44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 2, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/2/24 12:21:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue debate on this very important private member's bill that deals with amending the Competition Act to address the woeful lack of competition in our country, particularly a growing lack of competition that has occurred after eight years under the Liberal government.
I was very disappointed to hear the previous Liberal speaker talk about how the Liberals intend to not support this legislation. They expect Canadians to trust them and trust that their legislation has all the solutions needed to solve the competition problems, but many of the competition problems, as I will show in my speech, have been caused by the amount of consolidation that has happened in the Canadian marketplace under eight years of the Liberal government.
For example, Canadians pay the highest cellphone bills in the developed world, three times more than Australians pay and twice as much as our neighbours in the United States. I remember how hard the previous Conservative government worked to bring new wireless players into the Canadian market to help bring down prices for Canadian consumers. All of this hard work was unravelled under the Liberal government with the merger of Rogers and Shaw, which eliminated a major new entrant into the market that was providing much-needed competition.
We can also look at our banking sector, which is extraordinarily controlled by six large banking firms, and we have seen yet another takeover in the banking sector that has further consolidated Canadians' mortgages under a relatively few number of very large companies. Finally, we can look at the amount of consolidation happening in our airline sector, with Canada being dominated by just two large airlines representing 85% of the market, and there are more mergers coming. The government is even going after some of the new players with tax bills that are threatening to take new players out of our airline market.
When the Liberal government came to power nearly a decade ago, Canadians had a choice of eight Canadian grocery chains and now, after eight years of the Liberal government, the market is dominated by just three Canadian companies and two American multinational corporations. These are not signs of a healthy, dynamic and competitive marketplace. They are signs of a country that has an outdated approach to competition. The reality is that this is a Canadian problem. While the Liberal government blames international trends for the increasing prices we are seeing at the grocery stores and on our cellphone bills, the fundamental problem is the lack of choice that Canadians have and it is forcing Canadians to pay more.
The Competition Act is in desperate need of reform. It is rooted in a history of an industrial policy that sought to protect large Canadian companies from foreign competition, but it does nothing to promote competition domestically. In fact, I am not sure if the goal of having these companies protected so that they can grow is being achieved in this country because they are so protected that we are not seeing the innovation we need in this country to really develop the next level of technologies and practices.
Canada's weak competition laws allow a very few cartels to dominate whole industries. They shut out competitors, they drive up profits and, in this process, consumers are the obvious victims. They pay more for goods and services, which are not always of the best quality. This lack of choice leaves Canadians with no other options.
This does not just affect consumers. Indeed, the impact of this failing Competition Act has immense consequences on small and medium-sized producers. I come from an area that has a lot of farmers. We know that these big companies dictate prices to these farmers, and that really has an impact on them as well.
My riding is also home to one of Canada's largest family-owned grocery chains, Freson Bros., which was founded in 1955. I am very proud that Freson Bros. is in my riding. It has a number of locations across Alberta. I believe it is the largest grocery store chain that is not part of the major grocery store chains in Canada. It is really known for its high-quality products. It has excellent butcher shops. It has its own brand of sourdough, which is listed in one of the bread museums in the world, I believe in Belgium. It has developed a made-in-Alberta sourdough bread. I am very proud of that. People can walk into any Freson Bros. location in Alberta and they will immediately sense the high standard of care and quality that it puts into all of its products. This is a great example of a made-in-Canada business that promotes excellence and craftsmanship in its field.
Sadly, many smaller companies like Freson Bros. face immense hurdles to participate in the market. This high concentration of control among the very large companies has entrenched players that have become price setters in the market. When the Loblaws and the Walmarts of the world dictate what the prices will be for the products on the shelves, it is the smaller players that end up holding the bag and paying higher prices.
Let us take Coca-Cola, for example. Loblaws controls 62% of the Canadian market for Coca-Cola. That means that Loblaws effectively determines what the price is, not only for consumers, but for what all the other smaller players and distributors are paying as well.
How can smaller companies compete with these tactics? The answer is that they cannot. In any grocery store aisle, we can be sure that the amount smaller grocery stores pay for items like soda and other products is higher than that paid by the major players. It is a huge competitive edge, and while it may save consumers a couple of cents at the stores, it comes at the cost of eliminating real competition that would create long-term better prices for consumers.
