Finance committee  I am avoiding the fact specifics of that particular case or example, in the sense that there are a number of important changes to the Competition Act that have been proposed—there's Bill C-56, which has received royal assent, and then again there are changes being proposed here through Bill C-59.

Finance committee  I think it's quite difficult to make the case that this would make the regime more or less strict. Because of the differences in the way the systems are established and the processes by which they operate, I think it's very difficult to say this would create a stricter system. The issue on productivity is perhaps a bit distinct from the question here in particular.

Finance committee  Indeed, there's a good, effective dialogue on policy and enforcement matters that we engage in routinely with our Competition Bureau colleagues. On these issues, we have had engagements and discussions, and it comes down to a very similar issue that we raised earlier. It's about where the appropriate balance point is between the ease of enforcement versus the compliance burden or the impacts to business.

Finance committee  I think it's not so much of a question of interoperability in this case from a technological perspective, or from a rules-based perspective, but it does speak to an inconsistency that could be created such that mergers that do not meet the threshold of creating a substantial lessening or prevention of competition could continue to move through because they could not necessarily be challenged by the commissioner in front of the tribunal.

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

Finance committee  On the issue of the trade secrets portion of the proposed amendment, there are some concerns that it could create some challenges. In the situation we're talking about here and with the way this is formulated, we understand it would essentially attempt to override existing intellectual property law to suggest that anything that is essential “diagnostic, maintenance, repair and calibration information” does not constitute a trade secret.

Finance committee  The concern with this scenario could be that a company feels emboldened to attempt to not provide some information. I think that's what this is attempting to get at—standing behind a trade secret as a reason for not providing the means for diagnosis or repair. Our assessment is that the bureau and, of course, the tribunal would be able to manage it, see through it and distinguish between the provision of the means for diagnosis and repair versus the revealing of information that goes behind the product itself.

Finance committee  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.

Finance committee  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.

Finance committee  I'm not sure I would agree that it would necessarily ameliorate the points we've raised here. It's quite true that the overall ambit or thrust of the proposed amendment, as we understand the commissioner of competition's point of view and as my colleague has already pointed out, is about shifting a bit of the burden.

Finance committee  We are aware of that, yes.

Finance committee  I would think it's unlikely to capture the Competition Bureau's attention at the national level, thinking about mom-and-pop shops—

Finance committee  It's a good question. There are probably two elements to how this might break down in practice. One the one hand, you could think about the risk of an enforcement action. However, even before you get to the risk of enforcement action, I think there's also the potential for a chilling effect, where businesses hear about the rule set, maybe understand to some degree or partially the rule set that's being imposed and feel it's too burdensome to take on the risk of advertising a sale that could be challenged.

Finance committee  I wouldn't have that figure to hand, but I would agree with the assertion that it's unlikely to be contested in that manner, which is why I pointed out that the other point worth noting here is that it does create a bit of uncertainty and could give pause to the—

Finance committee  My response earlier pointed to some of the features within the formulation here that might be challenging for a small business to interpret. In addition to that, obviously they would have to then maintain records of all goods sold over a period of time, as well as the pricing information that went along with that.