Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting us to appear today to discuss the 2014 propane market review which was conducted in collaboration with our colleagues at the National Energy Board.
My name, as you said, is Martine Dagenais and I am the associate deputy commissioner responsible for economic analysis and advocacy in the competition promotion branch of the Competition Bureau. I am accompanied by my colleague, Greg Lang, senior competition officer, competition promotion branch.
The winter of 2013-14 was unusually and unexpectedly cold. The extreme temperatures in large parts of the country had a significant impact on Canadians. Those using propane for home heating had the double shock of cold weather and dramatic increases in propane prices. This was especially pronounced in eastern Ontario and western Quebec. Of course, it's a natural functioning of the market that where there is high demand for a finite good, and propane like all energy is a finite good, prices tend to rise. We see this in peak pricing for electricity. At the same time, sudden unexplained and higher than normal price peak spikes could give rise to competition concerns, and when it comes to energy prices in the dead of a hard Canadian winter, public policy concerns as well.
In this light, on February 4, 2014, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Industry asked the Competition Bureau and the National Energy Board to work together to review issues in the Canadian propane market to determine, among other things, if this situation was the result of a competition-related issue.
In a nutshell, we at the bureau do three things. First, where there is evidence of anti-competitive activity, we investigate and enforce the Competition Act. Second, we make our presentation to regulatory bodies at all levels of government in Canada to advocate for greater competition in various markets. Third, where there are concerns about competition issues in a given market, the bureau can provide advice and information about what might be happening in that market.
The bureau, working with the NEB, conducted a thorough study of the propane market. We found that the price spikes were the result of a unique combination of the following factors: unusually cold weather leading to high demand, high U.S. agricultural demand, lower than normal inventories, and rapidly growing U.S. overseas exports. Although there was a dramatic increase in prices, the bureau did not find evidence to conclude that anti-competitive activities were the cause of these increases.
In the remaining time, I will set out the bureau's methodology in conducting the market study and then discuss in greater detail our findings.
How did we conduct the market study? Three elements informed the bureau's analysis: information shared from the NEB, interviews with market participants and stakeholders, and a quantitative analysis of wholesale propane pricing in Canada.
First, the information shared by the NEB was instrumental to the bureau's analysis for two reasons. For one thing, the bureau doesn't actively monitor all sectors of the Canadian economy. While we strive to develop internal expertise in specific areas, we do need to rely on specialized agencies and market actors for information about specific markets such as the one for propane. For another, the NEB has a wealth of current information about the energy sector and the propane industry, information that we both put to excellent use in completing our analysis.
Second, a market study to be credible should involve market participants and stakeholders. The bureau completed interviews with 68 market participants, consumer associations, and other government agencies. The purpose of this was twofold: first, to gather information to understand the structure and dynamics of Canadian propane markets; and second, to solicit marketplace evidence of any potential anti-competitive behaviour that may have taken place in those markets.
Let me add that this was not a formal inquiry under the Competition Act. The bureau's review relied on the voluntary participation of industry stakeholders. Without the willing and strong cooperation of market participants and stakeholders, our analysis would have been considerably less rich, and so I thank them for their participation.
Finally, the bureau used the results of these interviews, coupled with both non-public and public information from across Canada and the U.S. to conduct a quantitative analysis of wholesale propane pricing in Canada.
Let us now turn to the bureau's findings, which I group into three questions: What are the characteristics of the propane market in Canada? What are the problems we observed within this market? What are the causes of those problems?
In Canada, the propane market is marked by two characteristics: a long supply chain and deep integration with the U.S. market. Propane is processed, stored, transported and distributed across a broad supply chain. The Canadian and American propane industries are integrated, and Canadian propane prices, supplies and infrastructure are linked to major propane trading hubs in the United States.
What were the problems? In the winter of 2013-2014, there were two critical issues in the market: propane prices increased dramatically and there were local reports, especially in Ontario and western Quebec, of retail delivery problems.
We now come to the core of our findings: What were the causes of these problems and, given our mandate, was there evidence that anti-competitive activity made these price increases worse? The short answer, based on the evidence gathered and our analysis, is that tight supplies and rapidly increased prices in Canada resulted from a unique combination of the following factors: unusually cold weather, high U.S. agricultural demand, lower than normal inventories, and rapidly growing U.S. overseas exports.
I will explain those factors more specifically.
An abnormally cold winter across the eastern parts of Canada and the United States resulted in a greatly increased demand for home or space heating fuels. An exceptionally large and wet corn harvest in the U.S. Midwest, resulting in greater than normal demand for propane to dry the corn prior to storage. Supply chain congestion and disruptions due to weather and maintenance resulted in less propane being available for distribution and delivery. Rapidly growing U.S. exports of propane to overseas markets caused a reallocation of volumes that might otherwise have been available in Canada and the United States. So the bureau did not find evidence to conclude that anti-competitive activities were the cause of those increases.
I should like to conclude with four more general points.
First, the bureau was pleased to provide advice and information to the government on the subject of the propane industry and to do so in close collaboration with the National Energy Board. Certainly the bureau welcomes the opportunity to provide, on its own or in tandem with other agencies, advice regarding competition and consumer protection issues in the future.
Second, in conducting a marketing study, the bureau does not have the full extent of formal information gathering tools, and so the scope of the bureau's study is necessarily limited to information provided voluntarily by market participants.
Third, should the bureau uncover evidence of anti-competitive conduct within the propane industry—or any industry—that may violate the Competition Act, we will not hesitate to take appropriate action.
Last, if any person has information regarding anti-competitive activities that have occurred or are occurring in the Canadian propane market, or any other sector of the Canadian economy, we strongly encourage them to provide this information to the bureau.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you again for inviting us today.