Evidence of meeting #131 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Very quickly, I believe that this is also redundant following the passage of Bill C-56. This would result in inconsistencies if it were to pass.
Thank you.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
To be consistent as well, the commissioner said this was not necessary, so I want to highlight that the competition commissioner agreed.
Thank you.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I was speaking to clause 7, so you have my apologies. I moved ahead.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Rick Perkins
You jumped ahead. I know this is exciting, and you're anxious to move.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Exactly. My friend from the Bloc said to resign, and I called for Mr. Turnbull's after his...so that's fair.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Rick Perkins
It's balanced. Okay.
Is there any more discussion on clause 6?
(Clause 6 negatived)
(On clause 7)
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Rick Perkins
I gather Mr. Masse has something he wants to say about clause 7.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Briefly, it's to thank the competition commissioner for the evidence because it's already taken care of. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I was going to say that we're against it as well. This is already taken care of, and we don't want to reinsert the efficiencies defence into the legislation. Thanks.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Rick Perkins
Are there any other comments? There being none, are we ready for a vote?
(Clause 7 negatived)
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I have a point of order.
Thank you. It took 10 years to get that done. It's a good one.
(On clause 8)
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Rick Perkins
Are there any comments or questions on clause 8?
Go ahead, MP Turnbull.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
We've created a complete ban on the blocking of mergers being based solely on market share. This reintroduces that, which I think is confusing and incoherent given the decisions that have already been made. I think that's supported by the competition commissioner, so I would say we're voting against.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
The 30% will be law in clause 249 of Bill C-59, and as we heard, a 60% ban was opposed by almost all witnesses, so we'll be voting no on this.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Rick Perkins
Are there any more comments on clause 8? There don't appear to be any.
(Clause 8 negatived)
(On clause 9)
We will start with amendment NDP-2. Is there any discussion?
I have MP Masse on NDP-2.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On the advice of legislative drafters, given the changes already made in Bill C-59, we have chosen to repeat the text that is found in C-59 and modify it slightly to incorporate structural presumption mergers resulting in over 60% market share, which has been proposed in clause 8.
We heard from the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project on the eight challenged mergers by the bureau over the last 40 years, and seven resulted in there being market shares above 60%. Four of them were near or literal monopolies, only two of which had any sort of remedy, and none of them were blocked.
We want to help the Competition Bureau rebalance the equation against corporations, monopolies and oligopolies and towards protecting consumers. We would also just recall the testimony from Mr. Péladeau with regard to the telco sector, which is very relevant to this section with potential telecom mergers in the future.
We would like this to be passed and would be hopeful that, given the testimony you had in support of this, we're going to see this actually become reality. Thank you.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
My understanding is that this does not delete the bill's existing presumptions, needlessly leading to two highly similar sets of presumptions, and multiple stakeholders have expressed concerns, including the commissioner of competition.
Maybe I could ask the officials, Mr. Chhabra and/or other members of the team, whether they could speak to the concerns that NDP-2 brings up.
11:30 a.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
I understand, with the committee having taken the decision to vote down clause 8, NDP-2, which modifies clause 9, would no longer create the duplication issue that was previously flagged. However, it continues to offer some other challenges, including an outright bar against mergers over 60% market share.
I believe that this committee heard from a number of witnesses who indicated that it would be unprecedented globally and not recommended for a number of reasons. It could lead to undesirable or absurd results, of course, including in a scenario where, as many in Canada's start-up ecosystem have noted, it's often via sale to a larger player that they find an exit strategy. That can also result in some pro-competitive or pro-consumer outcomes as well.
Implementing an outright bar on mergers rather than the approach that was already taken by this committee under Bill C-59, which was to reverse the burden of proof, would be a significant step forward and one that has not been supported by stakeholders and experts.