Industry Committee on April 15th, 2021

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but how can the government help?

[Ritesh Kotak]

One of the ways the government can help—I'm a big advocate of red tape reduction and amalgamating different resources—is that if there were a tool kit, a single source that a small business or any business could go to, it would have access to information related to export, to technical resources and to different platforms and accessibility. If there were a one-stop shop or a digital tool kit, it would make life a lot easier for small businesses.

Currently what we have is that the information is available, and it's out there, but it's in different areas. If you are a small business, you might not have the ability to locate the information and then leverage and implement the information and capitalize on it through different sales channels. Amalgamation, red tape reduction and having all those resources in a single place would definitely be beneficial for small businesses.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

You talked about the tool kit. It's funny that Madam Bednar also talked about the tool kit.

If I may go to you, Madam Bednar, you also mentioned that we really don't have access to a tool kit to be able to remain competitive. Can you share any clarifying statements you want to make, or can you expand on that one? What type of tool kit do we need?

[Vass Bednar]

Recently there's been more writing about exploring whether the Competition Bureau needs the capacity to be able to conduct market studies. Authorities in the U.S. can compel particular information from businesses in order to keep pace with trends in the sector and then better understand where there might be emerging issues of concern. We don't have that.

In terms of a tool kit, I also mentioned independence. We do nest our Competition Bureau within the ministry and some people point to that as a potential opportunity for conflict.

I mentioned the somewhat arbitrary threshold for merger reviews. I worry and wonder that we're missing mergers that we should be a little bit more thoughtful about, and also fines. With regard to our capacity to levy fines, frankly, fines exist as a deterrent and may not be the deterrent that we hoped them to be.

The last thing I'll maybe offer is that we have other pieces of legislation that have a bit more of a schedule for review. I believe the Bank Act gets a little bit of a look every five years, so thinking about more of a schedule to do that spring cleaning and review this really important legislation could also be impactful.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I've got about a minute left and want to continue with you, Madame Bednar. You talk about anticipatory regulations. Can you expand on that one, please?

[Vass Bednar]

It strikes me that competition policy is inherently retroactive. We evaluate mergers after they happen. Sometimes we're going back in time, and what I worry about, since we're not being thoughtful about the digital economy and the implications of data and consumer data held by companies, is that we're going to be stuck in a situation where years in the future we're going to be retroactively applying that lens to companies in a way that, as I've said, appears disingenuous, confusing, and punishes firms more than empowers them to understand the most effective ways to be responsible innovators.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, I've got five seconds, which I yield back to the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lemire, go ahead for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will begin by addressing the Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission, Mr. Jules.

Kwe.

What is your reaction to the exchange you just heard between Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Ross? Do you agree with those statements being attributed to first nations?

You know that we are currently debating in the House Bill C-15, which recognizes more indigenous rights, including the right to self-determination. Do you consider this to be a worthwhile process? It includes the obligation to consult first nations. Would you prefer that?

[C.T. (Manny) Jules]

I agree with Ellis. He's got long-standing experience in this area. What we need in this country is economic reconciliation, fundamentally. We've been legislated out of the economy and I believe that what we need, really, is a first nation federal-provincial table so that we can look at and establish a better fiscal relationship, focused on investment and competitiveness. I think that's the fundamental way we've got to move forward, addressing the myriad of concerns.

One of the things Ellis was saying that I agree full-heartedly with is that just having one piece of legislation doesn't lead to true reconciliation. If we're looking at the piece of legislation to deal with UNDRIP, we need a myriad of different pieces of legislation to implement the constitutional rights that Canada has recognized for first nations.

The other thing that's clear in the discussions is that first nations operate under telegraph technology, as opposed to a digital age technology. All of these matters have to fundamentally change, and if Canada is going to regain its competitive edge, we have to move to ensure that first nations are fully a part of the solutions that are going to come post pandemic.

One of the things that's going to be critically important, of course, is fiscal relationship discussions based on the health care and indebtedness that Canada as a whole is going to be facing. Without harnessing the youth and the abilities to —

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

One moment, Mr. Jules. Unfortunately we're losing the translation.

The quality of the sound is a little patchy. Is it possible for you to get a little closer?

[C.T. (Manny) Jules]

Yes, when I spoke I was moving a little farther away. I'll do that and I'll speak a little more slowly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I'll start the clock back.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

[C.T. (Manny) Jules]

We need economic reconciliation in this country.

I agree with Ellis Ross in his statements about UNDRIP. You can't have one piece of legislation when you've got constitutionally recognized rights. You have to have a myriad of different pieces of legislation that facilitate our being a fundamental economic and competitive partner in this federation.

Right now we've got a situation whereby we've been completely legislated out of the economy. We first nations operate under technology that was developed during the telegraph era. We need to be a part of the digital age. That means fundamentally changing how we operate in this country.

