44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 20, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is great to see that marriage counselling is working, as we have a motion being debated today that brings one bill from the Liberals and another bill from the NDP. They are literally coming together on paper, but I hate to break it to them that the motion, the bill, is weak.
In short, of course, we have agreed to some of the changes being brought through: the market powers, that the maximum of fixed penalty amounts for abuse of dominance be increased, and that we ensure that the legal test for abuse of dominant prohibition orders be significantly met. We have agreed to those, but none of this is going to lower grocery prices today.
Government members sitting across us argue, for some reason, that we are holding this up, when we have been emphatic in trying to push it forward. The main part of this that a member brought up, the efficiencies defence, was actually my idea that I brought to the House at first reading in June. Conservatives have been trying to change competition and the Competition Act. We are here today debating the merits of competition as a whole, but certainly the bill is weak; it would not change competition. We want to see courage. Canadians are paying the highest fees in the world right now for groceries, airlines, cellphones and bank fees. It is only courage to change the entire Competition Act that would actually change the way the country views and approaches competition.
For the benefit of Canadians listening at home, when we look at the Competition Bureau, we must think of it as the police force, as a law enforcement agency. It is tasked under the laws given by this place to go out and enforce the rules in order to do two things only: to stop the abusive nature of big, bossy, dominant companies and to ensure that small, competitive players that want to enter the market can do so in a fair and equitable way. The price that Canadians pay for goods and services is through a strong, competitive market. Canadians are paying the highest prices in the world for some of the most dominant markets in the world. If we look at the main difference between American and Canadian competition laws, the competition laws in the U.S. ask whether the consumer is better off. In Canada, they ask only one thing: Is the company better off?
After eight years, Canadians are paying some of the highest fees in the world for airlines, credit card fees, bank fees and groceries. It is only now, after eight years and after we have seen some of the highest inflation rates in the last 40 years, that Canadians are seeing that all of these prices are too much and that competition is, of course, laying down its head in front of Canadians and in front of this place. If Canadian companies were part of a board game, that game would be the Canadian game of Monopoly. Kids hate this game. They take their dice, roll them and land on RBC, Scotiabank, Rogers, Telus, Air Canada and WestJet. They roll it and land on Ambev or Molson Coors brewery. Every time they pass “GO”, they lose $200. When it comes to kids playing this game, they go bankrupt very easily. It is because the game of Monopoly is flawed, and the game of Monopoly results in Canadians' losing every single time.
After eight years of the government, the competition laws it is trying to make are not going to be the ones we need. They are not brave enough and they are not strong enough. Canadians would be still paying the highest fees for almost everything in their lives.
Before I finish, I want to move an amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting after (c)(ii)(B) the following:
"and that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours each."
692 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear the member talking about competition again. At the end of the day, there are a lot of different problems with our Competition Act. Number one is abuse of dominance by large, bossy monopolies and corporations. Number two is that we just cannot get companies to start up. The changes that the government has proposed will not do the things that need to be done to change the Competition Act for good, which is to stop the dominance and to ensure that start-ups can start up. We need to start starting instead of start stopping.
At the end of the day, we need to ensure that there is a brave new face and that there are changes to the Competition Act. Of course, we want the ministers at committee. We want to look at a lot of good amendments from our side of the House to make the Competition Act stronger. The act will not be stronger after this bill goes through.
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, even Adam Smith believed in regulations.
I want to talk about one thing to respond to that, and that will be the banking sector. We have a bill coming forward to open up banking as a whole for competition, and I hope the member across can support it. It is open banking, which would allow a provision that allows any major small competitor to enter the market, which is right now dominated by six oligopolies in the banking sector, controlling 93% of the banking aspects and 87% of mortgages. Open banking just changes the rules to allow that capital to be spread around. The capital is, of course, people's data and ensuring that other people can get their financial data and then bank them.
I am hoping the member can support that. We have a bill going forward to push through open banking and that would open up this monopolistic system in the banking sector.
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the efficiencies defence, which currently sits in the Competition Act, allows one company to merge with another, not because of dominance in market power. They look at it specifically, if one company is able to save money by merging with the other. Most times, that is job losses. The number one case that examined this was Superior Propane. It was the number one market share for propane and it merged with the number two market share. In the efficiencies defence, this anomaly that we had in the Canadian competition law, allowed those two companies to merge, even though they held over 85% of the market share. Of course, this was something that, when I introduced it in June, was low-hanging fruit. This needs to go and I think all parties in the House agree on that.
We can look at how we heat homes across the country right now. Of course, heating oil has had the carbon tax shaved off of it. Propane is what a lot of communities use to heat. That is something we should also see as not only the abuse of dominance of one company for the efficiencies defence, but we should also ensure that the carbon tax comes off propane as well.
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when it comes to promoting our democracy, the competition law has been around since the sixties, maybe even since 1911. We have not changed the Competition Act much since 1986. When it comes to looking at and debating competition, which is probably one of the top concerns, affordability for Canadians, we should be taking all the time we can in the House and in committee to ensure it is done right.
Paragraph (b) in the programming motion gives more power to the minister, which is not right. When we look at an arm's length institution, the Competition Bureau, which is supposed to act impartial from the government or free of political interference, the bill right now gives more power to the minister to have the power to interfere, and that is not right.
When it comes to start ups, Canada has 100,000 fewer entrepreneurs compared to 20 years ago. When we look at trying to ensure there is more competition in Canada and more entrance, we need more start ups. We need to start starting?
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to answer the member's first question, when we are looking at the success of Canadians and the success of Canadian families, we are looking at the GDP per capita. I think we can all agree on that. That means, what are we bringing home to create powerful paycheques for workers and Canadian families to ensure that, when we look at the highest inflation after eight years, Canadians are bringing more wealth home? I think we can agree that when we have competitors, small start ups or companies that are creating a value or a system of wealth for Canadians to buy and be competitive about, we are creating powerful paycheques. That is good for all those people.
When we look at competition as a whole, we need to ensure that we change the laws to ensure that big bossy conglomerates are not stopping the small competitors or small entrepreneurs from being able to start up in Canada and create those powerful paycheques. Of course, when they get bigger, a lot of times there are unions involved and great things for workers. We want to do all those things, but we have to change the Competition Act. We have to be brave in doing that. I hope the member can join me in ensuring we make real changes that change competition in Canada.
225 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
