Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting back to order. Welcome, everybody.

We've already had three hours of testimony with two ministers and the officials, and now we have some excellent witnesses on Bill C-56.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 23, 2023, the committee is meeting to resume its study on Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informed that all witnesses have completed the required tests in advance of the meeting.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

With us today, as an individual, we have Ian Lee, associate professor at the Sprott school of business, Carleton University. From the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project, the executive director, Keldon Bester is joining us. From the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we have the federal housing advocate, office of the federal housing advocate, Marie-Josée Houle. We have, from the Competition Bureau of Canada, the commissioner of competition, Matthew Boswell. He is joined by the deputy commissioner, competition promotion branch, Anthony Durocher. From the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, we have the executive director, Timothy Ross. From Option consommateurs, we have the economist and analyst, Carlos Castiblanco, and Sara Eve Levac, lawyer. Welcome.

We are going to start off with associate professor Ian Lee, as an individual, please.

[Dr. Ian Lee, Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the finance committee for inviting me to discuss what I believe is one of the most important public policy problems facing Canada today.

First are my disclosures. I don't belong to or donate money to any political party or allow lawn signs during federal, provincial or municipal elections.

Second, I am a tenured professor paid by Carleton, not by business or NGOs or unions. I don't consult. I'm not a lobbyist.

Third, immediately after the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1980 until 2020 with the onset of the pandemic, I taught over 100 times in former centrally planned economies across central-east Europe, Cuba, Iran and China. There were none or only a few private, for-profit corporations and very little competition, only state-owned monopolies, which led to the very low income per capita that characterizes countries that do not have a decentralized market economy with private competitive firms.

It must be stated at the outset that competition policy is a critical part of the policy infrastructure of a national government.

As an NFL junkie since the first Super Bowl in 1967, I deeply understand the need for referees in a football or hockey game, because players cheat. They hook, they spear, they trip, they hold and they grab face masks, and referees must penalize the cheaters. However, the purpose and actions of the referees must never attempt to displace the decision-makers, the coaches or the QB or the CEO, such that they'll start to decide when Patrick Mahomes should throw the ball or Sidney Crosby should shoot the puck.

Referees and competition policy are a means to an end. They are not the end goal or purpose of national public policy. We should not embrace competition policy as an intrinsic end. It is simply a tool to possibly enhance competition.

Why bother? It's because Adam Smith and 250 years of economic theory and practice have taught us that competition between competing firms drives down prices and increases choices. Even more importantly, as Joseph Schumpeter famously taught us, it is the only credible driver of productivity increases in the standard of living. It's the only way that a country can increase its standard of living over time.

Nowadays, the most widely accepted economic approach to competition, I think it's fair to say, is the one proposed by Schumpeter, who defined competition as a dynamic process wherein firms strive to survive under an evolving set of rules that constantly produces winners and losers. Restated, competition is the true regulator of economic activity, while competition policy is a poor, second-best but necessary substitute.

My fear with the proposed and excellent Competition Bureau report, “The Future of Competition Policy”, is the danger that decision-makers in Ottawa now view competition policy policing as the source of competitiveness.

My second fear concerns the belief by, I think, an increasing number of elected officials in Canada that big or large corporations are intrinsically uncompetitive or anti-competitive. This is simply contradicted by the superb research of Statistics Canada, John Baldwin and other researchers that demonstrates that many of our largest corporations achieve much higher rates of total factor productivity.

What must be done?

Unfortunately, few parliamentarians seem to recognize that which is on our nose and indeed created by parliamentarians—not just this Parliament but past Parliaments. Our national and provincial governments have created monopolies and oligopolies across the economy as a matter of public policy. The telecom act prohibits foreign telecom operators—I talk about this in class every week—so that we have exactly three telcos and some of the highest cellphone fees in the world.

We have maybe 2.5 airlines, as the act of Parliament prohibits entry by foreign airlines. Our Bank Act ensures that we have an oligopoly. I worked for nine years in a bank and I have great respect for the banks. However, we have an oligopoly of five or six banks, with a concentration ratio of over 90%. Our supply management laws mostly prohibit foreign dairy entry.

So that I don't just pick on the federal level, the Beer Store in Canada's largest province mostly prohibits competition in corner stores and grocery stores, where it belongs—as does the LCBO.

