Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the members of the committee for having us here today.
My name is Derek Willshire and I am the regional vice-president for Canada at LKQ. With me today is my colleague Tyler Blake Threadgill, who is the vice-president of government affairs in the United States.
We are sorry not to be testifying in person, but we are very pleased to present our views on this bill, which is crucial for LKQ. We will focus exclusively on the right to repair and the flaws in the bill. Regarding the amendments, please consult our written brief.
LKQ distributes high quality parts for automotive repairs, whether manufacturers' or other parts, and also offers complete diagnostic and calibration services in Canada and the United States. LKQ processes over 900,000 end-of-life vehicles a year in North America and is the largest vehicle recycler in the world.
In this great country, our company employs 1,175 people at 37 sites. Even so, our team represents only a small fraction of the 492,000 people working in the automotive aftermarket in Canada.
The problem is simple: vehicles are becoming increasingly interconnected and complex, and it has become more difficult for independent shops' to access diagnostic data. Manufacturers' refusal to disclose that data limits consumers' choice and increases their costs. Without concrete action, small businesses will find it hard to maintain vehicles, and this will reduce competition in Canada.
We welcome the government's renewed attention to improving the Competition Act, with Bill C‑59, but major flaws remain and require your attention.
We would like to draw your attention to the importance of improving the definition of "means of diagnosis or repair" to include maintenance and calibration of components. Unlike other legislation, Bill C‑59 does not expressly require manufacturers to provide the data needed for repairs.
As well, exceptions such as protection of trade secrets could prevent access to essential repair information. The limits on the tribunal's authority to order remedies could also exclude major players in the automobile aftermarket.
As a final point, Bill C‑59 makes the right of action available only to individuals, and this limits the effectiveness of enforcement measures. It is crucial that the ability to bring an action be extended to include actions by the commissioner of competition.
Consumers deserve a competitive market that gives them the ability to have their vehicle repaired by the repairer of their choice. While Bill C‑59 recognizes this problem, specific legislation is urgently needed to address it.
I will now give the floor to my colleague, Mr. Threadgill.
Thank you again.