentially a no-brainer. People saw that there was a problem. People saw that the member for Windsor West was bringing a solution. People from my constituency and throughout the lower mainland of British Columbia supported the bill.

Why did they support it? It is very simple. In this case, it is just one more example of an NDP MP helping to make the market work. We are not those kinds of individuals who believe in blind adherence to market forces. We want to see the market work in a very effective way. That happens when information is shared freely and when consumers are not put in a bind or given a limited number of choices. There are very clearly cases when the public sector is an important alternative. We strongly support a public sector.

However, when we are talking about a situation like this that is driven by market forces, the information has to be made available. New Democrats stand up to ensure that information is available, to ensure that consumers have choices, and to ensure that we do not see the kind of imposition that we sometimes do. In this case, the bill sought to provide that information to independent repair facilities.

An increasing number of vehicles were subject to the onboard diagnostic analysis. As a result, the withholding of the information from independent repair facilities limited the number of places to which a consumer could go. That inevitably results in higher prices. When the independent repair facility right next door does not have access to the information needed to repair a vehicle, that not only means that consumers have to go further afield but it means that they have a limited number of choices.

We are talking about licensed mechanics who have the ability to repair automobiles, the ones people trust in their neighbourhoods. The ones who provide support in the community are there but people cannot go to them because increasingly we are seeing a situation where the diagnostic information and software was not made available even though the repair facility was trying to get it. This is obviously a problem, a problem for community businesses and, unfortunately, a real problem for consumers.

The member for Windsor West saw that situation and wanted to ensure that Canadian consumers had more money in their pockets, particularly at a time when most Canadian families have been earning less over the last 20 years. Under NAFTA, the free trade agreement, and various right wing economic policies, we have seen that most Canadians are earning less.

The member for Windsor West wanted to ensure that families were not being gouged. He put forward the bill and that really galvanized the industry sector, to its credit, to take action. The agreement, CASIS, the Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard, would not be before us without the bill by the member for Windsor West.

We have to be very clear about this. There would not be the stipulation that by May 1, 2010, the software has to be provided to independent repair facilities. This was the catalyst and motivation to push the industry to come up with standards and the agreement.

Now we have a situation where independent repair facilities and original equipment manufacturers are together, with a dispute resolution component and process, that allows the industry sectors, the aftermarket and original manufacturers, to come together and resolve the difficulties. That is extremely important. What that means is over the next few months, by May 1, information will be available to independent repair facilities.

For Canadians it means that if Joe and Jill down the street purchase a new automobile, they can go to the independent repair facility they have been going to for many years. If Joe and Jill have been dealing with an independent repair facility for many years, they may have an arrangement with the facility that may cost them a lot less. That is all because of the work of the member for Windsor West.

We have here an effective resolution to a problem identified by a member of Parliament, the member for Windsor West, due to his own due diligence and hard work right across the country. I do not know how many cities he went to, dozens of them, to talk to independent repair facilities, to people who were impacted by this, and to consumer organizations.

Through his due diligence he has brought forward a bill that provoked action and in the end has resulted in a win-win situation, an agreement within the industry that gets the industry's act together, that ensures that information is not withheld, and an agreement that leads to lower prices with the competition that we certainly want to see in communities across the country.

What the member for Windsor West has done shows the very best in parliamentary action. A member of Parliament who was elected to represent his constituents saw a problem that could be resolved through action. He took that action, did the drafting, educated the public and the media, and ensured people were aware of the extent of the growing problem at that time. Through his persistence, diligence, stubbornness and hard work resolved that issue for Canadians. It is the very best in parliamentary action.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-273.

The auto sector is an essential part of the Canadian economy. It has created hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs for Canadians and has fuelled the growth and prosperity of cities and towns across the country. The automotive repair and services sector has certainly played a large role in contributing to our prosperity as well.

The automotive repair and services sector encompasses non-warranty activities related to automotive repair, which includes autobody and collision service. The activities are performed at over 30,000 establishments located at car dealerships, independent garages, specialty shops and branded retail outlets.

However, as I am sure all of us in the House are aware, the technology that goes into automobiles today is becoming increasingly sophisticated. In order to repair and service newer vehicles, there are highly specialized and specific tools that require technical training and diagnostic information. As these vehicles become more complex, aftermarket repair shops have become increasingly frustrated as the latest repair information was not always readily or easily accessible.

In search of a solution to this problem, the hon. member for Windsor West brought forward Bill C-273, a private member's bill that would legislate auto manufacturers to make information and tools for the repair of vehicles available to independent aftermarket repair and service facilities.

