Industry Committee on May 13th, 2022

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

There's a constituent of mine in Halifax I've known for years and years. He has always worked on his own cars, going back to the Cutlasses from the seventies, and he is able to work on his own car less and less now. He did order something from Amazon in the United States. It's the thing that lets you read the codes on your car's computer. Where does that lead to? I don't know. Consumers, the guy in his driveway with one of those code readers trying to fix his own computerized car...? It probably doesn't lead to a good place. There's something that we need to change here.

If I have a minute still to go, Mr. Chair, I want to flip over to the trade agreements we have. I'll just stick with the United States for an example.

For some of the technological protection measures, the TPMs, that exist in these cars, the CUSMA, for example, has something to say about those. Here in Canada, we're trying to figure out something about the right to repair, but it's going to have implications on trade with the United States.

As we know, the trade issues are fraught with regard to the automobile industry. Do you have any reflections to share there about how we might navigate that trickiness?

[Jean-François Champagne]

I think, as we pointed out earlier, that we're a little behind. If you think about it from the perspective of the Americans, they already have right to repair legislation, which was extended to the connected car through the state of Massachusetts. They currently also have, at the federal level, the repair act, which specifically looks at right to repair for the automotive sector. It's in front of Congress, with bipartisan support.

If, in fact, we're going to continue to have good trade with our U.S. partners, we're going to also have to consider all of the current legislation tabled in the U.S., which is, again, ahead of Canada in that regard.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

It sounds as if you're holding the United States legislation up as an example for us to go by and look at.

[Jean-François Champagne]

Absolutely. Look at the state of Massachusetts, where there was a ballot measure adopted as part of the last federal election in the U.S. It got broad support from the population—again, 75%. All the counties throughout Massachusetts voted to extend the right to repair legislation in that state to the connected car. That's a good example to look at, definitely, but I would also encourage parliamentarians to look at the federal act currently tabled, the fair repair act.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you for that.

Is it safe to assume...?

Are we done, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, we're out of time, Mr. Fillmore. Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Lemire

Mr. Lemire, You have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the participants for their remarks.

Ms. Quaid, I think what you are doing is allowing us to think two or three moves ahead, the way people play a game of chess.

I'd also like to hear what you have to say about the consequences of inaction. There is a cost to inaction. How do you put a value on it? Do you have examples you can give the committee about such consequences, particularly for our companies, but also for Quebeckers and Canadians, for inaction on the Competition Act front?

[Dr. Jennifer Quaid]

It's hard for me to come up with a number. I'm a jurist, not someone who studies economic repercussions in any depth. It would be interesting to know.

One thing that's certain is that the more time goes by, the more we end up in a state of uncertainty because other countries are beginning to position themselves. Our position remains unclear. We can still catch up, but the United States is already far ahead of us.

We have increasing access to the whole world for business. That's true for SMEs and large corporations.

What's harming us in this context is the fact that we don't have any clear rules. For example, with respect to data management, what are the rules that govern access to personal data and the protection of privacy? What are the expectations with respect to abuses by those who have a dominant market position?

The more uncertainty continues, the more of an impact it will have on our companies to compete on an equal footing with their international peers. Inaction definitely has a cost, but I can't really assign a value to it as such. I don't think the problem is serious yet, but it's going to become serious.

When the Europeans adopted their privacy regulation, everyone said that it would be impossible and that no one would comply. But then all of a sudden, it has become the standard and the whole world is trying to catch up.

It would be unfortunate if we were to find ourselves in a situation where all major decisions were being made elsewhere and we simply had to cope with decisions made by others. That's my biggest fear.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Are you afraid of certain countries more than others?

[Dr. Jennifer Quaid]

It's not really that other countries are villains, but rather that they simply have different objectives. The Europeans have a particular view and their competition law serves their own markets and politics.

All the digital giants are American. The United States has to deal with that. Their competition regulation is not terrible, it's just poorly suited to us as a country with a relatively small population that is focused on international trade, although our SME sector is significant. We need to deal with our realities. I'm sorry not to be able to give you details, and I would have to do more research in order to be able to pass that information on to you.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

We will do some as well.

Thank you, Ms. Quaid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

For our final round of questions, I will now give the floor to Mr. Masse for two and a half minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The U.S. was brought up by Mr. Fillmore. It's important. That's what started my passion, over 12 years ago, for right to repair. It's because of the U.S. laws. I could get a vehicle fixed in the United States, but I couldn't get it fixed in my own country. They are looking at refining those elements.

