Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the second reading debate regarding Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Competition Act (inquiry into industry sector).
I would like to take a moment to frame my thoughts on this bill within the broader context of the government's plan for Canada's continuing economic recovery.
As we made clear in the Speech from the Throne, this government's goal, as we move forward into our recovery, is to ensure all Canadians benefit from our agenda of providing jobs and growth.
Over the last year, our government has taken decisive steps to protect incomes, create jobs, ease credit markets and help workers and communities get back on their feet.
Moving forward, our strategy for the economy is to create the conditions for continued success in the industries that are the foundation for Canada's prosperity. Our government is committed to identifying and removing unnecessary job-killing regulation and barriers to growth. This government stands for free and open markets. Open and competitive markets are the best way to promote new dynamic, innovative products and ideas.
Having set out this broader perspective on the government's priorities, allow me now to the turn to the details of the bill.
On its face, the bill appears to be quite straightforward. It proposes a single amendment to the Competition Act. If adopted, it would provide the Commissioner of Competition with additional power to commence a formal inquiry under the act.
To be clear, the act already allows the commissioner to start a formal inquiry into the conduct of a company, or companies, whenever she has reasonable grounds to believe that the act has, in some way, been violated. The amendment being proposed now would add to that authority. It would allow the commissioner to start an inquiry into an entire industry sector at large.
There is an important distinction between what exists today and what is being proposed.
Under Bill C-452, there would be no requirement to show any evidence that the enforcement provisions of the act might, in some way, have been contravened.
It is important to understand the consequences of such a change. The commencement of a formal inquiry is a serious step in the investigative process. Once at the stage of inquiry, the commissioner is able to apply to the courts for permission to use the investigative powers of the Competition Act to subpoena oral and written evidence from any party who may have relevant information regarding the matter under investigation. This is reasonable power for the commissioner when she is examining business practices that she has a basis for believing violate the enforcement sections of the act.
The commissioner must have access to modern and sophisticated investment tools to allow her to determine, in an unbiased fashion, whether the law has been violated.
At the same time, this is an authority that imposes both considerable and complicated obligations for those under investigation and significant public and private costs to ensure the obligations are met. Failure to comply raises the risk of being found in contempt and the possibility of fines and imprisonment.
The position of the Commissioner of Competition demands the exercise of prudence and good judgment. I have every confidence that the Commissioner of Competition does, and will continue to, exercise her authorities with the utmost care and responsibility.
However, the Office of the Commissioner requires direction. The introduction of this type of power proposed by the bill would put at risk the reputation of the commissioner and the staff she directs. The authority to inquire into an entire industry sector without any evidence of wrongdoing would open the commissioner to criticism that she is engaging in a costly fishing expedition.
We must also remember that the commencement of a formal inquiry and the commissioner's use of her formal powers come at a cost to her office. Her primary responsibilities are the enforcement provisions of the Competition Act. Any inquiry into an entire industry sector would demand extensive use of limited bureau resources. Without additional funding, the commissioner would need to reallocate assets from her other priorities.
It is imperative that Parliament consider the burdens we would impose on the commissioner when we amend the legislation and establish her enforcement priorities, and the cost to Canadian businesses and consumers if we distract from that principled focus.
As I noted at the outset of my comments, this government is committed to improving job opportunities for Canadians and growing our economy. We are committed to finding and eliminating unnecessary job-killing regulation and barriers to growth. We are not here to introduce measures that would result in new barriers to growth and prosperity.
As we consider this bill, we must also remember the steps that this government and this Parliament have already taken to address the issues that lie at the heart of this bill.
With the passage of Bill C-10, the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, in March 2009, this government introduced the most substantial amendments to Canada's anti-cartel laws in more than 100 years. These changes introduced an outright prohibition on agreements between competitors regarding prices, output levels and market sharing.