While the federal government supported the notion that all aftermarket service providers should have access to diagnostic information on the fleet of vehicles on Canada's roads and highways, we certainly prefer the voluntary approach recently agreed to by the automotive industry over the legislative approach that Bill C-273 proposed. Therefore, we agreed with the industry committee's decision to adopt the motion of the hon. member for Windsor West last month that Bill C-273 need not proceed any further.

The voluntary approach agreed to by the auto industry, which I referred to earlier, is known as the Canadian Automotive Service Industry Standard, or CASIS. It is a voluntary accord in which vehicle manufacturers have agreed to make information and tools for the repair of vehicles available to independent service and repair facilities.

This voluntary agreement is consistent with the spirit and intent of the instructions provided by the Minister of Industry when he wrote to officials of the automotive sector on April 14. In that letter, he expressed his desire to resolve the right to repair issue and stated the government's support for an industry-led voluntary solution, fashioned after the U.S. agreement, which would satisfy the needs of the Canadian after-market auto repair industry.

One primary benefit to a voluntary system, in addition to keeping government out of telling business owners how to run their affairs, is that it would do more to harmonize our approach with the approach taken in the U.S.

On September 29, the Minister of Industry participated in the signing ceremony of CASIS between the National Automotive Trades Association, or NATA, the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada. Things are moving very quickly on the implementation of this agreement.

The Automotive Industries Association of Canada, or AIA, has since stated their intent to enter into the agreement as a full partner. Each of the automakers have committed to implementing the terms specified in the agreement by May 1, 2010.

CASIS is modelled after the standard established and currently operating in the United States, known as the National Automotive Service Task Force. The National Automotive Service Task Force was the model of choice because it has a proven track record, having now been in operation for more than 10 years. All repair and service shops, regardless of association, will be able to access available repair and service information provided they commit to the provisions of CASIS and make the necessary investments in equipment, tools and training.

While CASIS is modelled after the American version of the voluntary agreement, it is actually broader in its application than its U.S. counterpart because it includes collision and glass aspects of repair service.

CASIS will see the creation of an associations' working group that will monitor the implementation and ongoing effectiveness of the agreement to ensure continued industry support. As part of the agreement, any unresolved issues will be taken directly to the automaker, an approach that is both co-operative and aimed at resolving issues quickly.

This agreement will pave the way for Canadian independent service and repair providers to access emissions and non-emissions related service information, diagnostic tools and training information. It will continue to protect the intellectual property rights of car companies while addressing implementation issues and technical challenges as vehicles evolve and become increasingly complex.

Since this is a national initiative, the accord will be operational in the entire Canadian marketplace for all companies in the automotive aftermarket. It is an agreement that is fair to the repair and service sector, it allows for choice for consumers, and it is industry-led, a great combination.

I want to thank some people as well. I want to thank the National Automotive Trade Association and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada, the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, and their member companies for their diligent efforts to arrive at this agreement and for their commitment to implement this agreement quickly.

The hon. member for Windsor West should also be commended for his determination to see the issue resolved. He originally introduced Bill C-273 in the previous parliamentary session on April 17, 2007, when it was known as Bill C-425. His initial decision more than two and a half years ago to put this issue in the spotlight has played a large role in getting us to where we are today and his efforts should be recognize.

I would like to close by noting that automakers are now working hard toward meeting their commitment to have CASIS fully implemented by May 1, 2010. Let us offer them our support, while recognizing that we have had a full debate on all of these matters and that our way forward is to allow the voluntary agreement to take hold. We should be proud of the fact that we have all worked together to achieve these positive outcomes for all stakeholders, including consumers and all members of this chamber.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in support of this motion.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, the chair of the industry committee. It is important for people to know that our committee, not only on this bill, is an example of the parliamentary process for a number of different reasons. The first and foremost reason is that the chair provides a fair and balanced approach, which is appreciated for many other pieces of legislation, as well as this one.

I would also like to thank the member for Saint John who just spoke. It is important to recognize that when this bill went through its first vote in the House of Commons, it passed with a margin of 248 in favour. I thank all those members who considered the importance of this bill, and that is critical.

I would also like to thank the parliamentary secretary, the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, because this has been very much a challenging issue. I have spent three years on this bill trying to get a result, hopefully, for Canadians. If it had not been for working through problems, I do not think we would actually see a solution, which is now the CASIS agreement. As noted earlier, this is a provision that is new to Canada, which is something important to recognize. It has been available in the United States. The Americans actually have a different system. They have a system that is a national automotive service task force but it is backstopped by legislation.

