Industry Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Janigan, Madam Rodal, and Madam Thomson. We appreciate your time here today and your expertise.

You can go now, with our thanks.

We'll ask Ms. Einbinder-Miller and Ms. Downie to come to the table and we'll begin our clause-by-clause when that change happens. We'll just suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We're ready to go clause-by-clause now here, which in this case is a little bit of an overstatement.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I just wanted to throw something out here right now. It was clear from the witnesses' testimony today...even the one witness who seemed somewhat favourable to the concept suggested that the bill ought to be amended to make it make sense.

I intend to vote against the bill because I don't think it's a good bill. At the very least, based on testimony that we heard today, the folks on the other side may want to consider an amendment to make the bill less bad. Therefore, we may want to put off clause-by-clause until the next meeting. It's just a suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

The wording of the legislation, while not perfect, and at worst it might be considered redundant to powers that are already there...I think the argument has been successfully made that there is a need--certainly from the discourse of the two previous commissioners--to enhance those powers. Obviously the government will at some point need to decide where its priorities reside as far as appropriate inquiries in areas that have enormous impacts on consumers.

I never had a chance to put it out there, but it seems to me that if there's a problem with wholesale prices for gasoline, and 75 billion litres of diesel and gas are sold every year in Canada, and if it's selling from 4¢ to 6¢ per litre above, that's $3.5 billion out of consumers' pockets. That's quite a kick in the pants. Whether that's the result of hyper-competition or not, I'm prepared to say that it's time the buck stops here.

I believe we should pass this legislation. I believe very firmly that it's heading in the right direction. It can be amended at report stage or at third reading. The Conservatives have a majority in the Senate; they can choose what they want to do there. It's an innocuous but important message we're sending to the bureau and to others: the status quo is not acceptable. To have a handful of lawyers in the competition bar saying what's right and what's wrong with this industry is unacceptable, in my view. It's time that we have individuals committed to enhancing the competition process understand freely and without any direct links or conflicts of interest that they do want to see an explanation on the industry given as frequently as the public demands. Since 1986, we've had a Competition Act written by the very people it was meant to police. No wonder these inquiries are predictable, useless, and irrelevant; they're simply not able to find what's wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's critical. The Competition Bureau came before us and said they did an inquiry on Hurricane Katrina. The effect of Hurricane Katrina on motorists in the United States was no more than 2¢ a litre. But you'll all remember that during the height of the campaign, the second week of that election, we were feted with a 13¢ increase as a result of something that happened south of the border. The reaction was substantial from most Canadians, and the impact was beyond anything that anyone would have imagined only a few years before. It's an indication of a much deeper problem.

Two weeks ago, the price of gas went up 4.4¢ per litre. Yet when you look at the market forces and how the Canadian dollar interacts with commodity prices, there ought to have been no increase whatsoever. If you're not prepared as a caucus, Mr. Lake and others, to open the door wide to the discretion of the competition commissioner to finally investigate this industry, then I suggest that we're going to continue to have these cases over and over again. I've sat in this room for 16 to 17 years with several inquiries on bills that have attempted to do what I think is important—transparency, openness, an objective view of what has happened in this industry. Frankly, I think the Competition Bureau's decision to go to its enforcement guidelines, to its relevant market decisions, is hurting the Canadian consumer.

I think it's important that we adopt this bill and that we do so forthwith.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Lake, and then Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I didn't know I was going to be triggering a speech when I made my comment. All I was suggesting was that even the folks who are in favour of the bill have suggested that it's not perfect. You yourself just used the words “not perfect”. Maybe you want to take one extra meeting to go back and look at an amendment that makes the bill more “perfect”, from your viewpoint, before we pass it through committee. That's the only suggestion I was making. Even proponents of the legislation acknowledge that work needs to be done to fine-tune it. And we might want to take one meeting to do that before we come back. That was my only suggestion. I take issue with your phrase that “at worst it's redundant”. I think at worst it's significantly worse than redundant, but that's an argument for another day.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Wallace, before I go to you, is there any willingness to postpone?

