An Act to amend the Competition Act (vehicle repair)


Brian Masse  NDP

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)


Outside the Order of Precedence (a private member's bill that hasn't yet won the draw that determines which private member's bills can be debated), as of Feb. 4, 2022

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-231.


This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment amends the Competition Act to authorize the Competition Tribunal, if certain criteria are met, to make an order requiring a vehicle manufacturer to provide an independent vehicle repair provider with access to diagnostic and repair information as well as to service parts on the same terms and in the same manner as the manufacturer makes the information and parts available to repair providers who are specifically authorized by the manufacturer to service their vehicles.


All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

December 5th, 2022 / 12:20 p.m.
See context

Chair, Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada

Catherine Lovrics

Again, I think the Copyright Act may not actually be the mechanism that will achieve that. The reality is that the Copyright Act deals with rules against circumvention of TPMs.

There are things like Bill C-231, which is an act to amend the Competition Act and focuses on making diagnostic information available as well as diagnostic tools. If you look to the U.S., there's a model right to repair act, which, I think, was the act you were referring to in New York as well as Massachusetts.

That type of a framework is outside of the scope of copyright. That's the punchline there. It's not under this umbrella.

October 31st, 2022 / 12:25 p.m.
See context

Senior Director of Government Relations, Automotive Industries Association of Canada

Alana Baker

Sure. We believe there are some amendments that can be made to this bill, Bill C-244, that would strengthen its intention. That would truly pave the way for the right to repair in Canada. Parallel changes to the Competition Act would help to reinforce the manufacturer's requirement to allow access to diagnostic and repair information, which would address some of the systemic issues around data ownership and allow our small and medium-sized businesses to truly compete.

We did see Bill C-231, which was brought forward by MP Brian Masse. I want to thank Mr. Masse for bringing this bill forward in February 2022. That bill contains a number of amendments to the Competition Act that would help to access the data. In particular, we are proposing a new section be added after section 75 of the Competition Act, proposed section75.1, “Vehicles—Access to Information and Service Parts”. I would be happy to provide members of the committee with the specific text after the presentation today.

Royal Recommendation for Bill C-237Points of OrderGovernment Orders

March 1st, 2022 / 5:10 p.m.
See context


Louis Plamondon Bloc Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Yesterday evening, Monday, February 28, the Speaker said:

I would encourage members who would like to make arguments regarding the requirement for a royal recommendation with respect to [Bill] do so at an early opportunity.

I am rising on a point of order this evening in relation to that.

I admit that I was surprised by this statement. Royal recommendation is the mechanism by which a private member's bill cannot have any financial implications unless it is recommended by the Crown.

Financial implications refers to both new expenditures and reallocation of funds for other purposes. Bill C-237, which I am introducing, does not do either.

In my view, it is clear that Bill C-237 does not require a royal recommendation and has the potential to be voted on by the House at all stages and implemented, for the following five reasons.

First, it does not require any new spending.

Second, it does not change the transfer amounts, nor does it change the names of the beneficiaries or how the funding is allocated to them.

Third, it does not change the purpose of the transfer. The Canada health transfer will still be dedicated to paying for health care. The same goes for other transfers that are allocated to a province if it has “a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program”.

Fourth, it does not force the executive's hand, which retains the latitude and margin of appreciation required to transfer the funds. That prerogative remains in place. The executive will decide whether the province has a comparable program and will determine whether the province is complying with the conditions in the Canada Health Act.

Finally, precedents are on my side. There have been many bills that have changed the normative framework without any financial implications. I actually found 31 bills that amend the Canada Health Act, and not one required a royal recommendation.

For all these reasons, I believe that Bill C‑237 does not require a royal recommendation.

Let us examine it in detail. Bill C‑237 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in two ways.

It provides all interested provinces with the opportunity to opt out of a federal program that falls under the legislative authority of the provinces. In that case, the government can pay the province a transfer equivalent to the contribution that it would have received had it not withdrawn. This means that it is an equal amount or a zero sum.

The bill adds that the government will only pay the contribution if the province “has a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program”. In short, the purpose of the transfer does not change either.

This mechanism is quite similar to the one that exists in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, for example. If a province has its own program and withdraws from the federal program, it receives the same transfer that it would have received had it not withdrawn.