I believe, though, that this bill is no longer necessary because there has been an agreement reached by all parties involved and I believe there will be enough public pressure on that.

I also would recognize that the current Minister of Industry and the previous minister of industry took interest in this, and I thank them both for doing so, to ensure Canadian consumers are protected.

I do want to impress upon people the importance of this bill in terms of what it means. It is important not just in terms of competition but it means a cleaner environment and it means public safety.

What was happening in our country is that we were literally being treated as a colony in many respects. We were being treated differently from the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions where new technology relating to onboard diagnostics, computerization literally of the automobile, was not being successfully passed on to the aftermarket industry. The end result was that Canadians could not get the best service or the most competitive prices.

What it meant for many of these aftermarket garages, many of which I visited across the country over a number of years, is that we would see technicians in Canada, who were better trained than those in the United States, who could not successfully repair vehicles because they could not download a program, for example, which is a real quick and easy thing to do. They wanted to pay for it and wanted to ensure it was done within the law but at the same time they were not provided it.

Meanwhile, the people in Windsor, Ontario, where I am from, could drive their cars over to Detroit, Michigan and get the same type of service from somebody less trained because the information was being provided by that company. Quite frankly, there were some companies that were better than others. General Motors is better, in general, about providing this information. Ford has recently released more of its information to comply with the spirit of the agreement which comes into effect later on, but will roll out, I hope, a very successful program. I believe the minister in this Parliament will have a due diligence to ensure that Canadians are treated fairly past the date of this bill.

When we look at the aftermarket, it is important to recognize its significance. This concerns over 200,000 jobs in Canada. I come from the auto sector. In terms of the auto industry, and Windsor being the auto capital of Canada, a bill like this would be seen with some type of curiosity. People may wonder why the member who represents the area of the auto market would bring in a bill that some of the auto companies were very opposed to. The reason is that after we sat down and started talking to some of these small shop owners and to the consumers, we saw what was going to take place. We were going to lose some very successful businesses across this country and we were going to see people even in the rural areas having to drive hundreds of kilometres further to get their vehicles serviced because of unfair competition, in my perspective, with the unavailability of codes, training and diagnostic equipment that was being provided in other nations across the globe, and particularly the United States, our neighbour.

That is why I introduced the bill and I would like to thank my family for putting up with travelling across the country to promote this.

I think of the people who have been part of this, and first and foremost are Nancy and Roger Suranyi of Namao Automotive who live just outside of Edmonton. I had a chance to really see the spirit of what was happening. They could not provide the same services they once did. Their facility was as clean as a whistle and their technicians were very well trained. It had been a family business for many years but they were slowly losing business related to the aftermarket. They could not get the same codes and equipment that were available before. In looking around the facility, not only did we see vehicles that needed repair but we also saw other vehicles, like a school bus, an ambulance and other types of service vehicles. I saw them in Windsor as well when I went to visit John Sawatsky of MSJ Automotive. We would have our Windsor police cruisers and ambulances in there.

The loss of this other business puts these businesses at risk and, subsequently, the service of other types of fleets of vehicles that we need a strong aftermarket for because they are not serviced through the normal dealership associations that are available.

That is why I introduced a bill in the previous Parliament which, at that time, was Bill C-425 and now it is Bill C-273 in this Parliament. It was fortunate enough to be selected high on the order paper.

It has been a great experience because I have learned more about Canadian business and the spirit of competition through this process than I ever thought I would. I would like to thank my staff who put up with this as well: Mohammed Pierre, Melanie Namespetra, Darlene Dunn Mahler, Karen Boise and Kieren MacKenzie, and all the volunteers we have because we really worked with a team. This took a lot of extra resources. Without their constant support, I would not have been able to go across the country.

I think about people I met, like Art Wilderman from the Canadian Independent Automotive Association, Bento from Toronto, John Strickey of Midas Auto Service in Halifax, Ron Jones of Mid-Island Automotive in Nanaimo and Mario Schuchardt of Canadian Tire in Burnaby. Those people often represented people who did not have a voice in the previous process. The aftermarket association had been advocating for a change for many years and, in my opinion, there had not been the respect paid to the industry that was necessary. Hence, the legislation was seen as the alternative because they could not go any further.

I also would like to thank a number of people from AIA: John Cochrane, Larry Goudge, Marc Brazeau, Deborah Moynes-Keshen, Mireille Schippers, Patty Kettles, Christine Farquharson and Scott Smith who I particularly want to recognize because he worked diligently on this bill and spent a lot of time away from his family. Also from the association were John Watt, Brad Morris and Mauro Cifelli.

It was an interesting group to work with because we saw medium and small businesses that banded together to bring forth an issue.