When we do not create outright monopolies and oligopolies, we create some of the highest regulatory standards in the world, such as in mining, which have driven out capital investment in our country. This has been analyzed empirically and recently by Bill Robson in his excellent article, “Working Harder for Less: More People but Less Capital is No Recipe for Prosperity”.

Our non-residential capital stock per worker is second-lowest in the OECD. Only New Zealand is worse.

Now, let's use plain English as I wrap up.

Capital stock is investment in businesses. We all know that. Investment creates competition. That drives up productivity and drives down prices, so what are we doing in Canada? We are stifling competition in multiple industries by creating oligopolies and monopolies. Pogo warned us, “We have met the enemy and he is us”.

Thank you.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Calm down, guys.

Thank you, Professor Lee.

Now we'll hear from the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project.

[Keldon Bester, Exective Director, Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project]

I am the executive director of CAMP, a Canadian think tank dedicated to addressing issues caused by monopoly power in Canada.

This is an exciting time for competition policy in Canada, and CAMP is glad to see parties across Parliament putting forward plans to strengthen Canada’s competition law and protect affordability for Canadians.

Bill C-56 is an important investment in the future of competition in Canada, and CAMP is happy to support it.

By removing the efficiencies defence, giving the commissioner of competition the power to conduct market studies and expanding the scope of enforcement against anti-competitive agreements, Bill C-56 makes material positive contributions to the Competition Act.

I'll be frank. I don't believe that these changes will make groceries more affordable tomorrow. The situation today is the result of decades of thinking, at the heart of the Competition Act, that has supported consolidation and reduced competition at the expense of Canadians. The work to reverse that thinking will take time. As I mentioned, we see these proposed changes as investments that will pay off for Canadians in the coming months, years and decades, and in sectors well beyond grocery.

That being said, within the current scope of Bill C-56, we would like to propose two changes to strengthen the bill so that it might better serve Canadians.

First, the commissioner of competition should have the independent authority to conduct market studies without the direction of the minister. Bill C-56 provides appropriate checks and limits on the commissioner's use of the market study power and, as such, independent study authority should be granted to preserve the agency's independence.

Second, powers related to anti-competitive agreements should be further strengthened to ensure meaningful enforcement. This means adding the ability to pursue past agreements and penalties for those who engage in these agreements, the absence of which currently renders the provision ineffective.

With these changes, Bill C-56 will deliver more benefits to Canadians sooner, but looking beyond Bill C-56, more comprehensive change is still needed to the Competition Act to ensure competitive markets for Canadians going forward. Even with the removal of the efficiencies defence, Canadians will not be fully protected from further consolidation in important markets. Future reform should introduce presumptions against mergers in already concentrated markets, banning them outright in highly concentrated ones. It should also set the standard for remedies to harmful mergers at preserving or improving competition, not making things worse at a more acceptable pace.

For markets already characterized by a small number of players, we need stronger provisions to ensure that any dominance isn’t abused at the expense of Canadian businesses, workers and consumers. Today, abuse of dominance cases are few and far between and can take years to investigate. Expanding the scope of the provision and streamlining its enforcement should be a key priority.

Finally, the enforcement of the Competition Act should be more transparent and decentralized. The Competition Bureau has made important strides in communicating how it works to Canadians, but it is still very much a black box and we fall short of the transparency of peer jurisdictions like the United Kingdom. Canada's competition law enforcement is also quite centralized, with the Competition Bureau responsible for all markets across our $2-trillion economy. By allowing private parties to seek damages under the Competition Act, Canada will have more eyes on the ground to identify and address unfair methods of competition going forward.

Today, with Bill C-56, I think this committee has an opportunity to make a material improvement toward more robust competition law, but after Bill C-56, the priority should be to finish that work with more comprehensive reform of the law that Canadians depend on to protect competition and affordability.

Thank you for your time today. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Bester. I'm sure there will be many questions.

Now we'll hear from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, please.

[Marie-Josée Houle, Federal Housing Advocate, Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, Canadian Human Rights Commission]

Thank you so much for the invitation.

My name is Marie-Josée Houle and as the first federal housing advocate, my role is to carry out concrete actions at the national level to ensure that legislation, policies and programs respect the human right to adequate housing.

