Publication Search

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for many repeat performances.

I think this issue really is, quite frankly, a matter of political will at this point. We've had a lot of evidence over the years presented to us.

I do want to go to the concerns that are being raised about USMCA or CUSMA or whatever you want to call it.

Ms. Stanley, walk us through what you would envision the process to be for Americans to take us to task if we pass this law.

We have lots of trade issues right now, but at the same time, they have massive subsidization and investments, and even further ones that will come in—like semiconductors and so forth—that are extra restrictions on production and access into Canada.

Let's go with the fear factor here in terms of what takes place for Canada if we pass a law like this, which obviously has protections that are different from those in the United States because of their system. It's similar to my former bill on the right to repair. It was the environmental assessment act on their side that actually made their manufacturers provide others with access to OEM materials for the aftermarket in the auto sector.

Walk us through what would happen.

I actually think it's a legal question. We constantly hear this. I think members at this point should be walked through it in terms of the process of the U.S.

Maybe you're not the best witness for this, so I don't expect that. Maybe we need a trade expert here at this point. We keep getting all this, yet we don't really have anything specific as consequences, other than straw examples or real, practical ones that you have brought that really point to specific legislation, so I don't want to put you in an unfair situation either.

No, no. It's very helpful.

I will wrap up here, Mr. Chair, as I know I'm running out of time.

Perhaps this committee needs some trade discussion with regard to this bill, because on this bill and others we have continually run into the accusations that we run up against USMCA or CUSMA or whatever you want to call it.

I'm very familiar with the process to go through it, but it seemed to scare us off from taking any action. Then at the same time, if that is true, perhaps we need some definitive understanding of the consequences and the process to make a political decision about a bill at this point in time, because I think we have heard enough testimony over the years.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lawford, we have a couple of bills in front of us right now. Do you have any suggestions in terms of prioritization or any thoughts of a greater reform that we might be looking at on this?

I have my own private member's legislation, but I've chosen another bill that's in the House. We have a tabled one on the auto sector on this as well. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are, because obviously there's a problem. Three different political parties and three bills coming forth on the subject matter are a strong indication that the status quo is not acceptable.

That was very good. I think I'm out of time, anyway, but that was very helpful.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Lawford.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Centivany, you gave a good example about the computers. You have three different systems that aren't able to talk to each other. Do you have another example that might be helpful for the committee? I think that's a really good one in terms of what we see in our daily lives. Do you have another one you can provide?

That's a really good one too. I think this also touches upon the environment. You literally have printers that are almost disposable in terms of economics, because for about the same price as cartridges, you could basically buy another printer and then have the cartridges included and so forth, so there's another level to this that I don't think we've gone into.

I know my time's up, but I think those practical examples are really good.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to MP Mazier for bringing this forward.

There are a couple of things to note.

With regard to the policy directive, you've highlighted a bit of it, but it really is subjective to any minister who provides that directive at any point in time and then to the interpretation of the CRTC. For such simple information that should be provided, I don't understand why it's difficult to get.

Maybe you can impress upon us the concerns about letting that vagrancy exist when, really, people should know what they're getting when they buy.

Part of this, we have to understand, is that, when you're making a purchase-point decision for higher speed, it could be because you make your living, for example, by moving information quickly and faster, and it's an investment. When you look at electronic gaming, it's a huge industry. In fact, there's a South Korean cabinet minister for just e-gaming alone, and people make a living from that. There are even college courses at St. Clair College here in Windsor and at other places, where they compete internationally and so on. You could even cross that into my area, the tool and die mould-making sector, and other places, where they want to purchase the best service possible for not only the business but also when they work from home.

Doesn't it seem like a counterproductive move to not allow people to have the right to be fully informed about how they want to invest and what they want to spend their money on?

I have another quick question.

The highlight is that the FCC.... This is interesting because I've often said that—as consumers—Canada is treated as a colony when it comes to some of the large corporations and the information that we get from the United States and other companies. When you look at the auto sector, we are actually in full regulation compliance with regard to safety, maintenance and emissions. At the same time, when there are recalls.... Some good examples are the Prius and Toyota recalls where the consumers benefited way more and they even had investment in their companies in the United States, because they were treated as a different element.

I don't understand why we would expect Canadians to have less, especially if the government is saying that we can't. With regard to Bill C-244, there were concerns over following CUSMA. In the meantime, we wouldn't have cross-comparison realities over here because it won't actually violate our trade obligations.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a quick question with regard to the frustration that consumers have. I don't know what's worse: understanding a car warranty, a life insurance policy or our Internet broadband service and phone service.

The process that is being proposed now is still going to have some more public components and involvement. Is that not correct? I just want to clarify that to ensure again that this is actually opening the door for more opportunities to understand the situation.

That's my last question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for coming back to committee.

I worked on the CASIS agreement. That was my original legislation here, on the aftermarket for the auto sector. It was a voluntary agreement that was put in place. One of the problems we have now is the digital component to it. It was expected to be a problem.

One of the arguments against this.... For those who aren't aware, the bill was to provide the proper tools, training, materials and software to the aftermarket to fix automobiles: It's a public safety issue, an environmental issue and consumer choice issue. It was argued that this would be actually out of NAFTA too. I worry about that type of reasoning, because the reality was that the U.S. actually could have better legislation, because their Environmental Protection Act, outside of our trade agreement, actually gave consumers in the United States a better choice.

I'm wondering what you think about that and whether or not there's the high degree of concern or what the concern is. We refer to it as the “Canada‑United States‑Mexico Agreement” here. They refer to it as the “U.S.‑Mexico‑Canada agreement”, because Mexico signed it before us. We actually had to go back and sign it a second time.

They also have the Buy American Act, which is restrictive for Canadian companies. We have the Buy American Act, the softwood lumber dispute, dairy.... Buy local is also used against Canadians in terms of procurement from municipalities. On procurement, the U.S. defence industry is notorious for that, and there's also bus manufacturing. They all have restrictions on Canadians.

I'm wondering what concerns you might have if this is going to be used—as I guess a trade argument—against Canada. I'm a little less skeptical of the reasons not to go forth with, I guess, comprehensive legislation, because I'll conclude with this: The problem in my legislation is that it resulted in a voluntary agreement after there was agreement with the government, but it now has to be revisited because it's basically out of date. We're back to square one in many respects.

I'll turn it over to you. I thank you for your efforts.

I think the point you're also making is about innovation and competitiveness. One of the first things I worked on here was with James Rajotte on this committee. It used to be allowable for companies to deduct environmental fines and penalties, and other malfeasance fines and penalties, as business-related expenses. We got that stopped.

It was unbelievable. It was like you were driving to work and got a ticket and you'd just claim, “Well, I had to get to work quicker, so I can write it off.” Drug companies were doing that—all kinds of different organizations. Some fines were up to $11 million.

At any rate, the point is that it took away from the good actors having to compete against the bad actors, who used that as a business-related expense for advantages.

My last question for you in regard to this is that this will have a chance to go through the Senate later. If, later on, there were an issue over trade agreements, that's going to get another analysis in the Senate that would be more robust. Perhaps it might give the government some backbone to deal with some of these other contentious issues that I listed with the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.