What we get with this agreement, the Canadian automotive service information standard, is a voluntary agreement that I am hoping the minister will keep a strong eye on. I am sure it will come to fruition. There will now be a process in place for the disbursement of the information, the codes, the technical information for the equipment, as well as the training capability.

It is very important that we recognize that none of this is to be provided for free. What they are asking for is the right to compete and that is why the bill has come forward. There is now a process in place to regulate the actual advancement of the codes, the training and the technology. There is also a dispute mechanism if there is a problem with regard to the releasing of that.

It is also important to note that it will no longer be a dog's breakfast in terms of which company will provide information and when. There would be a process in place for fair competition for all Canadians, which is good for public safety, for the environment and for consumers to choose the right to repair.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-273 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

Before I begin, I want to thank the hon. member for Windsor West for presenting this legislation, which seeks to promote competition in the automobile maintenance sector, so that Quebeckers and Canadians can enjoy affordable, accessible and quality services.

When a member tables a private member's bill and invests time and efforts in it, it is always nice to see that things can be changed. In this case, some actions were taken. The parties involved came to agreement, which means that this bill is no longer necessary.

In recent months, many if not all members of Parliament have received emails and letters asking them to either support Bill C-273, or oppose it. Personally, I received numerous representations from independent repair shops, dealers, associations and officials representing the various stakeholders.

On September 29, an agreement was reached on the maintenance of motor vehicles between the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada, the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian auto repair and maintenance industry. This agreement means, for all intents and purposes, the death of Bill C-273. I am using the word “death”, but we could also talk about a “happy event”, since an agreement was reached between the parties involved.

Even though Bill C-273 did not go further in the changes that it proposed, it was still a step in the right direction.

This is why, during its review by the Standing Committee on Industry, the main witnesses were pleased to see that the agreement essentially put an end to Bill C-273.

I am convinced that the pressure resulting from the introduction of Bill C-273 and its review in committee helped negotiate a quick solution. Since a similar voluntary program has been in place in the United States for the past few years, it was probably just a matter of time before an agreement would be reached here.

During my speech at second reading, I explained why the Bloc Québécois supported this legislation. I am going to quickly explain our position on this issue.

More and more, vehicles require electronic diagnostic tools. As a result, independent repair shops in more remote regions do not have access to the information needed for proper maintenance and repairs to vehicles. People who live in rural areas must travel great distances to have their vehicles serviced and repaired.

The bill would allow repair facilities in the regions to service vehicles for Quebeckers and Canadians in the very communities where they live. It would also allow consumers to go to the repair shop of their choice.

Neighbourhood garages in all regions of Quebec and Canada are important. Two of the largest replacement parts distributors, NAPA and Uni-Select, are located in Quebec. Together, they employ hundreds of Quebeckers in a Montreal plant, and they rely on neighbourhood and rural garages.

We think that the agreement and the forthcoming discussions among the parties will help protect jobs.

It is clear that this agreement among the parties will give consumers more flexibility in choosing the businesses they want to maintain and repair their vehicles. Auto makers want consumers to keep doing business with them. The Bloc Québécois believes that vehicle owners should have the right to choose their own mechanic.

During my previous speech on the subject, I asked why the solution we are talking about today had not already been implemented. For several years now, the United States has been considering legislation that would establish a policy similar to what we are debating today. They implemented a voluntary system that enables anyone to access the information for a fee.

In closing, I would like to thank all of the groups and stakeholders who appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology for sharing their point of view with us.

Providing vehicle maintenance and repair technicians with access to the information and tools they need will improve the vehicle repair and maintenance market. Businesses will benefit from healthy competition and consumers in Quebec and Canada will benefit too.

I will close by saying that we support this motion. Once again, we are pleased to see that the parties to these talks have reached an agreement that will be good for consumers.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to address Bill C-273.

I am pleased to speak to the motion regarding the recommendation not to proceed with Bill C-273, the right to repair bill, which was proposed by my NDP colleague the member for Windsor West.

I want to commend the member for Windsor West for having proposed the bill. It is not easy for members of the House to successfully propose legislative changes that will better the lives of Canadians and Canada. It is rare for a private member's bill to be adopted by the House and even rarer for that bill to be adopted by the Senate and to receive royal assent. In effect, that is what has happened here.

The bill has been successful because of the adoption of the Canadian Automotive Service Industry Standard by automotive stakeholders. It is precisely because the purpose of the bill has been effected that the bill will not go any further in the parliamentary process. For that I want to commend the member for Windsor West.

