INST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, April 28, 2003

º

1640

The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.))

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge)

The Chair

Mr. Dan Shaw (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance)

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Dan Shaw

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

---

NUMBER 038

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, April 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1640)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)): I'm going to call this meeting to order. The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is studying Bill C-249, an act to amend the Competition Act.

    This was to be an in-camera meeting, so I apologize to those who may be at the back.

    Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge): Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make it very clear, for the benefit of all members here, that it has been almost two years that this bill has ambled on its way, and from the outset I'd proposed an amendment to my bill. I wanted to read this into the record, because it is, in fact, the motion I am putting forward with regard to Bill C-249, taking into account the amendments that were provided by and advocated by the Competition Bureau, which I see is not here today, and it reads as follows:

That Bill C-249, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 19 on page 1 with the following:

1. Subsection 96(1) of the Competition Act is replaced by the following:

96.(1) In determining, for the purposes of section 92, whether or not a merger or proposed merger prevents or lessens, or is likely to prevent or lessen, competition substantially, the Tribunal may, together with the factors that may be considered by the Tribunal under section 93, have regard to whether the merger or proposed merger has brought about or is likely to bring about gains in efficiency that will provide benefits to consumers, including competitive prices or product choices, and that would not likely be attained in the absence of the merger or proposed merger.

Mr. Chair, you'll find that this is consistent with the commentary and the impression the witnesses had. None of them, in my view, was confused several weeks ago, when the amendment to the bill was proposed, March 30, when I sat here as a witness.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Does everybody have a copy of it?

    We heard so much testimony during those weeks. This is a complete change in the bill, because it replaces lines 4 to 19. I just want to make sure everybody had the understanding that this would be the amendment put forward. Does everybody agree with that?

    Mr. Shaw, you had some comments on work you did last week, reporting to the committee on what was heard and so forth.

    Mr. Dan Shaw (Committee Researcher): Yes. In the last two weeks I was contacted by a number of lawyers and economists who want to make presentations to the committee. I gather, because the clerk was away, I got his phone calls. There have been about seven people who would like to appear on Bill C-249. I'll just mention that some members thought there was not enough public consultation on such an important amendment to the act. I'll leave it to you whether you want to turn them away or not, but that's one issue.

    Second, in this document I discuss some of the comments of those who were for the bill and those who were against. I also added some stuff dealing with our report “A Plan to Modernize the Competition Regime”, which we put out a while ago. Whether you agree with this bill or not, just making a statement on it may lead to some contradictions, and I can explain in detail if people want.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this amendment was tabled some time ago. We listened to the testimony presented while bearing in mind the fact that this amendment was already on the table. I for one am ready to vote.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    Are there any other comments?

    Mr. Fitzpatrick.

    Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, the motion is the same one we were debating before, is it? Okay.

    I just wanted to be clear about the report that's been presented too. I haven't read it all, but it seems to me that with the Superior case, which seems to be the backdrop to this motion, the critics of that decision, by and large, were saying it really wasn't a defect in the competition legislation that led to that result. The competition commissioner had such evidence that, if it had been brought before the tribunal, the result could have been very much different. I can sympathize with that. If you're sitting on a tribunal and you only get evidence from one point of view, you can't consider evidence you don't get before you. That seems to be something most of the critics were saying here, that it really wasn't the law that was the problem in that case, it was the fact that certain evidence was available and wasn't presented, and if it had been presented, the outcome might have been quite a bit different.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): We've obviously started debate on line-by-line, but could you just tell us where we are?

    The Chair: We're not going line by line yet. I asked that the amendment be read, I wanted to make sure it was clarified, that everybody understood what the amendment was, and that's where the comments were. I don't know where you got that idea. Mr. Shaw summarized the work that was done before we went on recess, and he's made comments on it.

    So we have Mr. McTeague's motion to amend clause 1 by replacing lines 4 to 19 on page 1 with what is set out, and you have that in front of you.

    Ms. Torsney.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Can I just clarify that this amendment has not been consulted on with the groups that came forward, so we actually haven't heard any testimony on this amendment? Is that correct?

    The Chair: No, that's not true. When we heard the witnesses, they all knew about the amendment. What Mr. Shaw has brought forward is that some people have caught up to the fact that there was an amendment to Bill C-249 and would like to come forward and present.

    Mr. Shaw, we need to clarify this.

    Mr. Dan Shaw: That's correct. Mr. McTeague made this amendment available to everybody who appeared before the committee. They've all seen it and commented on both the original bill and this amendment, but there have been people, in light of this amendment, who have asked to appear, who would like to say something, but that's additional.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Are we going to hear from them?

    The Chair: I put that question to the floor. I'm just the chair.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think we should, if you're asking for my opinion.

    The Chair: Yes, I am.

    Mr. McTeague.

    Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chair, this is widely understood. I understand Mr. Shaw's concerns about the Canadian lawyers who want to appear before us. This first version appeared at a competition conference, but it was updated on March 27, 2003. It was given to all witnesses and to the clerk of the standing committee. If you go back to the blues, I made it abundantly clear, notwithstanding the controversy that existed after the meeting that day, that this would be the template for the legislation as I would propose it. The Competition Bureau then proposed two minor changes with the words shall and may, which now find themselves in this amendment. This has been on the table for over a month, and there are opportunities, obviously, for other deliberations at report stage. The bill has been around for almost two years. I think it's time we responded. We do have a very tight timetable, as Mr. Crête and others know only too well.

    The Chair: Paddy.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: I suggest that we contact some of the people who presented and ask them to give us their last comments on this on paper. Whether we hear from them live or not, I think we need to have a sign-off, so we know they have been consulted specifically on what it looks like at this point in time. We consult on one thing, we have an idea, a template, whatever, but it's been changed. I want to know what they think about this, what is actually before us.

    The Chair: I should summarize. The clerk circulated it. When people came as witnesses, they understood it. I take it some people caught up to it later, after we had the testimony, but it's been well known.

    Mr. Volpe.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I was delighted to hear Mr. Crête say that he was prepared to vote on this item, because I think the committee has deliberated sufficiently on this, and the public, notwithstanding the late stage, may find some elements of it worthy of commentary. I'd like to remind myself, maybe others on the committee as well, that what we're doing is proposing a bill to go to the House for report stage and third reading, so it's not guillotining anybody's opportunity to make any recommendation or give input.

    While I say that, I take a look at the amendment. I wonder whether I would want to get outraged, because the operative word is “may”. It's an indication to the tribunal that in its assessments of mergers and whether they should be allowed or not allowed, it “may” take into consideration the following. My good colleague Mr. Fitzpatrick will probably point out to everybody in the room that it means they are not obliged to do so. In other words, if you approve the bill as it stands, without the amendment, you really haven't changed very much. What you're doing with the amendment is suggesting to the tribunal that the opinion of this committee is that it should consider that and perhaps bring it into its calculations, if for no other reason than to know some people were actually thinking this might have been a good idea. Because I think that, I'm not sure it's going to be very productive to hear seven other lawyers tell me what the implications of “may” might be.

    So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge, if not move, that we go on with our voting.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Have we heard enough?

    (Amendment agreed to)

    (Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall the title carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: All right, that's done.

    Our report on the telecoms was written up in the newspapers on the weekend. They were supposed to put on the web the media advisory, and they put on the media release. It's unfortunate that it happened, but that's how it happened.

    Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: He was probably the only committee member who hadn't yet leaked the contents of the report.

[English]

    The Chair: That's it for today. See you on Tuesday. Thank you very much.

    Meeting is adjourned.