The housing crisis has reached catastrophic proportions.

I am here as a human rights accountability mechanism for people in crisis. Canada enshrined the right to housing in the 2019 National Housing Strategy Act. The need for Canada to uphold its human rights obligations must be prioritized in this discussion.

The key reason for the housing crisis is that government housing policy has focused on incentives for the private sector, and we know from the past 30 years that the private sector does not create affordable housing. The activities that this committee is looking at, such as shareholder profits and passive income streams, are about treating housing as a financial commodity and an asset for profit—but not as a human right.

This is called financialization. It is a widespread practice that has negatively shaped our housing system at the expense of affordable and accessible housing supply. Our research on financialization estimates that 20% to 30% of Canada's rental housing supply is financialized. It demonstrates clearly the harm that it is causing to people in Canada.

We need to adopt a human rights approach that puts people first. Governments must invest in our housing system and use public funds for public good. The best way forward is investing in non-market housing. Non-market housing benefits society. It creates permanently affordable, accessible housing to meet the needs of a wide range of people. Disadvantaged groups that are spending a disproportionate amount of their income on housing will have more money for food, medicine, child care and other needs.

Investing in non-market housing also has an economic value and is the best use of taxpayers' dollars. It benefits everyone because it is not inflationary. When people are not paying so much for their housing, they're able to spend in other areas, so it will bolster the economic stability of other sectors. Investing in non-market housing will mean a more equitable and healthy housing system and allow governments to focus on other pressing portfolios.

Bridging the gap in Canada's affordable supply will require a long-term plan. Research we commissioned from housing expert Carolyn Whitzman estimates that Canada is currently short 4.4 million affordable homes for those in need. She uses a human rights-based approach to count people who are usually left out of supply estimates and focuses on renters. Meanwhile, CMHC's 2022 report on housing supply shortages based its estimate on housing demand, including demand from investors, and only looked at home ownership.

This is a complex problem that calls for multiple solutions.

I am happy to see that the fall economic statement emphasized non-market housing. I am thinking, for example, of the elimination of the GST for new housing cooperative construction projects.

More needs to be done. The national housing strategy's $82-billion suite of programs must change course to prioritize non-market housing. The federal government can create an acquisition fund for non-market and indigenous housing providers to buy, repair and operate existing buildings. The federal government must attach conditions to federal infrastructure projects and funding that mandate the creation of non-market housing in these new projects.

Other measures include pushing for strong rent stabilization measures across Canada, amending federal policies related to pension fund investments and taxation of real estate investment trusts, better data collection on financialization and better accountability when taxpayer funds are spent on incentives to the private sector.

All levels of government have a role to play. The federal government has a responsibility to lead the way.

Thank you so much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Houle.

We will now hear from Competition Bureau Canada.

I believe Matthew Boswell will be speaking.

[Matthew Boswell, Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada]

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you this evening.

My name is Matthew Boswell. As you've heard, I am the commissioner of competition for Canada. Joining me is my amazing colleague Anthony Durocher, the deputy commissioner responsible for competition promotion.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. We do this because competition drives lower prices and innovation while fueling economic growth.

We administer and enforce the Competition Act by investigating and taking action to address anti-competitive business practices that harm consumers, competition and our economy. These include price-fixing, deceptive marketing and abuse of market power. We also review mergers to ensure they do not substantially harm competition. Finally, we advocate for pro-competitive government policies and regulations. We believe that our experience as Canada's only competition law enforcement agency affords us an important voice in identifying the limits and issues surrounding the act's application on a day-to-day basis.

In March of this year, we made a public submission to the government's consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada. We identified a number of areas where the bureau believes reform is required, informed by our experience in administering and enforcing the act. In fact, we made over 50 recommendations to the government for its consideration. We are pleased that some of our suggestions could be implemented through Bill C-56.

These suggestions include:

First, there is the updating of our market study powers, including the ability to compel information when warranted. That would permit us to better investigate certain industries as necessary.

Second, there is the repealing of the efficiencies defence, which will strengthen the Bureau’s position to challenge anti-competitive mergers for the benefit of all Canadians.

