Connect with us

Business

Proposed changes to Canada’s Competition Act could kneecap our already faltering economy

Published

9 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

Aaron Wudrick, for Inside Policy

No party wants to be seen as soft on “big business” but that is a bad reason to pass potentially harmful, counterproductive competition policy legislation.

The recent federal budget was widely panned – in particular by the entrepreneurial class – for its proposal to raise the capital gains inclusion rate. As it turns out, “soak the rich” might sound like clever politics (it’s not) but it’s definitely a poor narrative if your goal is to incentivize and encourage risk-taking and investment.

But while this damaging measure in the federal budget has at least drawn plenty of public ire, other harmful legislative changes are afoot that are getting virtually no attention at all. They’re contained in Bill C-59 – the omnibus bill still wending its way through Parliament to enact measures contained in last fall’s economic statement – and consist of major proposed amendments to Canada’s Competition Act. The lack of coverage and debate on these changes is all the more concerning given that, if enacted, they could have a long-term negative impact on our economy comparable to the capital gains inclusion rate hike.

Worst of all, the most potentially damaging changes weren’t even in the original bill, but were brought forward by the NDP at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, and are lifted directly from a previous submission made to the committee by the Commissioner of Competition himself. In effect, they would change competition law to put a new onus on businesses to prove a negative: that having a large market share isn’t harmful to consumers.

MPs on the committee have acknowledged they don’t really understand the changes – they involve a “concentration index” described as “the sum of the squares of the market shares of the suppliers or customers” – but the government itself previously cast doubt on the need for this additional change. It’s obvious that a lot of politics are at play here: no party wants to be seen as soft on “big business.” But this is about much more than “big business.” It’s about whether we want to enshrine in law unfounded, and potentially very harmful, assumptions about how competition operates in the real world.

The changes in question are what are known in legal circles as “structural presumptions” – which, as the name implies, involve creating presumptions in law based on market “structure” – in this case, regarding the concentration level of a given market. Presumptions in law matter, because they determine which side in a competition dispute – the regulatory authority, or the impugned would-be merging parties – bears the burden of proof.

So why is this a bad idea? There are at least three reasons.

First of all, the very premise is faulty: most economists consider concentration measures alone (as opposed to market power) to be a poor proxy for the level of competition that prevails in a given market. In fact, competition for customers often increases concentration.

This may strike most people as counterintuitive. But because robust competition often leads to one company in particular offering lower prices, higher quality, or more innovative products, those who break from the pack tend to attract more customers and increase their market share. In this respect, higher concentration can actually signal more, rather than less, competition.

Second, structural presumptions for mergers are not codified in the US or any other developed country other than Germany (and even then, at a 40 percent combined share rather than 30 percent). In other words, at a time when Canada’s economy is suffering from the significant dual risks of stalled productivity growth and net foreign investment flight, the amendments proposed by the NDP would introduce one of the most onerous competition laws in the world.

There is a crucial distinction between parliamentarians putting such wording into legislation – which bind the courts – and regulatory agencies putting them in enforcement guidelines, which leave courts with a degree of discretion.

Incorporating structural presumptions into legislation surpasses what most advanced economies do and could lead to false negatives (blocking mergers that would, if permitted, actually benefit consumers), chill innovation (as companies seeking to up their game in the hopes of selling or merging are deterred from even bothering), and result in more orphaned Canadian businesses (as companies elect not to acquire Canadian operations on global transactions).

Finally, the impact on merger review will not be a simplification but will likely just fetter the discretion and judgment of the expert and impartial Competition Tribunal in determining which mergers are truly harmful for consumers and give more power to the Competition Bureau, the head of which is appointed by the federal Cabinet. Although the Competition Bureau is considered an independent law enforcement agency, it must still make its case before a court (the Tribunal, in this case).The battleground at the Tribunal will shift from focusing on the likely effect of the merger on consumers to instead entertaining arguments between the Bureau’s and companies’ opposing arguments about defining the relevant market and shares.

Even if, after further study, the government decided that rebuttable structural presumptions are desirable, C-59 already repeals subsection 92(2) of the Competition Act, which allows the Tribunal to develop the relevance of market shares through case law – a far better process than a blanket rule in legislation. Nothing prevents the Bureau from incorporating structural presumptions as an enforcement screen for mergers in its guidelines, which is what the United States has done for decades, rather than putting strict (and therefore inflexible) metrics into statute and regulations.

No one disputes that Canada needs a healthy dose of competition in a wide range of sectors. But codifying dubious rules around mergers risks doing more harm than good. In asking for structural presumptions to be codified, the Competition Bureau is missing the mark. Most proposed mergers that will get caught by these changes should in fact be permitted on the basis that consumers would be better off – and the uncertainty of being an extreme outlier on the global stage in terms of competition policy will create yet another disincentive to start and grow businesses in Canada.

This is the opposite of what Canada needs right now. Rather than looking for ill-advised shortcuts that entangle more companies in litigation and punt disputes about market definition rather than effects to the Tribunal, the Bureau should be focusing on doing its existing job better: building evidence-backed cases against mergers that would actually harm Canadians.


Aaron Wudrick is the domestic policy director at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Who owns Canada’s public debt?

Published on

The Audit David Clinton's avatar David Clinton

Remember when thinking about our debt crisis was just scary?

During his recent election campaign, Mark Carney announced plans to add $225 billion (with a “b”) to federal debt over the next four years. That, to put it mildly, is a consequential number. I thought it would be useful to put it into context, both in terms of our existing debt, and of some social and political changes those plans could spark.

How much money does Canada currently owe? According to Statistics Canada’s statement of government operations and balance sheet, as of Q4 2024, that number would be nearly $954 billion. That’s compared with the $621 billion we owed back in 2015.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

How much does interest on our current debt cost us each year? The official Budget 2024 document predicted that we’d pay around $51 billion each year to just service our debt. But that’s before piling on the new $225 billion.