In proposing the bill last spring, the member for Windsor West really forced auto sector stakeholders to recognize that they had to change. Those auto sector stakeholders realized that if they could not come together voluntarily to improve access to information and technologies that would allow independent repair shops to fix late model vehicles, then they would be forced to legislatively.

As a result of this realization, the stakeholders worked through the summer to resolve their differences and at the end of the summer they arrived at a voluntary agreement that was satisfactory to all parties involved. This voluntary agreement would not have happened had this private member's bill not been tabled in the House and had it not gone to committee.

The agreement, which is called the Canadian Automotive Service Industry Standard, or CASIS, is a voluntary agreement that was negotiated by vehicle manufacturers along with other stakeholders. It will make information and tools for the repair of vehicles available to independent repair shops on the same basis that brand name auto dealers have had for some time now.

Before I talk about the specifics of this voluntary agreement, let me first talk about the important role that the auto sector plays in the Canadian economy.

In 2008 there were 14 large scale passenger and commercial vehicle assembly plants which assembled more than two million vehicles in Canada. To put that in a North American context, this year North Americans are expected to purchase somewhere in the range of 10 million vehicles or so. Clearly, we have a significant portion of vehicle assembly in North America, close to 20%.

These 14 plants, which assembled these two million vehicles, represented 12% of our overall manufacturing output and 18% of our manufactured exports.

The sector directly employs 140,000 Canadians and another 230,000 Canadians are employed in the aftermarket sector. In addition, 30,000 Canadians are employed in the service and repair industry.

In 2008 the average life of a vehicle on the road was eight years. It is estimated that over the course of an average vehicle's life, $14,000 in repairs and service would be required. By 2010, it is estimated that this overall market in Canada will be $19.2 billion. That is a big market.

Because the aftermarket repairs and service is such an important part of the Canadian economy, the government is pleased to see that the automotive sector, that is the automakers on the one hand and the aftermarket repair and service sector on the other hand, come together to sign on to CASIS.

Before CASIS was agreed to some independent automotive service and repair shops expressed concern that they were not always able to provide service to their customers because they lacked the information, the tools, the software and training required to accurately perform the diagnostic and repair services so often required on today's computer controlled vehicles.

Under this voluntary agreement, all repair and service shops will be able to access repair and service information provided they do two things: first, they commit to the provisions of CASIS; and second, they make the necessary investments in equipment, tools and training.

This voluntary agreement is consistent with the spirit and intent of the instructions that were provided by the Minister of Industry when he wrote to officials in the automotive sector on April 14 of this year. In that letter he expressed a desire to resolve the right to repair issue and stated the government's support for an industry-led voluntary solution, fashioned after the U.S. agreement, which would satisfy the needs of Canadian automotive auto repair companies.

In the United States, vehicle manufacturers in the aftermarket industry worked together to develop a national automotive service task force, a voluntary agreement that has been in place for more than a decade. The benefits of the Canadian agreement is that it will foster greater competition by giving automotive consumers greater choice on where they get their vehicles repaired.

While we have supported the intent of my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-273, we believe that a voluntary agreement negotiated by the private sector is superior to government regulation and are pleased that the committee and the member has agreed to this as well.

Let me finish by thanking all the people who worked so hard to get this agreement in place, the people at the National Automotive Trades Association, the people at the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, the people at the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada, and all their member companies. I also want to recognize the Automotive Industries Association, AIA, for its persistence in bringing this matter to the attention of parliamentarians. I want to recognize the Minister of Industry for using this private member's bill to convince all the stakeholders involved to come to a voluntary agreement.

Finally, I want to recognize and thank the member for Windsor West who recognized the significance of this issue, introduced a bill that brought the issue to the forefront, and resolved the issue in the industry. Without him, none of this would have happened.

Competition is essential to the functioning of the marketplace. The Canadian automotive service industry standard agreement enhances competition by providing automotive consumers with a greater degree of choice about where they fix their vehicles. That is why I will support this voluntary agreement and that is why I support this motion not to proceed any further with Bill C-273.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(2) the motion to concur in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (right to repair)) presented on Monday, November 2, 2009 is deemed to be proposed.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to inform the House that under the provisions of Standing Order 97.1(2), I am designating Tuesday, November 17, 2009 as the day fixed for the consideration of the motion to concur in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. The report contains a recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (right to repair).

