44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 20, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, the most significant thing within the legislation is that it would get rid of the efficiency argument. For example, a company that wants to acquire another company is not going to be able to say that, for efficiency purposes, it is in its best interest to acquire that company and that it will deliver goods to Canadians.
It is a different way in which the Competition Bureau would be able to assess and, I would argue, get a better overall review of the marketplace and make better decisions that are in the best interests of consumers in Canada. That is a good thing. The more competition there is, the better.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is great to see that marriage counselling is working, as we have a motion being debated today that brings one bill from the Liberals and another bill from the NDP. They are literally coming together on paper, but I hate to break it to them that the motion, the bill, is weak.
In short, of course, we have agreed to some of the changes being brought through: the market powers, that the maximum of fixed penalty amounts for abuse of dominance be increased, and that we ensure that the legal test for abuse of dominant prohibition orders be significantly met. We have agreed to those, but none of this is going to lower grocery prices today.
Government members sitting across us argue, for some reason, that we are holding this up, when we have been emphatic in trying to push it forward. The main part of this that a member brought up, the efficiencies defence, was actually my idea that I brought to the House at first reading in June. Conservatives have been trying to change competition and the Competition Act. We are here today debating the merits of competition as a whole, but certainly the bill is weak; it would not change competition. We want to see courage. Canadians are paying the highest fees in the world right now for groceries, airlines, cellphones and bank fees. It is only courage to change the entire Competition Act that would actually change the way the country views and approaches competition.
For the benefit of Canadians listening at home, when we look at the Competition Bureau, we must think of it as the police force, as a law enforcement agency. It is tasked under the laws given by this place to go out and enforce the rules in order to do two things only: to stop the abusive nature of big, bossy, dominant companies and to ensure that small, competitive players that want to enter the market can do so in a fair and equitable way. The price that Canadians pay for goods and services is through a strong, competitive market. Canadians are paying the highest prices in the world for some of the most dominant markets in the world. If we look at the main difference between American and Canadian competition laws, the competition laws in the U.S. ask whether the consumer is better off. In Canada, they ask only one thing: Is the company better off?
After eight years, Canadians are paying some of the highest fees in the world for airlines, credit card fees, bank fees and groceries. It is only now, after eight years and after we have seen some of the highest inflation rates in the last 40 years, that Canadians are seeing that all of these prices are too much and that competition is, of course, laying down its head in front of Canadians and in front of this place. If Canadian companies were part of a board game, that game would be the Canadian game of Monopoly. Kids hate this game. They take their dice, roll them and land on RBC, Scotiabank, Rogers, Telus, Air Canada and WestJet. They roll it and land on Ambev or Molson Coors brewery. Every time they pass “GO”, they lose $200. When it comes to kids playing this game, they go bankrupt very easily. It is because the game of Monopoly is flawed, and the game of Monopoly results in Canadians' losing every single time.
After eight years of the government, the competition laws it is trying to make are not going to be the ones we need. They are not brave enough and they are not strong enough. Canadians would be still paying the highest fees for almost everything in their lives.
Before I finish, I want to move an amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting after (c)(ii)(B) the following:
"and that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours each."
692 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
17 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I must admit I am a little surprised that the Conservatives are, again, bringing in a motion in an attempt to cause an additional delay in passing the bill. However, when we look at the fundamentals of the bill, the member has said that he kind of agrees with one part. We have provinces that are agreeing with the other part because they are invoking an exemption for the PST.
Why are the Conservatives so reckless when coming up with smart things to say and taking good action in the best interest of Canadians? Why are they found to be so lacking in good intent?
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear the member talking about competition again. At the end of the day, there are a lot of different problems with our Competition Act. Number one is abuse of dominance by large, bossy monopolies and corporations. Number two is that we just cannot get companies to start up. The changes that the government has proposed will not do the things that need to be done to change the Competition Act for good, which is to stop the dominance and to ensure that start-ups can start up. We need to start starting instead of start stopping.
At the end of the day, we need to ensure that there is a brave new face and that there are changes to the Competition Act. Of course, we want the ministers at committee. We want to look at a lot of good amendments from our side of the House to make the Competition Act stronger. The act will not be stronger after this bill goes through.
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have to hand it to the hon. member. I rather enjoy his analysis on monopoly capitalism. He has spoken at length about the ways in which the dominance of corporations have concentrated their power in this stage of capitalism.
