Industry Committee on June 17th, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

I'm calling this meeting to order.

Welcome to—Mr. Williams, just hang on—meeting number 131 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, as we know, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 7, 2024, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-352, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act.

We will commence clause-by-clause today. We don't have anyone online, so we don't have to talk about the testing. However, we do have these earpieces. We need to keep them away from the microphones to protect our wonderful interpreters, so I'd ask for everyone's co-operation.

Mr. Williams, do you want to say something?

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

Yes, sir.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much. We have a notice of motion that I just want to quickly put through before we get to a lot of work today, which I know we want to get through.

Mr. Chair, the committee has a large workload on its docket—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

If I could interrupt....

If we can get through the bill, we would, with the committee's consent, not meet on Wednesday—if we can get through that today.

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

Yes.

I know that we've spent a lot of time on Bill C-27 for the last three or four months, and I know the committee is anxious to get to some of the other issues that are facing Canadians right now, specifically around the high cost of living, inflation, productivity, affordability, taxation and just the economy as a whole.

With all of that work and the fact that we still want to get back to Bill C-27 and get that finished in the fall, we are hoping we can still meet for a few meetings over the summer just to deal with some of these issues. I know that our member from Windsor also brought up, I think, a motion that he had on interprovincial trade and certain issues that we have that we want to bring the Competition Bureau back for, which I'm all for.

Therefore, we have a motion, Mr. Chair, that reads:

Given the large workload the committee has on the docket, the committee instructs the chair to book five meetings between July 8 and September 13, while the House is adjourned, to deal with unfinished business and pressing matters facing Canadians, such as regulatory barriers to competition, wireless telecommunications affordability, and examining the government's proposal to migrate Sustainable Development Technology Canada's funding into the National Research Council Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

Is there any...?

MP Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, could we vote to move this to committee business in terms of our subcommittee for the agenda? I'm open to considering this, but we're supposed to get more work done here today.

I like some of the content here, but I think that this is committee business and scheduling, which we normally have the subcommittee look at. That's the only thing. I wasn't prepared to deal with this today.

I also would like to know the financial costs associated with adding these meetings in the summertime because many of the staff here haven't had a break. It will require the House to resume too, so perhaps we could get that as well.

I'm open to it, for sure, but five meetings is basically.... I don't know whether the five full meetings of two hours are going to be done through tele-stuff or... Then, we know that the chair of this committee just had a newborn, I believe. Oh...not yet.

Okay. It would require the chair to have to come to Ottawa to convene the committee, and I don't know if that's really fair. I don't want to get too much in public on this, but the reality is that the chair has to come back here during that time, so we would want to have a backup plan to that, as well, if the chair can't be here. I've been through that before. I had the birth of my son during the old days when we didn't have virtual...and I had one day to go home and come back. I would hate to see that situation take place for the chair, who's been very diligent here in terms of accommodating all of us.

That's why I think we should maybe just push this off a little bit. I appreciate the member bringing this forward in terms of the elements, but there are some practical things I'd like to consider because, again, I don't know if we have all that info in front of us.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

We don't currently have a subcommittee on agenda scheduled, but obviously that's always in the committee's hands. I do know that in, I think, early July and late August there are construction issues around some of the committee rooms, but there is a gap in between.

MP Garon is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking our Conservative colleagues for proposing this motion. Upon reading it, I understand that our Conservative colleagues find the committee extremely busy and that, as a result, we need a lot more time. In my opinion, this only reinforces the idea that it would be wise to use this meeting to do a clause-by-clause study of Mr. Singh's bill.

I also want to point out to the committee that similar motions have been proposed in other committees. Our Conservative colleagues could no doubt tell us how many committees in this Parliament are so busy that they will have to sit all summer, in their opinion. Indeed, this seems to be cutting and pasting motions that have been tabled all over Parliament Hill. Last night, I was walking down Wellington Street and I think I saw a motion like this stuck on a telephone pole.

Also, I want to add that the House's technology services have advised us that the systems are due for major maintenance and that they need at least five to six weeks to complete it. In past years, summer meetings have been a major hindrance to the modernization of the systems. As a result, the situation has become critical and technological systems are in dire need of modernization this summer.

I'm quite curious to see where this conversation will lead, but allow me, in all open‑mindedness, to express the greatest of reservations.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

Thank you, MP Garon, for that update on the posting on trees.

MP Turnbull is next.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I think there are topics here, some of which we've already studied at this committee and some of which I think have some merit for studying. I'm not sure, but “regulatory barriers to competition”, I think, is referring to Mr. Masse's motion. I would certainly support studying interprovincial trade in the fall, but I don't see how that requires working over the summer on that particular topic.

We came to committee today for clause-by-clause. We have important work to do today, and my feeling is that we should adjourn debate on this and get focused on what the committee meeting was about today—Bill C-352 and the clause-by-clause on it—which I think is an important topic to get through.

I would move to adjourn debate.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

Okay. That's a dilatory motion and goes right to a vote. I'll ask the clerk to do a vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

Okay, so we've adjourned the debate.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That was interesting.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

Interesting is one way to put it.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm glad the Conservatives agreed with us, or most of the Conservatives agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

We'll start clause-by-clause.

I would like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-352.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively. Each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Approval from the mover of the amendment is not required. Subamendments must be provided in writing. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Finally, if members have any questions regarding the procedural admissibility of the amendments, the legislative clerks are here to assist the committee. However, remember that they're not legal drafters, so should members require assistance with drafting a subamendment, they must contact the legislative counsel.

I thank everyone for their attention.

With that, I'd like to welcome our departmental officials who are here today to try to guide us through clause-by-clause of this bill.

From the Department of Industry, we have Samir Chhabra, director general, marketplace framework policy branch; Martin Simard, senior director, corporate insolvency and competition directorate; and Ian Disend, senior analyst, corporate insolvency and competition directorate.

We will start with clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the alternative title, is postponed.

The chair calls clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Go ahead, MP Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

This clause proposes to give market study power to the Competition Bureau. This was already done in Bill C-56. This version of the wording lacks the necessary and widely supported checks and balances that were built into Bill C-56, so Liberal members will be voting against this clause.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

MP Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is the bill of Mr. Jagmeet Singh. One of the things that took place—just for the public to know—is that a couple of competition bills came forward. Bill C-56, as the parliamentary secretary noted, already took care of this issue. I have a number of quotes from different witnesses for this that call for this clause to be removed because it's redundant with other legislation.

Thank you very much for that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

Is there any other discussion? Shall clause 2 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

(Clause 2 negatived)

(On clause 3)

Go ahead, MP Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Penalties already increased in Bill C-19 through the elimination of a statutory maximum. This clause reintroduces a cap based on a formula not adapted to criminal provisions, which would, in practice, lower the penalties.

We're opposed to this one.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

We'll be supporting this because historically the courts have actually not followed through with penalties. This gives guidance to the courts for the penalties to actually be greater, at $25 million and also profits or, lastly, 10% of the company's revenue for the past 12 months.

This really comes out of the past practices of the court system that have been basically unwilling to put stricter fines and penalties in place. We support this amendment.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

In general, I would echo Mr. Masse's sentiments on clause 3. Putting in higher penalties will be an effective deterrence for cartel-like behaviour moving forward.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rick Perkins]

Mr. Williams is next, and then Mr. Turnbull.