The one hour debate on the motion will be held immediately after the usual private members' business hour, after which the House will proceed to the adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Industry, Science and Technology

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology concerning the study of Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

[David Adams]

Maybe I should let Matt take it first, in terms of the state of the industry. Whether domestic or international, all vehicle manufacturers have been impacted by the current state of the economy and of the industry, as you've highlighted. It's important to highlight too that we're not talking about all vehicle manufacturers giving something up. As has been highlighted in the testimony, probably about half of the vehicle manufacturers were already making this information available and doing so willingly. That speaks to the fact that when an individual company comes to this country as a new distributor, for instance, they structure their business affairs in the way they think makes the most sense for their effectively and efficiently serving their customers. At the end of the day, that's what it's all about. Some of them have done this by making the information broadly available; others by saying that they'd like to have the consumer come back to their dealership.

In terms of the balance you spoke to, one of the things we wanted to ensure was that the manufacturers' intellectual property was respected in the agreement, and from our perspective, that wasn't the case under Bill C-273. We think we've put a box around this under the agreement and that the balance exists there. I think all of us here agree that all we wanted to do was make sure that the information necessary to repair and service vehicles is available to the aftermarket. As for the intellectual property to reverse-engineer parts and do other things to improve the performance of vehicles, as Mr. Valeriote mentioned, nobody should have any interest in that, in taking vehicles out of compliance.

All we want to do is make sure that the information is there to repair and service vehicles, and we think we've struck the balance between respecting the manufacturers' intellectual property and ensuring that the information is available.

[Scott Smith]

If I could just add to that a little bit, Bill C-273 has broad-based language specifically because it's legislation. We wouldn't know what the specific differences are between Bill C-273 and the agreement until the regulations are put in place. That being said, the agreement is voluntary; it doesn't require a hammer of legislation because it's voluntary. That's the fundamental difference. This piece of legislation will have an enforcement aspect to it; the agreement doesn't have an enforcement aspect to it. They're expected to work together.

[Dale Finch]

From our perspective at NATA, there are a couple of areas we're concerned with.

First, Bill C-273 refers to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA. Traditionally, CEPA is an area first of provincial jurisdiction, unless the federal minister can demonstrate why there should be an intervention. We feel this could very well lead to the provinces challenging the agreement, and as that is being sorted out, it could drag the service and repair industry into a period of years during which we couldn't get that information.

It also uses the Competition Bureau as a sort of policing agency, and that, in our belief, is not exactly what the Competition Bureau is charged with. This again can lead to confusion and a period of no information.

And today it is so important, especially in collision and glass repair, because a brand-new vehicle could be involved in an accident immediately. Without that information, the car has to go back to the dealership. In some cases that can be many thousands of miles, even, that the vehicle has to be put on a tow truck.

So it's imperative to us. We see that a period of wrangling over whose jurisdiction it is will create that problem; that's from NATA's position.

[David Adams, President, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada]

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you very much for the invitation to appear before the committee today to review Bill C-273.

My name is David Adams, and I'm the president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada. Our association represents 14 member companies, which sell over 51% of the vehicles in Canada and 64% of the passenger cars in Canada. They are responsible for about 77,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada.

The problem with going last in a panel on which people are all saying pretty much the same thing is that much of what is in my presentation has already been said. With that in mind, I'm going to make my remarks brief, because I think the real benefit will come from the questioning from the members.

I have a few points I wish to make, though, if I could, with respect to Bill C-273 and CASIS. I think it's important for committee members to understand that at the time Bill C-273 was introduced by Mr. Masse, on January 27, 2009, and when the House of Commons passed second reading of the bill by a vote of 248 to 17 on May 13 of this year, there was no other option, besides legislation, that existed to address the issue of aftermarket access to vehicle manufacturer service and repair information. At that point, all any of you would have been aware of was that AIAMC, CVMA, and NATA had signed a letter of intent, dated May 1, that, in effect, represented a promise to develop and then implement an agreement among the vehicle manufacturers on the aftermarket.

Where are we today? Simply put, today there is a viable option to legislation--CASIS--which had not been developed when the House of Commons last dealt with this issue. All stakeholders now see the merit of proceeding with an agreement that the industry developed itself, without the need for government intervention.

While access to service and repair information has never been a consumer protection issue, as some have characterized it, consumers do stand to benefit from the CASIS agreement. CASIS will allow independent repair and service providers to conduct all repairs, which will decrease the amount of time a consumer's vehicle will spend in the shop. And consumers will enjoy greater opportunity to have their vehicles serviced at more locations.

CASIS will be fully implemented on May 1, 2010. In the interim, we have populated the task force and subcommittees that will govern the implementation and administration of the CASIS agreement with senior executives from the vehicle manufacturers. The CASIS parties have also invited the director general of the automotive and transportation industries branch at Industry Canada to sit as an observer on the task force to ensure transparency and accountability, which is important to the parties and to you, as members of Parliament.

