44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 3, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, today I rise in this chamber to debate Bill C-56, which would make several important and timely amendments to the Competition Act. A stronger competition framework is good for all Canadians, ensuring that companies are playing fairly, preserving opportunities for new firms to enter the market and ensuring that consumers benefit from more and better choices in the marketplace.
The bill includes three significant changes to the Competition Act: one, the ability for the Competition Bureau to compel information during a market study; two, the abolition of the efficiencies defence from merger review; and finally, the enabling of the review of agreements between any two parties when the agreement is designed to limit competition. These three important amendments stem from the government's extensive consultations, which took place over the last several months. These measures and others like them have widespread support, particularly from Canadians and small businesses. They reflect the concerns raised and respond to the pleas of many stakeholders from a wide variety of backgrounds.
The Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has released a report on what it heard during its consultations. I strongly recommend that all my colleagues review it to gain an understanding of the stakes involved and learn about some of the issues under consideration as the government takes the next steps.
With that in mind, I would like to share some of what stakeholders had to say in support of the measures that ended up in this bill.
Regarding market studies, the consultation drew a significant number of comments on the importance of knowing how our markets function. The majority of stakeholders felt that the Competition Bureau needed access to the best information and that this was the norm in most other countries. The Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project, a think tank dedicated to Canadian competition policy, stated that the lack of formal bureau powers in this area cripples its ability to understand new and emerging markets. It makes the bureau less able to assess if its enforcement decisions have had the desired impact.
OpenMedia, a consumer organization dedicated to an open and free Internet, stressed the need for the bureau to have the power to proactively study new and emerging markets. In markets especially fraught with high levels of concentration, serious and persistent problems need to be detected in order to be tackled.
The importance of a competitive freight transport sector to bring goods to Canadians was driven home during the COVID-19 pandemic and the supply chain difficulties that it brought. A joint submission by the Freight Management Association of Canada and numerous producers and shippers who rely on our transportation infrastructure also came out in favour of a framework for market studies. They highlighted that the international nature of ocean shipping means national authorities need to be even more vigilant in monitoring the behaviour of the companies at their ports. Data collection systems are integral to assessing the impact on Canadian trade and business, and the bureau needs to be able to collect information outside of an enforcement context to properly detect problems.
The Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a national public policy think tank, probably familiar to many members of Parliament, explains how an expanded information-collection power should be supported by traditionalists and reformers alike and serves to fill other information gaps that hinder government.
There was also a wide call for appropriate safeguards attached to market studies. The Canadian Bar Association asked that information requests be subject to judicial authorization and open to challenge by the parties, while the Business Council of Canada insisted that if studies were to be introduced, there must be time limits on their duration and that the responsible minister should provide approval to launch such a study. These guardrails are all provided for in the proposed approach outlined in Bill C-56.
Now I would like to turn to another amendment to the Competition Act, which relates to the efficiencies defence. Long before the public consultation, the Competition Act's efficiencies exception has been a focus of commentary. This provision allows anti-competitive mergers to survive challenge if they generate corporate efficiencies that are said to outweigh competitive harm, even if consumers pay the price.
There was no shortage of submissions to the consultation on this particular topic. It is the area of concern that received the most engagement, with a strong majority supporting its abolition. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a national not-for-profit organization that promotes inclusive decision-making and protection of consumer interests, explained how the original policy intent of creating internationally competitive companies had not been met. It felt that the efficiencies defence has, in fact, served to protect domestic companies from competition, at consumers' expense. The Centre for International Governance Innovation has also come out against the efficiencies defence, which it sees as a mistaken attempt to bring more predictability to the law.
Abolishing the defence is the right thing to do in recognition of the increasing concentration of multiple industries across Canada, as well as the corresponding decrease in competition. These factors create a significant drag on the real efficiency of our marketplaces, and the productivity and international competitiveness of our economy.
Unifor, Canada's largest private sector union, explains how the efficiencies generated are often only passed on to the shareholders at the direct expense of laid-off workers. The cost savings of efficiencies come from a decrease in personnel, resulting in a less competitive industry that can more easily capture value for those at the top.
