Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, we do have the next four clauses and if we have unanimous consent we can adopt all of those. Those are clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I'm sorry. I just need a clarification there.

Has BQ-4 been withdrawn?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

No, that is clause 7.1. That's a new clause.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Okay, I'm ahead of the game.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We do have unanimous consent.

(Clauses 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to)

We are at new clause 7.1, BQ-4.

No...? Okay, that has been withdrawn.

We are onto BQ-5.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of amendment BQ‑5 is to incorporate an element of the bill introduced by Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the NDP. In our opinion, it is a very important point. It was raised on Monday during debate. When a business has a regional monopoly, there is no room for competition, as in the case of a service station located in the middle of an isolated highway. Given the fixed costs, no competing business could ever be more efficient in that location than the one that has the monopoly. When profits and prices are considered to be too high, there must therefore be a power to intervene.

I am also thinking of situations in villages. In the village where my parents live, there is room for only one grocery store. The residents of the village are lucky because the grocer is a good one who doesn't try to sell their products at prices that are too high. However, if prices were too high, the small number of residents would not make up a big enough market for a second grocery store to open, given the fixed costs.

In our opinion, this is a very important provision in Mr. Singh's bill that is entirely appropriate here. That is why we are moving this amendment, which creates a new section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

To speak to this, yes, go ahead, MP Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, I am very familiar with Mr. Singh's bill, to which Mr. Ste-Marie refers, and I am also very familiar with the arguments that Mr. Ste-Marie has made. I am happy to support his amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Now I will give my ruling on this. There is a ruling from the chair.

The amendment seeks to amend section 78 of the Competition Act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 78 of the Competition Act is not being amended by Bill C-56, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

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

Mr. Chair, I respectfully challenge your decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There's been a challenge to the chair. It's not debatable.

We will ask the clerk to take the vote.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

Is there more debate on BQ-5, members?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we are on NDP-2.

MP Blaikie, would you like to move this?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes, I will be moving it.

I'm happy to follow up one good amendment with another.

This one does two things. One is that it lowers the threshold for abuse of dominance, so that you don't have to prove dominance, intent and harm, but you have to prove dominance and either intent or harm.

It also adjusts the penalties in the act to make them more severe, including having a higher penalty for subsequent offences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Is there anybody else?

Go ahead, MP Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Conservatives are very supportive of amendments in legislation that improve competition. We will be supporting this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, shall NDP-2 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 8)

Members, we are at clause 8, and it's CPC-2.

MP Lawrence, are you speaking to this? Are you moving this?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes, I am.

This removes the many efficiencies defence. The commissioner stated full support for this amendment, so what this actually did was.... I asked the commissioner the question directly, and he's concerned that, if we delete the efficiencies defence without deleting subsection 90.1(4), there's a back door for the efficiencies defence to still exist.

We would accept a subamendment to keep subsections 90.1(5) and 90.1(6), so long as subsection 90.1(4) is still being deleted—if that's clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, is there any debate or discussion on this?

MP Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes, it's just to say that I'm happy to have consistency through the act by eliminating the efficiencies defence in all its forms, and I'm glad to support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, shall CPC-2 carry?

A recorded vote has been requested.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 9 to 13 inclusive agreed to)

Shall the short title carry?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Can I talk?

I am actually going to comment on this.

I did have numerous questions for our colleagues, and actually, to Mr. Ste-Marie's point, I did ask the officials if they could provide me with any evidence that this bill would either restore affordability to housing or restore affordability to groceries.

Could the officials tell me whether they have any information or any data to prove that?

[Samir Chhabra, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry]

Thank you for the question.

I think there's a long-standing history in evidence-based economic research that demonstrates that enhanced competition across the economy does result in greater consumer choice, as well as improved price competition and lower prices for consumers.

That's as far as I think we can go on that.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Do you have any evidence as to the actual reduction, when the reduction will occur and how much it will be?

[Samir Chhabra]

Thank you for the question.

Given that the Competition Act applies broadly across all markets in all sectors in Canada, it's impossible to estimate what kind of price reduction would happen across the board. The number of sectors, the number of competitive dynamics at play and the number of competitors in a given space or market all kind of speak to the challenge of determining exactly how prices would vary.

That's not to mention the exogenous variables that would need to be taken into account as well.

In that sense, it's fairly difficult to pinpoint a single number here.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you.

I know you're doing your job. I know that you're all working hard in the civil service. You did use some nice big words like “exogenous” and other nice big words. I think the answer there was “no”—wasn't it, sir?

You don't have any evidence showing me a timeline or how much it will cost.

[Samir Chhabra]

Again, just to be clear, the Competition Act is a broad framework act of general application. Its implications in change are very well founded in terms of economic research that demonstrates that increased competition does drive lower prices over time and does increase consumer choice.

To tie a specific figure to it is very challenging, given the number of variables at play and the number of markets and sectors that would be impacted by it.