Finance Committee on April 11th, 2024

[Philippe Poirier-Monette]

Thank you for your question.

It has clearly been pointed out to us, as an organization that represents seniors, that Quebec's Régie de l'assurance maladie doesn't cover the full range of prescription drugs and equipment. We've been made aware of this by diabetics, particularly with regard to insulin injections.

If you're asking for my opinion on this issue, I'll say that full coverage would absolutely be welcome, especially because it would help better monitor the disease. It would be easier to do so. Those people would also be able to live more normal lives. We could also discuss people who suffer from sleep apnea. A range of drugs and equipment isn't covered for that condition.

We had Réseau FADOQ would obviously like diseases to be treated much more directly.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

It's just a beginning, but I think it's a good one. Thank you.

Ms. Brandon-Jepp, in your written submission to the committee, the chamber said:

Extending the 100% GST rebate with respect to new purpose-built rental housing to certain cooperative housing corporations is a good solution. However, further changes to the Excise Tax Act to extend the removal of GST to cover projects currently under construction would help get more housing built, and free up capital to build even more.

How many additional units of housing do you estimate this amendment would help construct?

[Jessica Brandon-Jepp]

I don't have specifics here with me today, but the chamber is very fortunate to have a wide range of subject matter experts, including an expert on housing and infrastructure, and I'd be pleased to consult my colleague and get you a very detailed and specific answer.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I guess you're talking conceptually. Conceptually, it would result in that, and quantifying it would be something that you could maybe provide this committee with.

[Jessica Brandon-Jepp]

That's correct.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Bester, in your written submission, the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project said this:

...Canada's competition law treats the Bureau effectively as a private litigant, with the risk of being responsible for a portion of a defendant's legal fees should it lose in court. Most recently, this resulted in the Competition Tribunal ordering the Bureau to pay $13 million of taxpayer's money, nearly a fifth of its annual budget, to multibillion dollar telecommunications firm, Rogers.

C-59 makes progress on this front but does not remove cost awards entirely. Instead, it limits the circumstances where a judge could order the Bureau to pay these costs.

In your view, does the current potential for cost awards discourage the Competition Bureau from bringing cases?

[Keldon Bester]

Certainly, and it's a great credit to Bill C-59 for really narrowing that window.

I think it not only discourages the bureau from taking cases, but, somewhat perversely, discourages the bureau from taking cases against the biggest companies, those with the biggest legal firepower, and says that if you want to take a less risky approach, we can maybe go after more medium-sized and smaller players. I think there's a chilling effect.

Also, there's then a specific shaping that the bureau is there to go after folks that regular Canadians cannot, and I think this runs counter to that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you. I think that's an astute observation.

Should Bill C-59 be amended to remove cost awards from the Competition Tribunal Act entirely, in your view?

[Keldon Bester]

That's our view.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Staying with this, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute testified earlier. They, I think, if I'm being fair to their argument, argued that structural presumptions were unwise. What's your response to that?

[Keldon Bester]

Well, what did we get for ignoring structure over the past 40 years? The C.D. Howe Institute put out a piece saying that of the eight contested mergers in Canadian history, seven resulted in market shares of over 60% and four of them resulted in literal or near monopolies. In the past 40 years, we've ignored structure, and it has cost us. It has led to consolidation across the economy.

Structure is not a perfect measure, but it's one way we create a system that has a higher likelihood of protecting Canadians, and I think we need to learn from our peers, as well as our own history, to guide the future on that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Do you have a suggestion about what benchmark for combined market share might trigger the presumption of substantially lessening or preventing competition?

[Keldon Bester]

CAMP has put forward a 30% market share for a rebuttable presumption, which is to say that companies are free to make arguments as to why this is actually good for Canadians. At extreme levels of concentration, where a merger would result in one firm having 60% of a single market, we believe that should be banned outright.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It would be an absolute presumption at that level.

[Keldon Bester]

Yes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

What is the impact of shifting the onus onto the party seeking to merge to demonstrate the benefits of a merger?

[Keldon Bester]

Well, I think it flips how we think about mergers as something necessarily either benign or beneficial and instead focuses on how, if we are going to have more consolidation in Canada's already oligopoly markets, the job should be for the merging parties to sell Canadians and to sell our legal system on why we should allow it, as opposed to the bureau's much more whack-a-mole approach, just because of the structure of it, of taking on one or two big cases every couple of years. This puts the emphasis much more on making the positive case for further consolidation, if any.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

What's the record on—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies. Time goes very quickly here—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

—and we have a lot of questions.

We have 10 minutes left. We're going to do as we did in the last panel and have a very rapid round. There will be two minutes per party.

We will start with MP Williams for two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bester, is the Competition Bureau independent right now?

[Keldon Bester]

The Competition Bureau is a department of the Minister of Industry, so there is a link there. I think the bureau takes its independence seriously. However, it is within a department, unlike the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, as an agency of Parliament.

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

It is under the umbrella of ISED right now. Is that correct?

[Keldon Bester]

In addition to that, the law includes a number of ways in which the minister can direct the bureau to pursue either a market study or an inquiry. That was the case even before these reforms.