Finance Committee on April 30th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have NDP-8 on clause 237.

MP Davies, would you like to move your amendment?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

NDP-8 also closes an interpretive loophole in the Competition Act with respect to drip pricing provisions. This was recommended by the Competition Bureau in its testimony at committee.

In this case, drip pricing is the deceptive practice of omitting mandatory fees from advertised prices, thereby misrepresenting the total cost of goods and services.

I'm wondering if this is different from the one before. Maybe Mr. Turnbull understands it better than I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

We have looked at this, and we support it. I just want to get that out there early on. I don't think it needs to be debated; I think we've already had the debate on this.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm happy to just go to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clause 237 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 238 to 243 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 244)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Davies, would you like to move NDP-9?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

NDP-9 expands the Competition Tribunal's remedial authority in cases of refusal to deal. As it's currently drafted, Bill C-59 would allow the tribunal to:

order one or more suppliers of a product, including a means of diagnosis or repair, in a market to accept a person as a customer within a specified time on usual trade terms

The proposed amendment would allow the tribunal to “order one or more suppliers of a product, including a means of diagnosis or repair, in a market to accept a per—”

This is the additional part:

—son as a customer, or to make the means of diagnosis or repair available to a person, within a specified period and on the terms that the Tribunal considers appropriate

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

We're prepared to support this amendment.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we're going to NDP-10.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm not going to move that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That takes us to BQ-4.

Go ahead, Mr. Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My amendment is consistent with repairability rights. It would force producers of goods to provide parts suppliers or third parties with the necessary information, but nothing more, so that they can repair those goods.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

MP Hallan, go ahead and speak to this.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I want to get some clarification from the officials on this. During the new committee study of Bill C-244, the right to repair, and Bill C-294, the department raised some serious issues about the inclusion of diagnosis, maintaining and repairing and the right to repair as potentially being in violation of CUSMA.

Could the officials clarify a little more that we're not going to be looking at any trading conflicts with the U.S. in regard to this amendment or anything with the right to repair?

[Samir Chhabra]

The issue raised in C-244 and C-294 was related to the circumvention of technological protection measures. In the case of the United States, the approaches were different in terms of what cause or what rationale enables the circumvention of a technological production measure. That was the reason for the flag that was provided and raised at committee. In this instance, we do not see the same issue.

Perhaps my colleague is interested in jumping in with—

[Martin Simard]

It's very different.

You're right, it's different because it's not about the copyright sections of trade agreements; however, trade secrets are also covered by trade agreements. It is a good concern to raise in this committee as to the impact the proposal could have on trade.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I have a quick follow-up on that.

I want to make sure you guys are comfortable that there would not be any potential trade issues or issues with CUSMA because of this, specifically.

[Samir Chhabra]

The department's view of this provision and the additions being proposed—adding “maintenance” and “calibration”—is that they add further specificity but don't change the overall nature of the requirement. We've not identified, as a department, any issues with trade law or CUSMA.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Hallan.

Now we'll go to Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

My understanding of this amendment is that it seeks to strengthen the definition of “means of...repair” and includes “maintenance” and “calibration” as activities that are essential to the aftermarket repair of products.

I want to ask the officials whether the proposed change in part (a) of the amendment gives companies sufficient tools to effectively repair products in today's economy.

[Martin Simard]

We were conferring. Can you please repeat the question?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Sure. I want to know whether the proposed change in part (a) of the BQ-4 amendment, which adds, I believe, “maintenance” and “calibration” to the definition of “means of...repair”, gives companies sufficient tools to effectively repair products in today's economy.

[Samir Chhabra]

Our sense is that, yes, in fact it would provide that.