Evidence of meeting #138 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you very much.
I'm going to get in trouble from the chair.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
It's all good.
Thank you, MP Chambers.
Now we're off to MP Dzerowicz.
Go ahead, please.
April 18th, 2024 / 12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Since I monopolized Mr. Boswell in my first round, I think I'm going to direct my questions to Mr. Giroux in this next round.
Mr. Giroux, I know there's been quite a bit of focus on climate change and some of the elements within the fall economic statement with respect to some of the things we're doing around reducing emissions. Particularly, an important pillar of Canada's clean economy is the investment tax credits that we've outlined and that were previously announced. What's different in our fall economic statement, though, is that we're actually providing a timeline for our path towards delivering on all of that.
I want to talk a little more about the impact of climate change on our overall economy. I believe it was my colleague who talked about the Canada Climate Institute saying that it has found that GDP has taken a $25-billion hit annually over the last 10 years due to climate impacts. The institute has also found that no economic sector is immune to climate change impacts. Climate damages will trigger net losses for most of Canada's economic sectors through lower productivity and output, lower returns on investment and reduced employment.
Therefore, lowering emissions is key. Do you believe that investing in credits like the investment tax credit is the best bet for preserving both the fiscal health and the economic stability of our country?
12:35 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It's an interesting question as to whether it is the best bet. It's not for me to judge, because that would require me to have an assessment of alternative means for reaching net zero. However, it's certain that providing incentives in the form of tax credits costs less than having the government do all of the heavy lifting by itself.
That's probably as much as I can say without getting into trouble for pronouncing on various specific policy proposals that would be alternatives to investment tax credits.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Maybe I'll turn it over to Mr. Boswell, because a huge part of the reason.... Not only are we trying to reduce our emissions, reach our Paris Agreement targets and reach net zero by 2050, but we also want to be competitive with the U.S. economy. Do you believe that ITCs are our best bet for preserving the fiscal and economic stability of our country?
12:35 p.m.
Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada
Sorry, I missed the tail end of the question. It was something about ITCs.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Is the ITC, the investment tax credit, our best bet in preserving the fiscal health and the economic stability of our country?
12:35 p.m.
Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada
I'm not familiar enough with the ITC and its impact to comment on that. That's really outside of my lane.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
That's okay. Thank you. I tried.
Then, I'll go back to Mr. Giroux.
We do know that climate change will add pressures on government budgets, as governments will need to address increasing health care costs and account for increasing disaster relief and destroyed infrastructure. Would you agree that climate change and its impacts—which we're living through right now—are a risk to the fiscal health of our country?
12:40 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Yes, for the reasons that you mentioned—the need to mitigate and prepare for disasters and for natural events that will be occurring at a more frequent pace, and probably with more severity, as mentioned by climate scientists—this is expected to have a fiscal impact. Therefore, climate change does represent a fiscal risk.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I think you were asked this before. Were you already asked to study the impacts of climate change on the federal government's fiscal balance sheet?
12:40 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
We were not asked. I think in a previous question I said that it would be difficult to assess exactly what can be attached to climate change and what can be attached to events that would occur even without climate change.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.
Looking at the time, we thank our witnesses for being with us this long. We do have 20 minutes. We're going to break it up evenly because we don't have enough time for a full round. It will be five minutes per party.
We're starting with MP Williams for five minutes, please.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Boswell, it's nice to see you here today, sir. I know we've had Mr. Durocher at a few committees as well.
Thank you for your recommendations. Your opening round was very helpful. It's nice to see that submission.
I want to start with something that a lot of Canadians don't understand, but I think it's a direct question. Has Canada ever blocked a merger, yes or no?
12:40 p.m.
Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada
Never through the court process, no.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
That's right.
We looked specifically at one case. The Rogers-Shaw merger was something that the bureau recommended not to approve. Is that correct?
12:40 p.m.
Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada
That's correct. We saw what we refer to in the competition world as a “full block”.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
It's a full block. The tribunal, of course, then reversed that decision. One of the concerning elements we saw out of that was that Rogers was able to sue the bureau and was awarded about $13 million. Is that correct?
12:40 p.m.
Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada
I wouldn't describe it as “suing” the bureau. At the end of a litigation process, there's a notion of costs, and that's under the Competition Tribunal Act. The Competition Tribunal determined that the bureau ought to pay approximately $13 million in costs as a result of our attempt to block the merger.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
You mentioned the American rebuttal structure earlier. We looked at the FTC, which is your counterpart in the United States. I think last year they blocked 28 mergers. They're very successful. We had the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project here talking about some of the remedies, some ways we can go further.
Can you go into some more detail? I know you made some recommendations in the beginning. What does the bureau need? What more does it need to look at a merger remedy in Canada?
12:40 p.m.
Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada
As I set out in my opening, rebuttable structural presumptions are incredibly important and would be a very significant change in terms of merger law in Canada. As I pointed out, it's not some sort of magic thing that we've come up with at the bureau by ourselves. It's an approach they've been taking in the United States for 60 years, including through endorsing it at the level of the Supreme Court of the United States. That's why we make a strong point about how Bill C-59 could be amended. We provide very clear language on how it could be amended to mirror the U.S. merger guidelines.
The other point would be the remedy standard, which is—I went through it in my opening as well in terms of the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom—to restore competition to what it was before, when you have an anti-competitive merger. That should be the remedy.
Those two amendments, combined with repealing the efficiencies defence—which happened, as you will recall, in Bill C-56—would probably be the most significant amendments to our merger law ever. That's why we're pushing so hard. As the enforcer who sees these things, we're at the coalface every day. That's why we're pushing so hard for these amendments. They would make a big difference.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
When we're looking at what powers you need, we do look industry by industry. We know that you have to look at merger review in law but also competition law as a whole. We'll look at the grocery industry, and then we'll look at airlines and telecommunications. They have their unique problems, but certainly we look at the common denominator in terms of how we can solve them.
Have there been other recommendations? You're looking at Australia and the U.K. You mentioned that Australia does a competitive review of their whole government. Are there other recommendations you can see, specific to those industries, for which you need more power, similar to that of those nations, in order to be able to fix competition in Canada?