Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to discuss the issue of the right to repair.
According to the provisions contained within the bill, automobile manufacturers who sell cars in Canada must provide unrestricted access to all the service and training information relating to its vehicles.
New vehicles are increasingly equipped with computer control systems and on board diagnostics making software more important than mechanical parts in later model vehicles. Independent or after market service providers are claiming that manufacturers provide more information to their dealerships which threatens the long-term competitiveness of the after market sector.
The manufacturers feel that some of the information that the after market industry demands is proprietary and that they already provide service and repair information for all but the newest of vehicles.
There are also a number of other issues with legislating that the information, tools and training be provided widely. Issues such as safety and security concerns, from anti-theft access key codes getting into the wrong hands to the possibility of knock-off parts being manufactured and sold, especially safety equipment like air bags and brake parts.
Furthermore, the bill provides an amendment to the Competition Act to add a definition of product in section 75. It says:
--to make it clear that that term includes technical information that is required by a person in order to provide a service to a customer. This ensures that the Competition Tribunal is able to require a supplier to provide this information to a customer in accordance with section 75 in cases where the supplier has previously refused to do so.
First off, while this bill is well intended, the provisions of the bill related to the Competition Act may not be necessary and may create negative, unintended consequences.
If the information, diagnostic tools and capabilities referred to in the bill are products; that is, goods or services actually exchanged for value or consideration, then they are already covered by the provisions of the Competition Act and no amendment is necessary.
If they are not products, the amendment would import an exception into the Competition Act that would undermine the key and widely accepted competition law concept of requiring a product in order to define a relative product market.
The issue that needs to be addressed is whether the instruments used in this bill are the appropriate ones and whether the legislation is the best approach. The provisions of the bill related to the Competition Act may not be necessary and may create negative, unintended consequences.
The government is very much concerned with consumers' best interests. The aims of the bill I believe have consumers' best interests in mind. However, it is not clear the instruments the bill intends to use are in the right direction.
We need to ask ourselves, under the current process, are consumers protected by allowing a free and competitive marketplace to operate? Competition is about consumers and when competition is present, consumers have choices.
With that in mind, the government has introduced reform to the Competition Act. The changes proposed will modernize the Competition Act, which has not been significantly changed for nearly a quarter century, and better protect Canadians from the harm caused by anti-competitive acts like price fixing and misleading advertising.
The reforms will promote an efficient marketplace by better protecting consumers, improving the competitiveness of Canadian businesses, and making Canada a more innovative and productive country. With this reform, the government will ensure that consumers' interests are respected and promoted. Canada's laws and policies must protect consumers and focus on delivering the benefits of economic competition to all Canadians.
Obviously, business benefits from a competitive environment. Vigorous competition creates efficiencies and successes. It improves productivity and the ability to take advantage of market opportunities whether at home or abroad.
The technology that goes into automobiles today is becoming increasingly more sophisticated.
The technology that goes into automobiles today is becoming increasingly more sophisticated. In order to repair and service newer vehicles, there are highly specialized and specific tools that require technical training and diagnostic information. Manufacturers also own proprietary software which is made available to their respective dealer networks. These dealerships in turn make significant investments to ensure their facilities have the modern capacity and the specialized tools to service these vehicles, and into staff and training.
Therefore, car company A's dealerships become experts on its vehicles, gained by its investments into the proprietary information tools and training from its parent manufacturer. The same goes with car company B on its own vehicles, and so on. Consumers have come to accept and expect this. Owners of car company A vehicles know that by going to the A dealerships, they are being serviced by an expert on these A vehicles.
It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for an independent after market business to have the updated information and training on every manufacturer's products or be able to make the appropriate investment to service all makes.
There is also a concern that by legislating access to this information, training and tools, consumers could automatically assume that all after market service providers are indeed experts on all makes. Respecting the legitimate property rights of manufacturers does not necessarily diminish competition or choice for consumers.
According to data shared by automotive consultant Dennis DesRosiers, new car dealerships have a 32% share of the parts and service marketplace. That means after market providers take a vast majority of the business. Consumers are also protected for new vehicles through the manufacturers' warranty. Typically, most repairs that fall under the warranty are done at the dealership.