As for the current voluntary agreement, is there any way to modernize it? The Liberals have a private member's bill regarding right to repair. The problem with it is that it's very wide. It's not necessarily a problem. It's the way it's structured, with each province having to decide its own fate on different things. For automotive, we want the same standards across the board, especially for manufacturing and so forth.

Is there any way to modernize the current agreement to strengthen it so you can opt out, and to provide the proper oversight to ensure it includes digital information, EVs and further enforcement?

[Jean-François Champagne]

I guess it would be hard to have a voluntary agreement that would say you can't opt out. The very nature of the voluntary agreement would make it so that if Tesla, with its very different business model, chose not to participate, then.... What we see in the future is that most of the new entrants in the EV space specifically are going to be non-traditional automakers who are not bound by the voluntary agreement. Their business model is very different. I think without legislation, we simply won't have compliance with those kinds of traditional voluntary agreements.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. I don't like being proven right, but we're kind of back at that spot. It's also a public safety thing. Now we're going to have vehicles that will be on the road longer, and more distances, that need upgrades and improvements. For some of them, as you mentioned, there are cameras and other things like that. They're actually co-piloted now by the entire operation.

[Steve Leal]

Listen, repairs are more complex. They're more computerized. You plug into these cars now and you need the access to the software and the data or you can't access what needs to be repaired on the vehicle. The data in the automotive sector, like I said, is going to become key for us in the future.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Brian.

That concludes our round of questions.

I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. It's been a very interesting meeting. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. I wish you all a great weekend.

Colleagues, before we adjourn, we have a bit of committee business to discuss. We've received an invitation from the finance committee to look at part 5, divisions 15, 16 and 17, of the BIA. We've had discussions, as Mr. Lemire brought up earlier in the meeting, amongst the different parties. I believe there is an agreement to dedicate next Friday's meeting to looking at these sections of the BIA.

I've consulted with the clerk as well to understand what the normal procedure is in such references from other committees. What I suggest is that I write a letter to the chair of the finance committee summarizing the testimony we hear in that meeting. If any members have specific recommendations they would like to add, I will add them in an annex to the letter I send to the finance committee chair.

Is that agreeable to all? That would be next Friday.

I see nodding at a distance in the room. That's great.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I may....

We are somewhat in the dark on the areas dealt with in these sections of the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No.1. I would therefore suggest at least two meetings to examine their study. If we can do it in a single meeting, so much the better, and we could always make adjustments as required. However, I think we need to give ourselves the latitude of two meetings. It is, after all, to study a bill and we are in the midst of discussions. We've seen how important this subject is. I therefore feel that it would not be a good idea to proceed too quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I understand your argument, Mr. Deltell. But our time is very limited. We will indeed hold two meetings next week, one of which will be on Tuesday. The witnesses have already been invited to this meeting and we don't have time to prepare for the Tuesday meeting. That would leave us next Friday to meet on the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1. My understanding is that an agreement had been reached through an exchange of text messages among the various parties to the effect that we should hold a meeting on Friday. We do in fact have to report back to the Standing Committee on Finance by May 27. So the only two meetings we have left are the ones next week.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

In that case, could we envisage meeting virtually during the week from our ridings?

We could do that anytime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Based on the discussions I've had, I don't think that the committee members are that keen on the idea of meeting, particularly as we have just sat for four weeks in a row. But if you want us to vote on that, we could do it. Other members might perhaps which wish to intervene on this.

As I mentioned, all MPs who wish to make recommendations can do so. This information would then be appended as required.

Mr. Fillmore.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Chair.

I appreciate very much Mr. Deltell's interest in doing a very good job. We're lucky. We all have wonderful colleagues on the finance committee who have this study very well in hand. I respect the work they do, and I know they will do a wonderful job. They'll be going through clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. We're certainly not being asked to shoulder the brunt of the BIA.

It has been a long four weeks, and I think many of us need to give some attention to our constituents next week. If we could please keep it to one meeting on Friday and manage from there, we could trust in our finance committee colleagues to do a really good job with the feedback that we give them from the one meeting of INDU.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Just very quickly, I'd support one meeting. It's also about interpretation and getting stuff going. It's short notice, so there are things going on, but I really appreciate the motion coming forward. It's actually responsible, and it's a good response to another committee.

That's just my take. Let's get this meeting done. I appreciate the argument for two, but given everything we're doing, let's just try to get one in. If we have to limit my time or whatever, I'll take a reduction if we need more time together to get some work done.