I wonder if the hon. member would find common ground with me and agree that the battle of competition is fought by cheapening of commodities. “The cheapness of commodities depends, ceteris paribus, on the productiveness of labor, and this again on the scale of production. Therefore, the larger capitals [defeat] smaller.” Further, “the credit system, which begins as a [modest helper] of accumulation,” soon “becomes a new and [formidable] weapon in the [competitive struggle], and is finally transformed into an enormous social mechanism for the centralization of capitals.”
Would the hon. member agree with that economic theory? It could have been Adam Smith.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, even Adam Smith believed in regulations.
I want to talk about one thing to respond to that, and that will be the banking sector. We have a bill coming forward to open up banking as a whole for competition, and I hope the member across can support it. It is open banking, which would allow a provision that allows any major small competitor to enter the market, which is right now dominated by six oligopolies in the banking sector, controlling 93% of the banking aspects and 87% of mortgages. Open banking just changes the rules to allow that capital to be spread around. The capital is, of course, people's data and ensuring that other people can get their financial data and then bank them.
I am hoping the member can support that. We have a bill going forward to push through open banking and that would open up this monopolistic system in the banking sector.
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member agrees that competition is a good thing. In several sectors, from banking to telecom to consumer staples, we have a few companies dominating the market, curbing competition and thus driving up the prices.
The member mentioned efficiency, which is a factor that has been used in the past to join companies together and bring down competition. Could he elaborate on that, please?
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the efficiencies defence, which currently sits in the Competition Act, allows one company to merge with another, not because of dominance in market power. They look at it specifically, if one company is able to save money by merging with the other. Most times, that is job losses. The number one case that examined this was Superior Propane. It was the number one market share for propane and it merged with the number two market share. In the efficiencies defence, this anomaly that we had in the Canadian competition law, allowed those two companies to merge, even though they held over 85% of the market share. Of course, this was something that, when I introduced it in June, was low-hanging fruit. This needs to go and I think all parties in the House agree on that.
We can look at how we heat homes across the country right now. Of course, heating oil has had the carbon tax shaved off of it. Propane is what a lot of communities use to heat. That is something we should also see as not only the abuse of dominance of one company for the efficiencies defence, but we should also ensure that the carbon tax comes off propane as well.
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work my colleague has done on this matter, specifically on one of the bills that was co-opted by the Liberals to ensure there would be increased competition in Canada. Certainly, this could cover a whole range of subjects.
I have two comments for my colleague from Bay of Quinte. The first is about the process we are debating here today. To me, this appears like an attack on our democratic institutions. The Liberals are incapable and incompetent when it comes to pursuing their agenda or programming the work that this place and its committee do. It is certainly troubling.
Ironically, when we are talking about something like competition, it seems antithetical that we would have the Liberals shutting down the ability for discourse to take place, highlighting that they are incapable at accomplishing their legislative agenda. The first point is about the process and what I would suggest is an attack on our democratic institutions.
The second is about one of the increasing concerns that we hear from across Canada, which is the fact that we have fewer start ups than ever before. In the last three or so decades, fewer companies are starting up.
My first point is on the attack on our democratic institutions through a programming motion. Second is the fact that people are simply not able to or willing to take risks to create businesses and be those entrepreneurs that Canadians are known to be.
245 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when it comes to promoting our democracy, the competition law has been around since the sixties, maybe even since 1911. We have not changed the Competition Act much since 1986. When it comes to looking at and debating competition, which is probably one of the top concerns, affordability for Canadians, we should be taking all the time we can in the House and in committee to ensure it is done right.
Paragraph (b) in the programming motion gives more power to the minister, which is not right. When we look at an arm's length institution, the Competition Bureau, which is supposed to act impartial from the government or free of political interference, the bill right now gives more power to the minister to have the power to interfere, and that is not right.
When it comes to start ups, Canada has 100,000 fewer entrepreneurs compared to 20 years ago. When we look at trying to ensure there is more competition in Canada and more entrance, we need more start ups. We need to start starting?
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I asked the hon. member about the commodification of the production of labour, we were clearly talking about the commodification of wages. I would love for him to answer that question. It was a good, fair question, one that underscores much of his argument. I would like him to determine whether he agrees with that statement.
Second, does he agrees with the analysis that “the long cherished freedom of competition has reached the end of its tether and is compelled to announce its own palpable bankruptcy.”