One of the fundamental recommendations I would make to this committee is that we establish, or that you recommend the establishment of, a first nations federal-provincial table to deal with competitiveness and the myriad of complex issues that this country is facing in getting our commodities to market.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Meegwetch.

Indeed, recognizing first nations as stakeholders is a first step.

I would now like to address Mr. Winseck or Mr. Klass, from the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project.

I would like you to list the elements that contribute to the administrative and regulatory burden telecommunications companies are facing and, more specifically, to tell us what the solutions for reducing that burden are.

[Dr. Dwayne Winseck]

I will make a short answer to that.

I'm not quite sure how onerous the administrative burdens on telecommunications companies are as opposed to, say, members of the public who want to participate in regulatory proceedings. The Competition Bureau itself has very non-existent public proceedings; it does not even meet the standards of the CRTC.

I'm less concerned with whatever burdens the telecom companies have. In fact, they may not be facing enough pressure to meet the policy objectives that have been set for them, or to address public interest considerations that are raised before either the CRTC or the Competition Bureau.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have a question that is possibly related to what you told us during our latest study, but it also applies in the current context.

What can the federal government do in terms of regulations to help small service providers better compete with historical giants such as Bell, Rogers and Telus?

[Dr. Dwayne Winseck]

I'll turn that to Ben.

[Ben Klass]

I think we're expecting to hear a decision from the CRTC later today that might impact the competitiveness of the mobile wireless market, one of the most important telecom markets.

If the CRTC does opt to adopt the regulatory regime that encourages and allows more competition, then I think we'll be looking forward to its implementation. If they neglect to do that, I think Parliament may want to investigate why the CRTC isn't addressing this problem sufficiently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, Mr. Klass.

With that, we will now turn to MP Masse.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Klass, you're exactly correct: Four o'clock today will define a lot of different competition issues. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Ms. Bednar, in your studies right now, have you come across and do you have any commentary on the efficiency provisions in the Competition Act right now? We've heard testimony at this committee of this archaic component that's very unusual for any country to have, let alone Canada. Its consequences are quite significant. Can you provide some commentary on that, please?

[Vass Bednar]

Of course. Just to start, I'll say that I echo the previous comments. Economist Robin Shaban is my collaborator on the white paper that I mentioned is coming up. As such, I do defer to her criticism and observations, and I think it would be smart, and it feels inevitable for us, to re-evaluate the efficiencies defence and what it's helping and what it's hurting.

I wonder about and observe the proposed Rogers-Shaw merger. You know, this is an opportunity for people to learn about the efficiencies defence. I don't think the general public—and I hope it's not too much of a reach for me to say this—is as concerned with the minutiae of competition policy as it is with the feeling or sentiment that it is not evaluating proposed large mergers in the way consumers are.

Again, in an effort to rebalance private interests, public interests and worker interests, now would be a great time for Canada to hit “refresh” on the Competition Act. I hope we hear a lot of really interesting voices for more ideas on that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, when it was reviewed here last time, its scope was very narrow. I had many amendments, which were ruled out of order. In fact, it was designed to prevent a further review. At this committee, I had several amendments that addressed issues but they were deemed out of the scope of the study. The government had made it so descriptive and limited that it wasn't even a holistic review of the Competition Act. It was basically a piecemeal approach, so it would be erroneous to assume it's had a thorough review.

I want to continue with Ms. Bednar and then go to Mr. Winseck, as well, because it's important. Mr. Pecman, the former commissioner of the Competition Bureau, acknowledged the “scarce enforcement resources” they have. He also noted that this erodes the ability of the bureau to actually take the initiative.

Is that the evidence you're seeing as well? From my experience here, it seems that the Competition Bureau is almost on a defensive perimeter, having to deal with a number of different things. The current commissioner didn't say that they stopped doing files, but he clearly indicated that when they had new ones pop up, they had to put other work aside.

Could you comment on that? I'll go to Mr. Winseck as well, please.

[Vass Bednar]

We've certainly seen the comparative under-resourcing of our own Competition Bureau when it's put in that international context. I can't speak to the bureau having to pick and choose where to enforce. However, I can also say that I believe that a review of the Competition Act was hinted at, maybe in one of the more recent mandate letters, in an interview in the Globe and Mail with the outgoing minister of innovation. It was previewed that the Competition Act might be reviewed or that it was a policy priority. Again, I wonder and I worry that we're all just dancing around the same conversation.

Second, there's more public discourse on competition policy right now. That's really healthy and good, but I pointed to the capture in the sector. Earlier this week, there was an op-ed in the National Post by three Bay Street lawyers that was framed as a kind of response to something Robin and I had written. That's wonderful and I'm happy to hear other perspectives, but I do wonder about their client list and the other interests they're protecting. We need more transparency. Let's just call a spatula a spatula here.

Thank you.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you. I had noticed that exchange as well. I do have a subsequent question relating to conflict of interest. It involves this actual department having the Competition Bureau within it, as part of its structure. It's absurd.