Finance Committee on April 11th, 2024

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

One of your recommendations is for structural presumptions. As you've stated, this law does not include presumption against mergers in industries that are already concentrated. Does this mean that mergers that have already been approved, such as HSBC-RBC and Rogers-Shaw, will continue if this bill goes through in its current form?

[Keldon Bester]

This bill does make improvements, as I mentioned, in pulling in structure as something that we should pay attention to. The law doesn't totally ignore it, but it really deprecates it. If we really want to guarantee that we don't have another Rogers-Shaw or another RBC-HSBC type of merger, we need to take that next step and really encode that bias against further concentration.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Tell me about some of your other recommendations for merger remedies.

You talked about strong and simple remedies and open-ended merger review and creeping roll-ups. Tell us about how those could be changes or amendments that would strengthen this bill to ensure that we stop some of these mergers that are hurting Canadians.

[Keldon Bester]

Focusing on the remedies piece, which I think is the most important part, right now in Canada if we intervene in a merger, which we do very rarely—in less than 1% of mergers—the standard is not to restore competition: It's to make the reduction in competition slightly less. In the U.S. and in the EU, they put the bar much higher and say, “If we're going to intervene against a merger, things should be at least as good as they were before for citizens.” If we had to pick one, I would really go there.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

This is my last question, although I might get another round with you.

What would you change the purpose statement to if it were going to be changed to remove...? The priority right now seems to be on efficiency of the company over competition.

[Keldon Bester]

I don't have a prepared text, but I think a phrase that I'd really like to see in there is “fair competition”. It would be about competition that benefits Canadians as consumers, workers and entrepreneurs, as you said, as opposed to the efficiency that we've seen—I think mistakenly—drive us towards oligopoly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you. Thank you, MP Williams.

MP Dzerowicz is next.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their excellent testimony. I wish I had time for each one of you, but I do not.

I'm going to start off with you, Mr. Bester, for maybe a minute or so. I want to put onto the record that we did have our competition commissioner come before our committee on Bill C-59. He's also been before the Senate, and he was actually before the Senate when he made the following statement:

Fortunately, the changes proposed in C-59, together with the recent reforms made in Bills C-19 and C-56, represent a generational upgrade in our competition law framework. I applaud the Government, Parliamentarians and citizens from across the country for their efforts in shaping this modernization process. It is the product of years of public and expert dialogue and parliamentary debate. The changes deliver on a significant number of the Competition Bureau's recommendations, and will help bring our competition regime in line with international best practice.

I wanted to put that in.

I also want to thank you. You've made some excellent recommendations, and I really appreciated your exchange with Mr. Williams. I actually think there's a lot more we could be doing, but I think we have done a significant amount and I think it's very, very critical that we acknowledge that. I personally would love to see a review right across our whole government around what's stopping competition from happening. I think if we did a whole-of-government review, that would be another excellent step forward.

My next couple of questions are for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I'm a very big fan of the work the Canadian chamber does. You do very important work.

Mr. Detchou, you started off by saying the economic competitiveness in the last 12 quarters has significantly declined. I want to put on the record that in the last three years, from 2021 to 2023, we were coming out of a pandemic, so the whole world was dealing with the after-effects of an economic heart attack. I think, as you will see from a lot of what we've put into Bill C-59, that we are transitioning our economy from competitive, growth and productivity perspectives.

On that, I know the chamber was very supportive when we announced the investment tax credit, so thank you. There are some companies, such as Dow, that are already benefiting from the ITCs, and they are creating significant opportunities for workers. Can you maybe initially speak to how important these are in driving investment, innovation and economic competitiveness?

After that I will have a follow-up question.

[Bryan Detchou]

Thank you very much.

Of course, these investment tax credits were welcomed by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and many of its members. They're crucial. They're crucial to our efforts to decarbonize our economy and they're crucial to our efforts to create the jobs of tomorrow. I guess it's also important to mention that they are also very important in response to the Inflation Reduction Act we saw passed in the United States. I could go on for a long time talking about the benefits of the ITCs, but I certainly think there are a few details that could always be tweaked and improved to make sure the companies that hope to benefit from these ITCs can fully benefit from them.

We certainly appreciate the time the government has taken to have thorough consultation processes, but of course it's a bit of a race, I might say, and we want to make sure Canada, Canadian companies and the Canadian people are not left behind, so we do urge the government to continue to move forward and as much as possible to speed up the process of the implementation of these investment tax credits.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I want to say thank you. You have encouraged us to implement the ITCs ASAP, which means passing Bill C-59 as soon as possible, which we've heard from industry as well.

I'll go to my second question, which is a follow-up.

The Dow group was with us on Tuesday. They've set up a net-zero facility in Fort Saskatchewan. They spoke to us about the importance of having a market-based carbon trading regime and about its revenue generation capabilities for net-zero facilities like theirs. I'm wondering if you would agree with companies like Dow about the profitability that carbon pricing will ensure for businesses well into the future.

[Bryan Detchou]

Thank you for your question.

On carbon taxing, I'll be very clear: The chamber is on the record in support of the carbon pricing regime.

What I should note is that, one, the money that is owed to small businesses should be redistributed to small businesses, because it is crucial to their efforts to decarbonize their operations, and two, that one thing Canadian businesses need is certainty and predictability, so that's another thing I wish to stress.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I would tell you that the small businesses in Davenport 100% agree with you about getting going on the rebate to small businesses.

As you know, we've made historic investments in the battery supply chain, from Marathon Palladium to Volkswagen in St. Thomas. Can you speak to the economic case of Canada's opportunity across the battery supply chain compared to other countries?