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to answer the member's first question, when we are looking at the success of Canadians and the success of Canadian families, we are looking at the GDP per capita. I think we can all agree on that. That means, what are we bringing home to create powerful paycheques for workers and Canadian families to ensure that, when we look at the highest inflation after eight years, Canadians are bringing more wealth home? I think we can agree that when we have competitors, small start ups or companies that are creating a value or a system of wealth for Canadians to buy and be competitive about, we are creating powerful paycheques. That is good for all those people.
When we look at competition as a whole, we need to ensure that we change the laws to ensure that big bossy conglomerates are not stopping the small competitors or small entrepreneurs from being able to start up in Canada and create those powerful paycheques. Of course, when they get bigger, a lot of times there are unions involved and great things for workers. We want to do all those things, but we have to change the Competition Act. We have to be brave in doing that. I hope the member can join me in ensuring we make real changes that change competition in Canada.
225 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. That is a rather long riding name. Many riding names are quite long. Mine certainly is, and so is hers.
Today we are debating Government Business No. 30. It is a government motion to shorten the debates on Bill C‑56, which seeks to implement a rebate of the GST on the construction of residential rental properties. The bill also seeks to give the Competition Bureau more power to conduct an inquiry. Notably, it could force the procurement of documents, which was not previously the case.
Unfortunately, we are debating government business instead of the bill because the government decided to impose closure yet again. We are faced with another gag order. Sadly, the current government seems to want to govern by gag order. It is one gag order after another. Obviously, the government will argue that it was meant to stop the Conservatives' filibustering. I am not saying that the Conservatives never filibuster, but we get a sense that this procedural device is being abused.
In the current case, we in the Bloc Québécois were open to speeding up debate. The government said that doing so might help build housing faster. It said that the measures in Bill C‑56 to strengthen the Competition Bureau's powers could make a difference. We were sensitive to all these things. We are very open to studying Bill C‑56, but we had other concerns too.
One of our concerns, and we have been repeating this for weeks, has to do with the emergency business account that was launched during the pandemic. It was meant to support small businesses by offering them a $40,000 loan. Twenty-five percent of that amount, or $10,000, was forgiven if the loans were paid back within three years. The problem was that, following the pandemic, there was a supply crisis and an inflation crisis, not to mention the fact that interest rates have gone up considerably. The economy is struggling even more now. Those businesses were already struggling during the pandemic, because many of them could no longer operate for health reasons. We must stand together as a society, which is why that program was put in place at the time, and we agreed on it.
However, the government did say that these businesses would have to pay back their loans. We agree that businesses should pay them back. A loan is meant to be repaid at some point, but it is important not to put Quebec businesses at risk. We have to use our brains a little and be somewhat flexible in how we do things.
I mention this while we are debating Government Business No. 30 regarding Bill C‑56, because we told the government that it should be giving Quebec businesses more flexibility. In return, we would have been prepared to fast-track the passage of Bill C‑56. Unfortunately, the government did not listen to the Bloc Québécois. It decided to let Quebec businesses fail. It will continue to leave them in jeopardy, even though people from my riding talk to me about this every week. When I am out and about in my riding, people tell me that things are not going well, that their sales are lower than expected, that things did not return to normal like they thought they would and that money does not grow on trees.
Unfortunately, the government has not been sensitive to that. We have been asking questions in the House about this for weeks. Members on the other side have responded by saying that they extended the deadline, but they extended the deadline by only 18 days.
I doubt that 18 days is enough time for a small or medium-sized business to rake in $40,000 in profit. There is no way. Unfortunately, that is what we are looking at with the Liberals.
Instead, the government decided to turn to the NDP. As we all know, the NDP can be bought quite easily. They give the government everything it wants. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the reality that Quebec businesses are going to pay because of the Liberals and the NDP.
The Bloc Québécois will continue to push for our companies to have more flexibility in repaying the Canada emergency business account so that, come January 18, the banks are not waiting for them. I can just picture them, big smiles on their faces, telling companies that they can get their $10,000 back by simply taking out a high-interest loan. Considering the significant jump in interest rates, we know full well that there are plenty of companies that will not make it through.
To come back more specifically to Bill C‑56, earlier I talked about getting rid of the tax on new rental housing construction. The government claims this is going to fix the housing crisis. Maybe not exactly, but it claims that it will make a big difference.