Additionally, we have met with groups and organizations that had previously supported Bill C-273 to ensure that they were aware of CASIS and its goals and objectives. Overall, these organizations have been supportive of CASIS and have viewed it as a viable alternative to legislation. Importantly, we have met with the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, CADA, which has lobbied members on the issue of access to service and repair information from a slightly different angle. CADA is fully supportive of the CASIS agreement.

So where are we going? We're moving forward collectively and constructively with the implementation of CASIS. We have spent a significant amount of time and effort putting together an agreement that all stakeholders now believe is the most effective means of addressing the issue of automotive aftermarket access to vehicle manufacturer service and repair information. We do not anticipate making any changes to the agreement until experience after implementation dictates that the agreement needs to be amended. Our agreement has provisions for amending it in a fashion that is straightforward and is much simpler than amending legislation.

The three CASIS parties have also laid out a process for bringing the AIA into CASIS as a full partner. My presentation, which you will receive a copy of eventually, in both official languages, outlines a number of the concerns and issues we have with Bill C-273. For the sake of time, I'm not going to deal with those unless the committee wants to delve into those concerns.

In summary, the members of the AIAMC believe that Bill C-273 is not only unworkable, it cannot even be reasonably amended into legislation that will provide the automotive aftermarket with the same access to service and repair information as the CASIS agreement will provide. The development of CASIS is the first step. Implementation in May 2010 is the next step. Garnering real life experience with the agreement following implementation is the most appropriate way of dealing with this issue.

Clearly, if the industry cannot collectively manage the issue of providing service and repair information, training information, and tooling and equipment to the automotive aftermarket, then government intervention is one possible alternative.

To consider legislation, especially bad legislation at this point, is to put the cart before the horse. We therefore make the following recommendations.

In recognition that the CASIS agreement has been signed among the aftermarket and the vehicle manufacturers, effectively resolving all the issues that gave rise to Bill C-273, and Bill C-425 before it, we recommend to the committee that the bill be referred back to the House of Commons with a recommendation from this committee not to proceed with the bill.

In recognition of the provision for government to monitor the ongoing work of the task force in both implementing and administering the CASIS on a go-forward basis, we recommend that this committee recommend to the House of Commons that the CASIS agreement is the most effective tool to address the issues of the automotive aftermarket access to service and repair information.

Mr. Masse has stated in regard to Bill C-273, that he bill ensures a level playing field and creates the mechanism for disclosure”. We do not believe Bill C-273 could achieve that goal. However, we do believe that goal has been achieved through the CASIS.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

[Mathew Wilson, Director, Consumer and Industry Affairs, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for having us here today.

I'll discuss our opinion of Bill C-273 a little, but will talk a bit more about the CASIS itself and why we view the voluntary solution as being the best approach for our industry at this time and moving forward.

Since 1926, CVMA has represented Canada's leading automobile manufacturers and sellers across Canada. Today our members include Chrysler, Ford, GM, and Navistar, who collectively have over 40 Canadian vehicle parts, manufacturing, head office, sales, and distribution facilities, over 1,000 dealers across Canada, and significant research and development facilities and programs in Canada. Most importantly, they directly support about 75,000 Canadian employees and retirees and additional hundreds of thousands of families through their extended supply chain across the country.

The issue of right to repair has had a difficult history in our industry and our association. Historically, we have always been advised by our members to remove ourselves from discussion on the subject because of concerns over impropriety under the Competition Act, something we always take very seriously. Furthermore, some of our member companies have historically provided the information being requested on this issue, while others did not. There was never a consensus on an approach—something that, in an association, is critical.

While everyone shared the joint concern over the necessity to protect their own corporate intellectual property as well as the rights of their franchise dealers, at the same time it was recognized that over 65% of all vehicle service and repair was being done through independent repair shops.

Given this background, September 29 marked an important date for our association and for our industry as a whole. As you have heard from the co-presenters so far, the announcement of the CASIS signalled the end of roughly six months of intense negotiations on the industry-led solution that results in all auto makers in Canada providing Canadian independent service and repair providers access to emission- and non-emission-related service information, diagnostic tools, and training information by no later than May 1, 2010. This was delivered as promised to the minister and to each of you in our original letter of intent dated May 1, 2009.

While we are now focused on the implementation of the CASIS, we must consider why we are here today and why we are confident that CASIS is the right solution for our industry.