I would ask my colleagues in the government what happened to their concerns over the middle class and those working hard to join it. After eight years of the government's reckless spending and fiscal incompetence, we know for a fact that hard-working Canadians are worse off. They are taxed more than ever, and they are paying more for these basic goods and services that they need to live their lives. As we have seen, Canada's weak competition laws continue to serve the interests of the large, established players, to the detriment of new players.
I want to talk about one very specific aspect of the competition rules that I do not think has been talked about enough. One of those aspects is the term “restrictive covenant” in real estate development. My colleagues may ask, what is a restrictive covenant? It refers to a situation in which a developer buys land, intending to build a grocery store and other businesses, such as a strip mall, for example. They will often be approached by one of the big players, saying they want to put their location in the area and that it will attract all these other ancillary business people who want to be involved. Attracting a big store like a Walmart is a big draw for a lot of small business owners who want to build in these big parking lots and these well-attended locations.
The operators of the Walmarts and the Superstores of the world do not want to enter a development if they think they are going to face competition. Therefore, on the one hand it is completely fair that a grocery store operator does not want to have another grocery store right next to them in the same parking lot, but it is not fair when they have restrictive covenants that say nobody can start a small butcher shop or a small boutique bakery because there is a bakery or a butcher shop in the grocery store; they pass these restrictive covenants that say that no other business can engage in any business that the grocery store is engaged in.
What we are doing is sterilizing the business sectors in our communities, and it is because of these restrictive covenants. That is really preventing a lot of small and medium-sized butchers and bakers and other business owners who compete with the grocery stores from getting into these developments and producing their superior boutique products. This is an area of the Competition Act that we need to look at much more deeply, because it is not only giving a huge advantage to these big incumbent players but also really hurting our small and medium-sized enterprises and our consumers.
As members can see, our current competition laws are seriously lacking in sophistication and are a major contributor to the problem. Far from creating competition, the current regime allows for the proliferation of monopolies all across our economy.
The Competition Bureau has said that we need to encourage foreign companies to enter the Canadian market. I am not necessarily against foreign companies, but I am wondering why the minister is spending so much time burning up the phones to try to bring a big new foreign player into the Canadian market, when we have not even addressed the rules and the barriers that are preventing great Canadian companies, like the Freson Brothers of the world and other companies, from being able to compete in the Canadian market. Why can we not remove the barriers so that we can allow a small or medium-sized Canadian business to become a big grocery player, rather than always having to look abroad to bring in another grocery player? As the Freson brothers told me in a text message, innovation is at the heart of small and medium-sized businesses. Survival is the driver, and community is the beneficiary.
I would like to support this update to the law. There are a lot of things in here that could help. I look forward to its passing and being studied at committee, because it is companies like Freson Brothers and other small grocery stores and boutique bakeries and butchers that are the real fabric of our community and that make our communities so special and unique. We need to do everything we can as parliamentarians to create a business climate that promotes Canadian innovators, Canadian investment and Canadian jobs, and that creates the competition we need in this country to ensure that we have a dynamic marketplace that will provide the benefits this country so sorely needs in this troubling economy.
1771 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/24 12:31:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, strengthening the Competition Act is important, and some of the proposals in Bill C‑352 aim to do just that.
For example, the enactment amends the Competition Act by increasing the penalties for certain anti-competitive acts. It also amends certain aspects of the merger review process, such as how gains in efficiency and market concentration are taken into account.
Furthermore, it requires the Competition Tribunal to make an order to dissolve or prohibit mergers that result in an excessive combined market share. It extends the limitation period for merger reviews from one year to three years. Finally, it amends the Competition Tribunal Act to remove the Tribunal's power to award costs against the Crown.
All of these things are positive, and that is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑352. However, I would like to remind members of one very specific situation.
Last fall, Bill C‑56 was debated, amended and then passed. Half of that bill dealt with amendments to the Competition Act. Members will recall that to get the NDP to support a gag order, M‑30, the government amended Bill C‑56 to include several items from Bill C‑352. A number of items from Bill C‑352 therefore ended up in Bill C‑56.
What is more, there was a big chunk of Bill C‑352 that was missing from Bill C‑56, so I brought it to committee and it passed. The committee chair ruled the amendment inadmissible, but his decision was overturned by all of the committee members, across all parties. That reversal was not challenged in the House.
There are many good things in Bill C‑352, but the bulk of it was already passed last fall. I therefore question the relevance of debating this bill again, given that its substance has already been passed by the House.
Much like in Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, all that is left is the marlin's carcass. Poor Santiago. We are going to vote in favour of that carcass and conclude in committee that the substance of the bill has already been passed.
379 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