The transfer is unconditional and goes into the province's consolidated revenue fund, but only if it has a comparable program. It is up to the minister to determine whether it has a comparable program.

Without any conditions on how the province runs the program, the transfer still serves the same purpose, which is to ensure that students can access financial assistance.

This same principle is in Bill C-237, which I introduced. It does not change the amounts or recipients, the distribution of the amounts among them, or the purpose of the transfer. It simply reduces federal control over the management of provincial programs in the provinces' own jurisdictions. Again, this is about provincial management of provincial programs. That is the only thing that is impacted here, and it has little to do with the prerogative of the federal Crown.

Bill C‑237 proposes a second amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, this one just for Quebec. The federal government has announced that it plans to set conditions applicable to long-term care facilities and retirement homes. I assume that they will be included in the Canada Health Act, since long-term care facilities fall under the definition of “extended health care services” in the act.

Since Quebec was the only one to object, Bill C-231 would exempt Quebec, and only Quebec, from the Canada Health Act, much like the proposal by my colleague from Montcalm to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in his Bill C-226 in the 43rd Parliament, which did not require a royal recommendation.

The Canada Health Act does not have financial implications per se. It sets out a normative framework, five principles for the government to consider in the Canada health transfer, which is provided for in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. It is the latter act that has financial implications.

My bill, Bill C‑237, does not change the purpose of the Canada health transfer. It does not change the purpose of the transfer defined in section 24(b) of the fiscal arrangements act as “contributing to providing the best possible health care system for Canadians and to making information about the health care system available to Canadians”. Bill C‑237 does not change this section of the act, which sets out the purpose of the transfer.

Under the Canada Health Act, the government is responsible for determining whether the provinces are in compliance. In Bill C‑237, the government determines whether the province has “a program whose objectives are comparable”. Personally, I would have preferred not to include that clause in Bill C‑237, but I realized that this would have changed the purpose of the transfers and could therefore have required a royal recommendation.

Bill C‑237 has no financial implications in terms of the amounts, their destination, their purpose or the general conditions. Only specific conditions in the Canada Health Act are affected.

Madam Speaker, I hear a lot of noise in the House and I am having a hard time delivering my speech.

February 7th, 2022 / 4 p.m.
See context


Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Absolutely. You can't keep up on every file, but this one is sticking. There was a previous project that also stuck in their craw, so to speak, so I appreciate that answer and look forward to that.

I've been pushing for reciprocity for electric vehicle incentives. They went ahead with this. The government had a positive response to that.

I want to shift to another issue that might be related to our trade with EV vehicles. I tabled Bill C-231, which is about the right to repair on the automotive aftermarket. The U.S. is looking at this. If we were to have regulations with regard to aftermarket access to EV vehicles to make sure they're repaired, and the U.S. is doing the same, is that something the government would look into as having that type of reciprocity? It's similar to what we do with bumpers and a whole series of things for product safety and consumer rights.

My original bill in the House of Commons passed as a voluntary agreement, which is in place today, but it didn't have the digital component to it. In the past, Canadians couldn't get the same access to American markets. Will your government at least look into this to ensure that Canadians have the same type of access to fix their electric vehicles that Americans have?

Competition ActRoutine Proceedings

February 4th, 2022 / 12:10 p.m.
See context


Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-231, An Act to amend the Competition Act (vehicle repair).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a bill I think all members of Parliament will support, similar to what has happened in the past. I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his help on this issue for the last number of years.

This bill would do three major things. The first is that it would amend the Competition Act to authorize the Competition Tribunal to make an order requiring vehicle manufacturers to provide independent repair shops access to diagnostic and repair information and to service parts on the same terms and manner as the manufacturers make that information and those parts available to their own authorized repair providers.

Second, it would update the voluntary agreement that is still in place since 2009 in my original legislation to include the rights of digital software that will cover future innovations and technologies as we move to zero-emission vehicle standards in electric vehicles.

Lastly, and most importantly, it would ensure consumers have the right to choose where they get their vehicles fixed, help the environment by making sure vehicles with emissions are stronger and also cleaner, and be good for public safety as vehicles on the road would be repaired, in order and in the best condition possible.

I look forward to this legislation hopefully having the same fate as my previous attempt, which resulted in Parliament acting on this important issue.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)