On introducing a vertical collaboration provision, while such a change was not part of our recommendation package to the government's consultation, the bureau welcomes this addition to tackle potentially anti-competitive conduct.

Further, we were encouraged by Parliament's decision to potentially expand the scope of Bill C-56 to allow this committee to make additional amendments to the act, most notably to increase the penalty amounts for the abuse of dominance provision, to give the commissioner of competition the ability to initiate market study inquiries, and to revise the legal test for abuse of dominance prohibition orders.

We believe these amendments mark a key step in modernizing Canada's competition law and ensuring the bureau can better protect and promote competition in Canada. A more competitive economy will benefit all Canadians by offering more choice and greater affordability for consumers and businesses.

If these proposed amendments become law, the Bureau will take care to ensure that its approach going forward with respect to their application is communicated clearly and transparently to businesses and stakeholders alike. We are keenly aware of the importance of predictability in this realm.

We look forward to discussing these proposed amendments today with you.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Boswell and Mr. Durocher.

We'll now hear from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada.

[Timothy Ross, Executive Director, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada]

Good evening. Thank you again for the invitation to appear this evening.

My name is Tim Ross. I'm the executive director of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. CHF Canada is the national voice of housing co-operatives from coast to coast to coast.

In a world of growing housing insecurity, unbearable rent increases and social isolation, housing co-operatives offer solutions to these economic and social challenges. Co-operative housing is a well-documented success story. For over 50 years, co-ops have been providing good-quality and affordable housing owned and managed by their members. There are more than 2,200 housing co-operatives located in every province and territory. They are home to a quarter of a million Canadians.

Co-op housing operates at cost, meaning members' housing costs remain stable. They cover the costs of operating and maintaining vibrant communities.

Research from last year proves that co-op homes cost $400 to $500 less per month than comparable private rental buildings in similar cities. Think of what an extra $400 or $500 a month could mean to your household. It could mean more nutritious meals. It could mean supporting extracurriculars for kids. It could mean saving for education, saving for a house or saving for retirement. The value of co-ops is well known to their members, but we want to do more to build more co-operative housing.

Another benefit of co-operative housing is that co-ops offer security of tenure. There is no outside landlord who might sell or renovict the property, or jack the rents just because the markets can bear it. Finally, co-ops are very strong communities. The members who live there care about their community, and they care about their neighbours.

The value of co-op housing has been recognized by governments of all political stripes throughout Canada’s history, most recently in the legislation that is the purpose of this study by the committee and in the fall economic statement.

I wanted to offer that context before I spoke a bit about our reaction to Bill C-56.

Bill C-56 includes the new GST rental rebate, which has been designed to incentivize the construction of purpose-built rental housing. While we know that increasing the supply of multi-unit rental housing is important, we need to make sure that we are building the right kind of supply—the type of housing that people can actually access and afford. Co-ops certainly fit the bill.

The fall economic statement proposes including co-operative housing in this rebate. We appreciate this policy change, as we know it will be directly passed on to future members living in future co-op homes built across the country.

Reduced project costs will translate to lower project debts, resulting in lower housing charges for the members from the outset. Through the co-op housing model that operates on a not-for-profit basis, these savings will be passed on directly to the households occupying these new co-op homes from day one, and this benefit will increase over time.

I would also be remiss if I didn't speak about this rebate in the context of the co-operative housing development program. We are quite excited to see the co-operative housing sector growing in Canada. The federal budget in 2022 included the first federal investment in co-op housing in over 30 years, as well as a commitment to codesign the program with the co-operative housing sector.

CHF Canada encourages the federal government to launch the co-op housing development program as soon as possible, as there is a lost opportunity cost in waiting for a program to launch as costs continue to rise.

Our excitement for this program is tempered by the fact that we know more is needed to solve the housing crisis. Ms. Marie-Josée Houle gave some of these numbers as well. The key to solving the crisis is not just building more homes; it’s building more community homes, meaning more co-op and non-profit housing.

You would ask, perhaps, “At what cost?” I know we're all mindful of the fiscal situation and its potential impact on inflation. It's very important that we tame inflation.

