Industry Committee on June 3rd, 2024

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Of course, we need separation, but let's be very clear: The Liberals refuse to acknowledge that the bread price-fixing scheme that happened ripped off Canadians to the tune of $5 billion, and the fines that were levied for one of the most egregious examples were slaps on the wrist for these large corporations.

What I'm proposing is a guideline that would give a judge the ability to impose fines triple the benefit accrued, or 10% of the revenue of a company. These are serious sanctions and serious penalties, and I don't understand why the Liberals are unwilling to impose some guidelines to let judges know they need to go further and impose harsher penalties for harsh crimes. If companies are going to rip off Canadians, they need to know that they are then going to suffer serious sanctions as a result. That's what I'm proposing—penalties that stop these corporations from ripping off Canadians.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Again, we'll have to beg to differ, because we have increased penalties.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

It's just not on the collusion and conspiracy.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Maybe you want to increase them more. However, my understanding is the way that the law works is that the higher the potential severity of the penalty, the more important it is to have that separation between the adjudicative and investigative functions.

If you agree to a tribunal.... You're not here, under your private member's bill, proposing to take out the tribunal within the competition reforms that you're proposing. Is that right?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

No, not at all.

I just want to be clear. While we were able to force the government to bring in changes to anti-competitive behaviour, the government refused to bring in those changes to the collusion or conspiracy or the price-fixing, and the price-fixing is what I'm talking about with the bread price-fixing.

That scenario that we have evidence of happened in 2018. The Liberals and, frankly, the Conservatives are unwilling to go after that price-fixing. That's what I'm proposing to do in this bill that is outstanding, to address price-fixing or that conspiracy, or when corporations work together to rip off Canadians. That's where we need penalties that are severe. Those penalties are not in the current government legislation. That's what my bill would do, and that would significantly protect consumers.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Just to be clear, though, you recognize the benefits of having an administrative tribunal. Could you speak to those benefits?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

We have not suggested anywhere in my bill that we would change that structure. We're strictly focused on—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Is that because you recognize the important function that it plays?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Right. There are separations in terms of those who investigate and those who adjudicate, and that's normal.

What I'm focused on is making sure that, if a corporation rips off a Canadian, they will suffer serious penalties. That is not in existence right now when it comes to collusion or conspiracy, when large corporations work together like we saw in the bread price-fixing. That's the unfinished business I'm speaking to that my bill would address.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

But you don't advocate for circumventing the principles of natural justice within that regime of having the separation of powers and having fairness and due process to be grounded in the system we're offering?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

I don't think I've suggested that anywhere, nor is that anywhere in the bill.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Okay, great. It's just that your member here does that on privacy. That's why I'm asking. Your member here is completely willing to gut the bill on privacy of a tribunal, which we've heard testimony—

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Privacy and competition are very different. What I'm speaking to is related to competition, and it's a very different matter.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Well, they're not that different, but I'll end it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Garon, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Singh. It is a pleasure to see you.

Congratulations on introducing your bill.

Obviously, you have focused on grocery stores, since that is the issue of the year. We understand that it is important, but your bill would change the competition rules for all industries, so I would like to talk to you, as my Conservative colleague did, about the open banking system.

You know that the banks today are having to become manufacturers of financial products, and there are apps where customers go to buy them and use them. So there needs to be legislation and regulations to regulate all of that, actually. You know that the budget, which you supported, contained an intention to regulate the open banking system. You also know, since you are a very well-informed man, that our biggest financial institution in Quebec, Desjardins, is owned by the Government of Quebec.

The government's bill seems to contain the intention to impose a framework and hold a gun to Desjardins' temple and simply tell it to choose between adhering to the federal framework and being isolated on its own. There seems to have been no coordination with the Government of Quebec in order to harmonize all of this.

What is your position? Would you be prepared to support a bill about the open banking system for which there was no coordination with the Government of Quebec in order to take the biggest employer in Quebec and our biggest financial institution into consideration?

Would you support a bill like that?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Today I am prepared to talk about my bill on competition, the purpose of which, more specifically, is to tackle problems that are hitting people hard today, like the trouble Canadians have buying groceries. I am proposing measures to protect consumers and impose tougher penalties on the big corporations—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Singh, you are playing politics. I don't want to be rude, but you know what time is worth. I am talking to you about the current proposal regarding the open banking system, which is presenting Quebec with a fait accompli. You can say you have not yet formed an opinion about it—I respect people who take the time to think—but say it. Don't change the subject.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

I am explaining that today I am prepared to defend and promote my bill. I am prepared to think about what you have brought up and consider your proposal, but today I want to focus on the challenge we are facing. This is about adopting measures to protect consumers against the big corporations that are exploiting people: the big grocery chains, but also the big telecommunications companies.

That is what I want to talk about today, but I am prepared to consider your proposal.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

We will await your thoughts on that. Thank you.

Many of the provisions of your bill have already been applied, since they are part of bills that were passed earlier, such as Bills C‑56 and C‑59. However, part of it would still add a lot of constraints on competition authorities.

Essentially, with the legislative changes that have been made so far, not only must the competition bureau look for efficiency gains before authorizing a transaction, but it must now also be possible to prove that consumers have benefitted from the efficiency gains. Your bill then adds a constraint associated with market structure, not the consequence of a merger. If the combined market share resulting from a merger exceeds 60%, it will be prohibited, and if it is between 30% and 60%, there will be an investigation, if I understand correctly.

What would happen, for example, in cases where there is what is called a natural monopoly, in remote regions? There are grocery chains in very remote regions that have trouble staying open, and if they do not merge in order to take over the market, they will go bankrupt and people will no longer have food.

Do you know that the inflexibility of your bill would prevent people from eating, in some regions? Have you thought about that?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

I have thought about the impact of a monopoly. If a company's market share is greater than 60% as a result of a merger, that hurts people. That is undeniable.

How can we help small businesses? How can we help businesses outside urban centres? I think that is the solution, and we should do it.

I am inflexible when it comes to preventing a monopoly. If a company has more than 60% of the market, that is a problem. We have seen the impact of monopolies or oligopolies in the realm of—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Singh—

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

—telecommunications. That hurts people.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Why did you not set the threshold at 50% or 55% or 42%, for example? Where did the 60% threshold come from?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

It is to prevent a situation like what the big grocery companies are doing: Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, Walmart and Costco now own a majority of the grocery stores in Canada. Anyone can see it when they look at the options in the market. It is a big problem.

To prevent this situation, we consulted other countries and we determined that this 60% threshold was a bright line. We should not accept a situation where a company has more than that, like—