[Bryan Detchou]

Of course. Again, we applaud a lot of the efforts the government has made on that front. This is truly a generational opportunity. It's a generational opportunity for Canada and a generational opportunity for a number of the regions that are involved, especially in Ontario and Quebec, where a lot of that supply chain will lead. It will also have impacts across the nation. We certainly support that.

Again, in policy and in a lot of efforts the government has been pushing forward, there's always room for improvement and there's always room for further dialogue with the business community to make sure we get this generational opportunity right. In the case of mining, for example, I work a lot in this area, and these projects take many years to build. These are long-term projects, and investment decisions are not made overnight. A lot of companies will tell you that they know today what they will invest in a year or two or three years from now.

We need to make sure that we get this right, because if we don't, who knows when that door will be open again? It might be too late by 2030. As the government is trying to hit many of their targets in 2030 or 2050 or whatever it is, it is important for us to get it right today so that those targets can be reached.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz.

Now we'll go to MP Ste-Marie, please.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings to our witnesses.

I'm going to go to the representatives of Réseau FADOQ.

However, I want to begin with a comment in reaction to the statement of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which, as I understand it, is requesting that the provisions under the Global Minimum Tax Act respecting taxation of the web giants be deleted.

A bit of context. For many years now, the government has said it wants to go ahead with this measure pending the OECD and G20 plan to impose a minimum global tax of 15% on the operations of those businesses.

The main object of that act is to combat the use of tax havens by businesses to avoid paying their fair share of tax through the use of schemes to underreport their profits. Consequently, if these provisions aren't deleted, taxation of the web giants will be established.

The act provides that Canadian businesses must generate many hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue in order to be targeted by those provisions. Perhaps I don't understand this, but I don't think we're talking about SMEs here.

When I talk to member businesses of the Joliette chamber of commerce, they tell me they're tired of competing with multinationals that don't pay their fair share of tax because they use tax havens.

I think these are important provisions. Obviously, I sincerely hope the OECD is able to impose a global minimum tax of 15% so we can make the immoral illegal. The present system isn't working, but I'm very surprised to see that the Chamber of Commerce has come to the defence of the web giants. I'm surprised and disappointed, and that's my comment.

Ms. Tassé-Goodman and Mr. Poirier-Monette, thank you for being here.

I'd like to go back to ad hoc grocery assistance, which corresponded to the GST credit for the less well-off that has been introduced twice.

Why is it still important to maintain that assistance in the next budget.

[Philippe Poirier-Monette, Special Advisor, Government Relations, Réseau FADOQ]

Thank you for your question.

In the current situation, housing costs are rising sharply. Inflation has an impact on the cost of the basket of groceries and everyday items, and some people find it hard to make ends meet at the end of the month. Consequently, any ad hoc assistance for people who really need it would be welcome.

As Ms. Tassé-Goodman said, we have many more proposals that could specifically target seniors. So any assistance is obviously welcome.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

If I'm understanding this, considering inflation, which significantly increases the cost of energy, food and housing, we need a set of measures to support low-income seniors.

Would you please continue explaining the measures you're seeking in order to address that?

[Philippe Poirier-Monette]

Yes, it would be a pleasure.

We've gone back over the topic several times. Ms. Tassé-Goodman addressed it in her remarks.

A lot of seniors 65 to 74 years of age aren't happy because they aren't entitled to the 10% increase in the old age security pension. As we frequently point out, financial insecurity isn't a matter of age. It can happen to everyone.

Since ageism still pervades certain workplaces, some people have been urged to retire. Others have been forced to retire because the job was too hard and they therefore couldn't work any longer. In addition, many people have little in the way of personal savings. The majority don't have access to a supplementary pension plan. Approximately 43% of workers in Quebec don't have personal savings or access to a supplementary pension plan. So they have needs.

I want to emphasize that the incomes of seniors aged 65 to 74 who live solely on the old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement are barely over the poverty line, as determined by the basket-of-goods measure. We're talking about a subsistence-level basket here. People in this situation aren't living: they're surviving. It's hard for them to meet any unforeseen circumstances that may arise. Items such as eye care are excluded from the market basket. That includes the purchase of eyeglasses, contact lenses and prescription drugs. The same is true of auxiliary equipment such as wheelchairs, walkers and so on. Those expenses can run to more than $1,500 a year.

We think there has to be an increase here. People 75 and over definitely appreciate it, but we're convinced it's important to offer it to those 65 to 74 years of age.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Message received. So we should stop dividing seniors into two classes.

I'm thinking in particular of women who live alone and who, in many cases, have been natural caregivers for their husbands or parents and who haven't had a chance to save or contribute to a private plan. They have to live on minimum incomes and are forced into poverty. It's time to put an end to that.

On another topic, would you please say a little more about the importance of making the Canada caregiver credit refundable?

[Philippe Poirier-Monette]

Thank you for that question.

During the 2021 election campaign, the government committed to amending the Canada caregiver credit. We think that's important since caregivers represent 34% of the population of Quebec. Most of them are women. Some 20% live in financial insecurity, and many of them spend a lot of money in their caregiver role. Those amounts may run to more than $7,600. Consequently, it's important that we provide them with more generous assistance.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

In addition, in connection with—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

My speaking time is up. I'll have more questions for the next round.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Now we go to MP Davies, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Poirier-Monette, you spoke about the dire financial situation of seniors. Twenty percent of seniors in Canada suffer from diabetes. Pharmacare legislation that's currently in the House today would see the federal government provide sufficient funding from the federal government to provinces to ensure 100% coverage of all diabetes medication and devices to every citizen in every province. Is that something you would support for the people of Quebec?