I want to highlight a study that was just published today by the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association. It was written by Deloitte. It demonstrates the benefit to Canada's economy if we continue to grow the community housing sector in Canada just up to the OECD average. By doing so, by 2030, we would increase economic productivity in Canada by 5.7% to 9.3%. It would lift our GDP by up to $136 billion. What's very important is that this study further demonstrated that government investment in the creation of new community housing was non-inflationary.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share some of these updates from the co-operative housing sector. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ross. There will plenty of time for questions.

By video conference, we're now going to hear from Option consommateurs. I believe Sara Eve Levac is speaking first, followed by Carlos Castiblanco.

[Sara Eve Levac, Lawyer, Option consommateurs]

Hello, Mr. Chair and committee members. We thank you for offering us the opportunity to present our comments today.

My name is Sara Eve Levac and I am a lawyer with Option consommateurs. I am joined by my colleague Carlos Castiblanco, who is an economist and analyst.

Option consommateurs was created in 1983 and is a not-for-profit association whose mission is to help consumers and defend their rights. Option consommateurs has been involved in issues relating to competition for decades. It often answers consumers' questions concerning deceptive marketing practices. It has initiated class actions alleging violations of the Competition Act. It also contributed to the recent consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada.

We are therefore in a good position to provide our comments on Bill C-56.

Option consommateurs supports Bill C-56 and urges that it be enacted. First, in this inflationary period, it proposes better oversight of market competition. We also welcome the repeal of the efficiencies defence in corporate merger cases. Second, it is part of a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach for stimulating the housing supply.

However, we propose that the measures put forward in the bill be strengthened. Our presentation will focus on two of these suggestions.

First, the amendments to the Competition Act should give the Competition Bureau the necessary leeway in carrying out market studies.

Second, there should be more focus on creating affordable housing. This would mean specifying the criteria for housing units that are eligible for the excise tax rebate, for one thing.

I would note that we have produced a written brief setting out our position on the bill in detail.

First, Bill C-56 gives the Competition Bureau a mandate to conduct inquiries into the state of competition in a market, at the request of the minister. We propose that the Competition Bureau have powers that enable it to obtain the necessary information directly in conducting such inquiries.

For example, the Competition Bureau recently did a market study on the retail grocery sector. In that study, it pointed out that the companies had not all cooperated to the same degree.

To ensure that the market studies provided for in Bill C-56 are effective, the Competition Bureau should have the power to compel a person to provide information to it.

At present, Bill C-56 provides that the Bureau must apply to a court for an order that a person provide information to the Bureau. This additional step cause additional delays in the conduct of inquiries.

We note that elsewhere in the world, including in the United States and the European Union, the institutions responsible for overseeing the state of competition do have that power.

As well, the power of the Competition Board to undertake a market study should be included in the act. Elsewhere in the world and in Canada, the power of other oversight institutions to undertake studies is expressly provided in the law.

I will give my colleague Mr. Castiblanco the floor to talk to you about our comments on the proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act.

[Carlos Castiblanco, Economist and Analyst, Option consommateurs]

Thank you.

We acknowledge the government's efforts to respond to the housing crisis. However, we believe that eliminating the GST on new purpose-built rental buildings, as proposed in the bill, is still not enough.

Our initial concerns were assuaged by the measures in the 2023 fall economic statement. The elimination of the GST was extended to include purpose-built rental housing cooperatives. The government also expanded construction programs and access to credit for affordable housing.

The economic statement also tackles the problem of short-term rentals by denying tax deductions for units that do not comply with municipal bylaws. In addition, it strengthens protection for mortgage holders by introducing a mortgage charter.

These initiatives illustrate the federal government's desire to adopt a multi-faceted approach in order to stimulate the housing supply. Nonetheless, these measures could still be improved.

We suggest that the eligibility criteria for the excise tax rebate be specified. This would mean clearly defining what constitutes an affordable housing unit and prioritizing non-market housing. It is also crucial that the procedure for accessing financing initiatives be standardized, taking the agreement between the Quebec and federal governments as a model, to ensure consistency in the response to the housing crisis, while respecting provincial jurisdictions.

Optimizing the mortgage charter and toughening regulation of short-term rentals would be wise. Revising the mortgage structure to provide better protection for landlords from interest rate fluctuations and enacting more stringent legislation regarding temporary rentals, as Japan has done, would provide the benefit of stabilizing the rental market in the long term.