The Bloc Québécois has a few concerns. Will this make a difference? It may make a difference in making some projects more profitable than they were as a result of interest rate increases. It may help, but we would have liked to see a study done on this. Did the government do a study on the impact that this bill might have on the price of housing and on its availability? No, it pulled this bill out of its hat. Since we are in a housing crisis, it decided to make a quick announcement and that is what it did.
This will likely have a positive impact on housing construction, but we do not really know because we have no baseline data to confirm the result.
I have another point. In a supply and demand market, there is typically a going price for housing. Right now, that price is very high. Homes are being sold at a high price, but unfortunately, some people would benefit from lower prices. I say unfortunately, but that might be an exaggeration. What I mean is that this could have an unfortunate impact. There is absolutely no guarantee that this much-touted 5% cut to the GST on new housing construction will impact social or affordable housing. In fact, there is zero chance that it would be used for social housing because that type of housing does not qualify.
For example, if a city decides to build social housing, it is already exempt. The proposed measure will not work. The same thing applies to co-ops or non-profit organizations. There is already a type of exemption in place. This will not benefit them. Therefore, it will not result in social housing or low-cost housing. On the other hand, it will certainly help the construction of expensive housing.
The government says that it may take care of the specifics through regulations. We look forward to seeing those, but there is no guarantee. We have no guarantee that the exemptions that will be granted will be used to build reasonably priced new housing. They could be used to build units that rent for $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 a month. I cannot even say $2,000 a month anymore because that is practically considered affordable housing nowadays. Unfortunately, the government thinks that it is going to fix the housing crisis, but this bill is no silver bullet. I find that unfortunate.
I also want to talk about the Competition Bureau. Not so long ago, the minister said in the House that he would fix the problem. He said that he had spoken with the grocers and that there would not be an issue anymore, that grocery prices would drop. The week after, he said that he had checked the flyers and seen some great discounts. He claimed to have fixed the inflation crisis by checking the flyers one week and speaking with grocery CEOs. He should have spoken with families instead. The inflation crisis is not over.
Some elements of this bill will give the Competition Bureau more oversight over large companies. This change will not necessarily happen overnight, however.
The same goes for this much-vaunted 5% rebate. It is not going to solve the problem in the short term. The effects of this measure will be felt more in the very long term. We therefore expect—
1443 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/20/23 1:00:07 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member's time has expired.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nepean.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member his views on the competition levels that are in existence in several sectors of the Canadian economy, from the banking sector to the telecom sector and to consumer staples and so many other sectors. Competition actually brings down prices and helps consumers. When just a few corporate players dominate any market, through their profiteering objectives, it creates an undue burden on consumers, so I would like to ask the hon. member about his views on competition.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is asking me whether I think there are any good measures in this bill that concern competition. The answer is yes, and I think I already said that.
Companies used to be barred from making arrangements with one of their competitors to eliminate another competitor. Now, the notion of a competitor is being eliminated. Companies will now be barred from making arrangements with a supplier, a tenant or anyone else to eliminate another competitor. This might help a little in terms of competition.
Still, will that fundamentally change the dynamic in the short term? Inflation and grocery affordability are short-term crises. Unfortunately, this bill will not make any difference to people's pocketbooks in the short term. It will take a long time to see any impact from measures like these.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague touched on the issue of housing prices in his speech.
Quebec does not define affordable housing the same way Canada does. Canada does not seem to realize what a difference affordable housing could make for families. What is considered affordable in Canada is not necessarily affordable in Quebec.
I would like to hear again from my colleague about the model that Quebec has developed in partnership with its community groups and the exciting initiatives it has implemented in community and social housing.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a great question. A budget of $900 million was supposed to be available for housing in Quebec. Unfortunately, it took a very long time before the cities and Quebec could use these funds to build new affordable housing.
One sticking point in the negotiations was the federal government's belief that affordable housing costs around $2,000 or $2,500 a month, if I am not mistaken. That amount would ruin most people, but people in Ottawa consider that affordable housing.
Quebec disagreed, so I can understand why the Government of Quebec did not want to sign that kind of agreement. Then we had to defend Quebec's point of view and explain that affordable housing in Quebec costs a lot less than $2,000 a month.
If we ask the average working person in Quebec, they would say that the idea of working a minimum-wage job and spending $2,000 a month on rent is unthinkable. It would simply be impossible to make ends meet.
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member whether he agrees that, as legislators, at every given opportunity we need to consider a legislation's immediate impact, its medium-term impact and long-term impacts. Is that not part of this particular legislation?
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
