Thank you to the committee for inviting me to speak with you today.

My name is Keldon Bester, and I'm the executive director of CAMP, a think tank dedicated to addressing the issues of monopoly power and building a more democratic economy in Canada.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss the proposed amendments to Canada's competition law contained in Bill C-352. After nearly four decades of proconsolidation law, Canada is turning the corner on competition policy. With the passage of Bill C-56 last year, Bill C-59 being studied in the Senate and Bill C-352 being studied by this committee, this government and, in fact, all parties have made much-needed improvements to Canada's competition law.

Canada is on track to having a tougher stance against harmful takeovers, abuses of corporate power and practices designed to deceive consumers. These changes should be understood as the first step—echoing the comments of Professor Quaid—in rebalancing the relationship between dominant corporations and Canadian consumers, workers and entrepreneurs. The work of improving competition in Canada is really just beginning, and I want to take the opportunity to zoom out on some of the mechanics that might make that possible.

As important as strong laws are, just as important is the effective execution of those laws to the benefit of Canadians. The Competition Bureau is putting powers gained through Bill C-56 to work in investigating the use of property controls in the grocery sector. Along with the recently opened market study in the airline sector, also the result of Bill C-56, the investigation is an early sign that the Competition Bureau understands that its efforts need to be focused where competition matters the most to Canadians. These efforts raise an important point for the future of Canada's competition law: the need for a quick resolution of competition issues and greater transparency in the work of the Competition Bureau.

Our strengthened laws cannot help Canadians unless they quickly address practices that harm competition. Today, competition law investigations are a multi-year process. The ongoing investigation into Google's practices in the digital advertising market has been expanded after four years, with no timeline for the conclusion of the expanded investigation. For news organizations dependent on a competitive digital advertising market, four more years may be too much to wait.

When investigations become litigation, Canadians can expect to wait another three to seven years for a resolution of practices potentially harming competition. If property controls are indeed weakening competition in the grocery sector, Canadians should not have to wait for up to a decade for more competition in such a critical market.

Accordingly, the committee should consider ways in which the investigation and litigation processes could be reformed to speed up the resolution of competition cases. One step would be to improve the information-gathering powers of the Competition Bureau with powers more akin to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner or the provincial securities commissions. If an investigation leads to litigation, the ability to stop parties from engaging in potentially problematic conduct while the litigation is ongoing should be strengthened. Finally, for the speedy resolution of litigated cases, the process of litigation should be streamlined, and the future role of the Competition Tribunal should be a topic of study.

Along with a more rapid resolution of competition issues, Canadians also deserve greater transparency into the activities of a strengthened Competition Bureau. Balancing the needs of confidentiality and accountability, Canadians should not be left in the dark about the investigations that the Competition Bureau is currently engaged in. A positive step in this direction would be a repeal of the language. This requires the bureau to conduct its investigations in private, which introduces ambiguity with the Competition Act's existing confidentiality requirements. While this would still leave transparency in the hands of the Competition Bureau, it would be an important signal to Canadians that more transparency is desired and a first step towards a Competition Bureau that is more open with Canadians.

The work of this committee has resulted in a competition law better equipped to promote competition and protect Canadians. A necessary next step is to think about improving the systems responsible for executing that law.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

Transcript

Discussions (0)