It doesn't look as if there's any willingness.

Mr. Bouchard, I put you on the speakers list.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'll be very, very, brief, Mr. Chair.

The witness we had today, who is a lawyer, which we made sure was on the record, indicated that he would reword the current bill. He was in favour of the concept in principle, but he said the wording was not where he would like it to be. That's why I think Mr. Lake was offering the opposition an opportunity to look at the wording to see if they could make additional recommendations in terms of attachments and references to different sections in regulation, and so on. But it doesn't sound like they are interested.

The other point I want to make, which Mr. McTeague made, is that this isn't a motion. This is law. We shouldn't be using the creation of, or changes to, the actual laws of the land to send messages. He was saying that it would send a message to the commissioner that we're not happy that they haven't been able to find anything in the petroleum business so far, and that with this one-word, two-word change, they'll go and study it again. He still might not be happy with the results, whether or not that happens.

But we shouldn't be using private members' bills to send messages. These are legal documents; this is changing the law of the land. Send a message another way, but don't let's do it through changes to the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

First of all, Mr. Bilodeau, from the Competition Bureau, told the committee that his organization had all the powers it needed to initiate an inquiry. A little while ago, Mr. Janigan said that the Competition Bureau did not have all the powers it needed to initiate an inquiry.

I asked Mr. Janigan whether Bill C-452 addressed the OECD's recommendation that the Competition Bureau be given the authority to conduct market studies. His answer was that Bill C-452 addressed that recommendation in every respect.

Personally, I think the bill changes things for the better. For that reason, I think we should proceed with the clause-by-clause study, as planned. The bill has just one clause. This morning, we are supposed to vote for or against this bill. It is our view that Bill C-452 should be passed without amendment, as it was introduced and in its current form.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.

Your turn, Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I was going to make some comments, but Mr. Bouchard pretty well encapsulated what I had to say.

I think we should just move on to a vote and get this done.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

It doesn't look like there's any more debate, so we'll get right to the bill then.

Shall clause 1 carry?

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

One second.

I just want to get to the officials....

So clause 1 is the clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There's a clause and then the title, and then we'll be—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I do want to go to the officials we have here before we pass the legislation—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's fine, Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

—because there was some comment about the regulations. I'm not sure about the interaction of the regulations and the law. In this circumstance, it doesn't really refer to any regulations.

Is there something I'm missing in terms of the impact of this? Where would the existing grounds that we talk about in the bill refer? Would there be somewhere in the regulations that this might—

[Colette Downie, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry]

Maybe I'll answer that, and perhaps my colleague can expand on my answer.

The regulations that were referred to by Mr. Janigan were pursuant to section 24 of the Competition Act. That section gives the Governor in Council the ability to make regulations with respect to sections 11 to 19 of the Competition Act, that is, with respect to the issuing of subpoena-type orders under section 11 that you've heard about, or the execution of search warrants under section 15. The bill amends section 10 of the Competition Act. So I suspect that it could not be used to set out parameters within which the inquiries under that provision could be conducted.

Do you have anything to add to that?

[Rhona Einbinder-Miller, Acting Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Competition Bureau, Legal Services, Department of Industry]

That's correct. Parliament is supposed to set out the parameters giving the Governor in Council the power to make regulations under a specific provision. As my colleague pointed out, in section 24 there are powers only in relation to sections 11 through 19 of the Competition Act, and not section 10.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay. So when we are using the phrase “grounds exist for the making of an inquiry into an entire industry sector”, who determines those grounds under this piece of legislation?

[Colette Downie]

It would be up to the Commissioner of Competition to determine whether she had sufficient grounds or not.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

What basis would she have for determining whether she has grounds or not?

[Colette Downie]

She'd have to look back at case law and some other statutes.

Maybe you could expand a bit on that, Rhona.