Thank you.

We will be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Castiblanco and Ms. Levac.

We are going into questions from members. In this first round of questions, each party will have up to six minutes to ask the witnesses questions.

We're starting with MP Williams for the first six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today. This is a great discussion on competition. I think it's long overdue, and I certainly love all the comments so far.

Mr. Boswell, we'll start with you. You and the bureau did excellent work on your study on competition in the grocery industry earlier this year, and I have a couple questions on that study.

What impact did the efficiencies defence have on pricing in the grocery industry?

[Matthew Boswell]

I thank the honourable member for the question.

There aren't a lot of examples where the efficiencies exception has been relied upon in mergers in the grocery industry in Canada. There is an interesting example from 2019 that serves to underscore why the efficiencies defence should be repealed, which was CN purchasing a company called H&R Transport. The bureau found that this transaction was going to result in a substantial lessening of competition in eight markets. The key service in question was refrigerated intermodal transport in eight local markets in Canada, which was going to drive up the price of foodstuffs. We examined the efficiencies advanced by the party and came to the conclusion that the defence applied, and we had to allow the merger to go ahead. There's an example of how the efficiencies exception in real life can ultimately end up costing Canadians more money.

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

That's right. I think the other one was the Superior Propane efficiencies defence. Is that correct?

[Matthew Boswell]

Yes, but I was talking about this in relation to food, in relation to groceries.

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

That's right.

What impact did the minister's inability to order the bureau to conduct market inquiries have on prices in the grocery industry?

[Matthew Boswell]

We undertake market studies at the bureau, and I want to be clear on that point. However, we undertake those studies with one hand tied behind our backs in that we can only rely on voluntarily-provided information from the people we're looking into in the market.

In that particular situation, we were seeking financial data from the major grocers, and we didn't receive full compliance with our requests for that data despite making repeated requests. At the end of the day, it was an aspect of our report where we didn't have the information we thought we needed.

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

The report stated that the bureau did not receive the type of data it needed. Would having the power to obtain that type of data help the bureau in its mandate?

[Matthew Boswell]

Absolutely, and it's already been said this evening, I think, several times. We're an outlier among our key international partners in this regard. They have formal market study powers, and they can use information-gathering tools to get the information to look at markets to make recommendations to government.

There are lots of examples with our foreign counterparts where they make recommendations that result in meaningful change in the economy. For example, the United Kingdom did an open banking study and made recommendations to their government that resulted in the government putting in place the open banking framework in the U.K. several years ago. It's a very powerful tool.

I should point out that it's not targeted at companies. We're also looking at government regulations that can hinder competition at all levels of government, which, as Mr. Lee said earlier, is a big problem in Canada.

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

I think it goes without saying that you would support an amendment that gives you that kind of power.

There is an amendment in the bill right now that gives the minister that kind of power. I think of you as the sheriff of competition, and your deputy is Mr. Durocher. You're going out to police competition, but does the minister need the power to direct market studies? You're supposed to be an arm's-length organization, not embedded in ISED. It's its own organization. Why do you think the amendment is here to give the minister the power to direct market studies? Would you want the laws changed to allow you to make those market studies when you want to make them?

[Matthew Boswell]

Yes, and I'll go back.

I'm being very candid. As I said in my opening statement, we made extensive recommendations to the government on amendments to the act. One of them was to protect the independence of the bureau. It's very important. It's an international best practice for it to be an independent organization. The second was that the market study power should also be independent, and the commissioner should have the ability to initiate a market study that allows us to use information-gathering powers in the act.

We were very clear on that. We said that a lot of caution has to be exercised in the minister being able to direct market studies because there's a risk, whether it's real or perceived, of politicization of these studies and the use of these studies for politicians to direct the Competition Bureau to go into hot-button issues that may not be the most important competition issues for the bureau to examine. To a great extent, it takes out our ability to prioritize where we want to look and where we want to give recommendations to government on how to improve competition in Canada.

It's something we flagged. At the end of the day, we're very happy to get the information-compelling powers, but we would respectfully suggest that maybe it ought to be a combination of the minister being able to direct and the commissioner of competition being able to initiate a market study on his or her own volition in order to advance those inquiries.