Evidence of meeting #40 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
President, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada
There may be a role for CAPC, but at this point I don't think either Mr. Wilson's association nor mine are members of CAPC. There are individual companies that are members of CAPC, but not the associations. That would have to be changed.
Director, Consumer and Industry Affairs, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
The other piece is that the CAPC was really focused on those manufacturing in Canada. So it has actually a fairly limited scope as to who is in CAPC. So you're right, there is a meeting on Friday. I'm not sure whether it's on the agenda formally or not, but I'm sure it will be raised, given who is in the room. It is important.
To your previous question, Mr. Masse, about folks pulling out, I wanted to mention that this is not the history we've seen. When companies say they're going to comply with something, especially when they write a letter to a minister and every MP saying they're going to do this, they tend not to pull out. Their history is very solid in this regard because they don't really like the repercussions that could come their way.
The other piece is that when an industry gets together and agrees to do something—and we have several times over history, especially between AIAMC and CVMA—there is a lot of peer pressure put on them. These are very competitive companies, and they don't like anyone to have even the slightest bit of competitive advantage in any part of the business. Whether or not it would create competitive advantage is beside the point. They want everyone playing by identical rules. I think it's important to note that the peer pressure that can be found amongst these manufacturers is pretty immense. Whether it's the current companies operating in Canada or possible new entrants, that's an important consideration that everyone takes into account.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Masse.
Mr. Bouchard, do you have a question?
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
We can see that some negotiating remains to be done amongst the parties. We can also see that the relationship between the parties is a positive one.
In the agreement, I noted that the manufacturers will set a reasonable cost for the sale of their information or their tools. Do you believe that this aspect might be the trickiest issue in the negotiations to come? I do not know if you get my full meaning when I say the reasonable cost that the manufacturer could command for the sale of information to repair shops.
President, Automotive Industries Association of Canada
I could perhaps answer this question and then invite my colleagues to comment.
AIA is pleased to see that there exists a sufficient precedent in the form of the cost structure already in place in the United States. There therefore is no real justification to move very much away from the existing structure. AIA does however hope that the agreement will respect the costs that are already set in the United States. We anticipate that this is the reference that the manufacturers will want to respect in order for the Canadian market to be similar to the American market with regard to information and the cost to access it.
As you mentioned, as far as the negotiations are concerned, in our view, the only thing that is missing is our signature. We wish to become partners to this agreement to then be able to sit on the committees that will be charged with establishing the costs. It is in this regard that we will be able to draw on the example of the United States in order to ensure that the agreement negotiated in Canada is similar to that of the United States.
President, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada
Forgive me, but I do not speak French.
I just want to clarify that there is a whole page in the agreement that specifies the criteria, the items that need to be taken into consideration when the price of the information is set by individual manufacturers. There are no grounds within the agreement to talk about price; that's completely outside of the agreement. I think competition law might have something to say if we got into price.
Contrary to what Mr. Brazeau said, the committees will not be dealing with prices that a manufacturer will charge. A series of criteria is laid out in the agreement that each manufacturer will have to abide by when setting the price it will sell--to anybody, really. The reality is that price might not be the same from manufacturer to manufacturer because of economies of scale and whatnot.
Executive Vice-President, National Automotive Trades Association
If I could add one piece, which is key, it was very important to Canadian industry that within the subscription price there be at least a minimum 24-hour subscription. That way the smaller repair facilities across the country could afford to get that information for an individual repair. The U.S. focused more on 30-day and year-long subscriptions. That was one thing the manufacturers agreed to here, which again we think is great news for consumers and the small repair facilities.
October 28th, 2009 / 4:50 p.m.
Director, Consumer and Industry Affairs, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
I have one small comment on the negotiations. The agreement is set and we're not looking to open it. It is what it is. And as he commented, we're working with Mr. Brazeau on how we're going to work longer term with AIA and have them as full partners.
But there is one piece that is left to be negotiated. I think it's very important for everyone to recognize that, and when we've met with everyone we've always pointed it out. It's the piece specifically related to security-related information. It spells out very clearly that we don't have a solution to that, and we don't have a solution because we don't have any infrastructure in Canada. They have infrastructure in the U.S., and they've created a side agreement. It took them four years to develop a side agreement after NASTF was introduced.
I think it's very important for everyone to understand that this is something left to be discussed. But whether it was a legislated solution or the industry-led action, we'd still have the same holes. We just don't have the infrastructure in Canada, such as a locksmiths' association nationally, where you could actually make sure the companies you're giving the security-related information to are legitimate and are not trying to steal a bunch of vehicles, which is what the information would allow them to do.
I want to be clear with the committee that this is outstanding. But we're working on it, and we will work to get this resolved very quickly.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you to all of our witnesses and to our members.
If there are no further questions or comments from members of the committee, we'll end our witness testimony here.
Thank you very much, Mr. Smith, Mr. Adams, Monsieur Brazeau, Mr. Finch, and Mr. Wilson, for your testimony.
We'll now go to the consideration of, as I understand it, a motion from Mr. Masse concerning this legislation.
Mr. Masse.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would move the following motion:
That the Committee, after conducting hearings on Bill C-273 (Right to Repair) and the Agreement respecting The Canadian Automotive Service Information Standard (CASIS) along with the commitments of all the organizations involved and in light of the evidence received by the committee, report to the House that Bill C-273 not proceed any further.
I would like to speak to this briefly.
Conservative
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I want to thank the committee for having the hearings and I want to thank all the members who have participated in this in the House of Commons. I think we have enough evidence here that we can try a voluntary agreement in Canada. But I want to put on the record, to make sure that all members feel assured, that we had this legislation vetted under the charter and as well through the House Commons, and it is valid and is something that could be implemented. To suggest that Canada couldn't implement legislation that is available in the United States and Europe through legislation is something that we would have to wrestle with should this agreement fail.
I would like to thank all the parties who have worked hard to bring us to this point and wish them well in the implementation.
I'm hoping that the government takes a good look at the process and continues to follow it. I understand that there will be some officials involved. I'm grateful for that element of watching it also, because it becomes incumbent upon us, if the problems re-emerge, because there are so many Canadians affected by this. It's not just the environment, public safety, and consumers, but also, lastly, the men and women who are service technicians and who have their jobs tied to this and have invested their lives to be in this profession.
With that, I thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.
I'll call the question. All those in favour of Mr. Masse's motion, please signify.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Masse's motion has been adopted and I will so report to the House.
As chair, I want to commend you, Mr. Masse, for your work in this regard. I think it's safe to say that without your work we would simply not have a voluntary agreement respecting the Canadian Automotive Service Information Standards. So congratulations on this and for your efforts.
I have one further point of information for the committee. At the next meeting, we will be reviewing, as we are required to do statutorily, the Canadian Business Corporations Act. Also at the next meeting we will plan our future business. Those are the two items for discussion at the next committee meeting, next Monday.
Without further ado, I thank you very much for attending.
This meeting is adjourned.