Firstly, Mr. Masse, you are to be congratulated for your efforts in promoting the concerns and interests of Canadian consumers. It was the original purpose of Bill C-273, as you pointed out, to provide increased information, so that consumers had increased choice in auto repair in Canada. The industry itself used this as the basis for the development of CASIS. It was also the legislation, along with Mr. Clement's writing to all of our member companies and associations requesting an industry-led solution, that led us here today. Without both of these actions, we would not be focused on implementing the agreement as the industry-led solution to this challenge today.

Aside from the similarities of intent, however, we saw several challenges with the draft bill, and we saw an opportunity, with the minister's direction and the support of many in this committee and other members of Parliament, to negotiate and implement a voluntary solution.

Based on our members' and industry's strong history of pragmatism in designing and implementing industry-led agreements, we firmly believed that in this instance an industry-led solution could be successfully developed to accomplish a shared, desired outcome, while at the same time avoiding possible legal challenges, to the benefit of the industry and Canadian consumers.

We have included for your information a long list of the industry's voluntary actions over the last couple of decades. They cover a wide range of issues, including vehicle safety, vehicle emissions, fuel efficiency, and general consumer, environmental, and industry issues. These actions were typically implemented to either take the place of regulations or legislation or as a stop-gap measure to assist governments while regulations were being developed.

For example, in response to a 1989 letter from the Minister of Transport, manufacturers voluntarily began installing airbags in Canadian vehicles on the same timetable as in the U.S., in the absence of any Canadian regulatory framework.

Another example of consumer protections is from the early 1990s, when vehicle manufacturers, the Ontario government, and consumer groups established an Ontario motor vehicle arbitration plan, or OMVAP, to provide a fast, free arbitration program for consumers who felt that their new vehicle warranties were not being honoured. This program negated the need for provincial “lemon laws”, which are popular but very problematic in the U.S. Due to its success, OMVAP evolved into a nation-wide program called CAMVAP, which has the support of all governments across the country.

We have also created industry-only agreements similar to this one, such as the national automobile dealer arbitration program, or NADAP, under which the industry—manufacturers and dealers together—can independently settle disputes regarding dealer franchise issues.

Regardless of the structure of the arrangement, our history in this regard has always been that through a constructive partnership and cooperation we can effectively address public policy goals together through industry-led agreements. In every instance, our members and our sector as a whole have either met or exceeded the commitments made and agreed to.

But let's go back to CASIS. In the U.S., the auto industry went through a similar process by creating an industry-led solution to the challenge of right to repair through the establishment of NASTF, as you've already heard. The history with NASTF is similar to the history with previous Canadian industry-led solutions. It has successfully created a spirit of cooperation and partnership between OEMs and the aftermarket that has provided independent service and repair shops with the information they require to fix vehicles, while allowing OEMs to protect their intellectual property rights and the rights of their franchise dealers. This is why, when crafting the CASIS, NASTF was the primary model: we knew it would work.

Now that CASIS is signed, we are aggressively working on the implementation of the agreement, with a target date, as mentioned, of May 1, 2010, for full implementation by all auto manufacturers across Canada.

Part of this implementation will include clarifying the intentions of the parties to the agreement, should questions arise. One specific issue that was brought to our attention after the signing of the CASIS was the use of the term “engine calibrations”. Due to the language borrowed from the NASTF agreement, at first glance it appears that engine calibrations are excluded from the provisions under the agreement; however, it was only our intent to protect intellectual property of the OEMs and not to restrict access to the information actually necessary to fix vehicles. To resolve this misunderstanding, the CASIS task force has already issued an interpretation guideline, which has fully clarified the issue to the satisfaction of all groups. A copy of this guideline has also been given to you in your information package, for your reference.

However, the details aren't what's really important. What's important to note with this guideline is that an industry-led solution such as the CASIS has a significant advantage over other processes in being able to quickly address concerns that arise from the industry, to the mutual benefit and satisfaction of all parties. The CASIS provides this framework of understanding and intent, which can provide us flexibility moving forward, if other issues and concerns arise within the industry.

The members of the CBMA are fully supportive of the CASIS and its content and have confirmed, in a letter to the Minister of Industry, their intention to abide by the terms and conditions spelled out in the agreement. Again a copy of these letters has been submitted to the committee for your information.

Our members have a successful history in using agreements such as the CASIS and, like other manufacturers operating in Canada, have committed themselves to ensuring that this agreement is a success. In light of the CASIS, our positive history of voluntary agreements, and the progress of the industry since the current legislation was referred to this committee, the CBMA, on behalf of its members, is recommending that the agreement be given the opportunity it deserves to succeed and that Bill C-273 not proceed any further.

Thank you again for the invitation to be here. I look forward to the discussion.