Moreover, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union and L'Union des producteurs agricoles, all key players in Canada's food procurement and supply chain, have come out in favour of the abolition of the efficiencies defence as well. Their reasons include a skepticism of the ability for efficiencies to overcome anti-competitive effects and their significant contribution to the ease of unfavourable acquisitions in Canada.
Lastly, I wanted to talk about collaborations as another topic this bill addresses. The consultations also raised the question of whether the bureau should be able to review collaborations between non-competing entities when they harm competition. Currently, the law addresses only agreements or arrangements formed between real or potential competitors, and Bill C-56 would expand that in some circumstances. A majority of those who commented on the matter supported broadening the law.
The Consumers Council of Canada felt that the exclusion of certain agreements from reviewability renders the bureau unable to deal with real competition issues. They explain how commercial relationships established with good intentions by both sides can still lead to unanticipated and unintended consequences, and the bureau should not leave it up to businesses to decide—
1123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers has stressed that restrictive covenants in lease or purchase agreements, a form of vertical restraint that is not currently reviewable as a competitor collaboration under the Competition Act, have a serious impact on the food supply for a significant number of Canadian communities. The International Center for Law & Economics also agreed that collaborations between any two actors have the possibility of harming competition, and that the Competition Act should not be limited arbitrarily in the sorts of agreements that it can review.
In conclusion, the consultation process revealed many significant areas of concern for our Competition Act, informed by each stakeholder's unique perspective and valuable insight into the Canadian economy. The proposals that the government has chosen to advance were chosen to carefully target the most critical issues impacting affordability for Canadians in the near term and were informed by the inputs of a variety of actors.
These three reforms represent much-needed updates to the Competition Act. They allow the Competition Bureau to better serve its mandate and will help make Canada a better place to live and do business. I hope all members will join me in supporting this bill's speedy passage.
205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it was good to see my hon. colleague out in Oshawa this weekend as well. We share an interest in fighting homelessness and solving the affordable housing challenges that Canadians find themselves in.
Our government, unlike previous Conservative governments, has made a historic investment, through the national housing strategy, of $82 billion, which has repaired units, built new units and lifted many people out of homelessness across Canada. That is work that is still under way. There is still money rolling out for those investments through the rapid housing initiative, and we have since added measures on.
Bill C-56 would add a new measure, and would be to lift GST for rental construction, which is itself anticipated to help create or unlock 200,000 to 300,000 more units of affordable housing for Canadians.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for helping me find an audience for my speech.
I do not think that these are token measures, and adding 200,000 to 300,000 units of affordable housing or rental construction units is not a small feat. It is a significant amount, and we can couple that with the $82 billion in the national housing strategy and the housing accelerator fund dollars, which are speeding up the process for municipalities to help lead the way on building more affordable housing. I think that these things are, in total, going to help create a more comprehensive approach to solving the housing affordability issues that we have.
There is much more opportunity and additional measures to consider, and I hope to undertake those conversations and listen to the ideas of my colleagues across the way.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I support the fact that the Competition Bureau's powers needed to be amended and strengthened so that it can undertake market studies and look at mergers that may not be in the best interest of Canadians or in the best interest of a competitive marketplace, which is specifically what Bill C-56 aims to do.
It is outlined in the work that we did when I was on the agriculture and agri-food committee. The Competition Bureau clearly cited in its recent report on grocery price inflation just how limited some of its powers were and how much that inhibited its ability to come to conclusions. I think these powers are a great addition.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member opposite and I served on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, so he knows we have some disagreements on this.
The Bank of Canada Governor recently said that carbon pricing contributed 0.15% to inflation. That is equivalent to about 15¢ on a $100 grocery bill. The European Central Bank has estimated that climate change contributes as much as 3% to the cost of food per year globally, which is three dollars on a $100 grocery bill. This means that climate change has 20 times the influence that the carbon price has on food prices.
If the member opposite really wants to fight inflation and is serious about it, then why does his party not have a plan to fight climate change?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