We – and the governments we elect – might be tempted to imagine that the cash behind public loans just magically appears out of thin air. In fact, most Canadian government debt is financed through debt securities such as marketable bonds, treasury bills, and foreign currency debt instruments. And those bonds and bills are owned by buyers.

Who are those buyers? Many of them are probably Canadian banks and other financial institutions. But as of February 2025, according to Statistics Canada, it was international portfolio investors who owned $527 billion of Canadian federal government debt securities.

Most of those foreign investors are probably from (relatively) friendly countries like the U.S. and U.K. But that’s certainly not the whole story. Although I couldn’t find direct data breaking down the details, there are some broadly related investment income numbers that might be helpful.

Specifically, all foreign investments into both public and private entities in Canada in 2024 amounted to $219 billion dollars. In that same year, investments from “all other countries” totaled $51 billion. What Statistics Canada means by “all other countries” covers all countries besides the US, UK, EU, Japan, and the 38 OECD nations.

The elephant in the “all other countries” room has to be China.

So let’s break this down. The $527 billion foreign-owned investment debt I mentioned earlier represents around 55 percent of our total debt.¹ And if the “all other countries” ratio in general foreign investments holds true² for federal public debt, then it’s realistic to assume that the federal government currently owes around 11 percent of its debt to government and business entities associated with the Chinese Communist Party.

By all accounts, an 11 percent share in a government’s debt counts as leverage. Given China’s recent history, our ability to act independently in international and even domestic affairs could be compromised. But it could also be destabilizing, exposing us to risk if China’s economy faces turmoil which could disrupt our ability to roll over debt or secure new financing.

Mark Carney’s plan to add another 20 percent to our debt over the next four years will only increase our exposure to these – and many more – risks. Canadian voters have made an interesting choice.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H.L. Mencken

1 Although I should note that, according to the government’s 2022-2023 Debt Management Report, “in 2022-23, non-resident investors held 29 per cent of Government of Canada securities”.
2 To be honest, there really isn’t enough data available to be confident in this assumption

The Audit is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Business

BUILD CANADA NOW: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada from Energy Leaders

Published on

From EnergyNow.Ca

We can strengthen economic sovereignty and resilience: Unlock private-sector investment, responsibly develop our world-class natural resources, support climate action

The Rt. Hon. Mark Carney, PC, MP
Prime Minister of Canada

Dear Prime Minister Carney,

On behalf of Canada’s leading energy companies, please accept our congratulations on your election victory and appointment as Canada’s new Prime Minister.

This moment marks not only the first chapter for your government, but also a vital opportunity for our nation to come together around shared goals and build the trust necessary to get big things done. Together we can Build Canada Now and strengthen economic sovereignty and resilience, by unlocking private sector investment, through responsibly developing Canada’s world class natural resources and supporting climate action to reduce emissions. As business leaders in Canada, we look forward to working constructively with you and your cabinet to achieve our energy sector’s potential and our shared goal to position our country as a global energy superpower.

For context, global prosperity will continue to rely on oil and natural gas for decades to come. Regardless of whether absolute global demand will grow or weaken over time, the natural decline of oil and natural gas production requires ongoing investment to replace that decline. Without continued investment, global supply could fall by more than half within 10 years—the question is, in what producing countries will investment occur, and the economic benefits realized? With abundant resources, a strong commitment to environmental stewardship and responsible energy production, it should be Canada, and it should be now. Canada can be a global energy leader and secure long-term economic prosperity.

We have reviewed your platform for governing Canada, particularly your ambition of building the fastest growing economy in the G7. As a major contributor to the Canadian economy, with significant untapped potential, the energy sector must play a pivotal role in your pursuit of this ambition. Growth in the Canadian oil and natural gas sector supports GDP growth, job creation, and tax revenue. Your focus on fostering energy independence and enhancing Canada’s energy infrastructure and clean technology, requires major sector investment and globally competitive energy and carbon policies. Over the last decade, the layering and complexity of energy policies has resulted in a lack of investor confidence and consequently, a barrier to investment – especially when compared to the United States, which is taking steps to simplify its permitting process.

In March, a subset of us wrote to you and the other federal leaders, outlining an urgent action plan needed to support ongoing and future investment from the energy sector in Canada. We note that many of these issues were talked about in your campaign and are of growing interest for Canadians as is evidenced by recent polling. The bullets below reflect our earlier action plan. Beneath each statement we have described opportunities to work together to deliver on our shared objectives.

  • Simplify regulation. The federal government’s Impact Assessment Act and West Coast tanker ban are impeding development and need to be overhauled and simplified. Regulatory processes need to be streamlined, and decisions need to withstand judicial challenges.”
    • Current regulatory processes are complex, unpredictable, subjective, and excessively long. These processes inhibit the ability of industry to make timely investments, add unnecessary costs and create uncertainty within capital markets. Aligned with your proposal to streamline the approval process, industry is committed to working with your government to ensure Canada can grow exports of oil and natural gas to other regions.
  • Commit to firm deadlines for project approvals. The federal government needs to reduce regulatory timelines so that major projects are approved within 6 months of application.”
    • Your proposal to have all federal regulatory authorities complete reviews of nationally significant projects within a two-year timeframe is a positive step, but insufficient. In our opinion, two years is still too long of a period for review and we must target a 6-month approval process to bring capital back to Canada. Additional clarity with regards to provincial jurisdiction is required. We believe that we can work together to accelerate this even further to accomplish urgent economic growth, while maintaining environmental standards and addressing Indigenous rights.
  • Grow production. The federal government’s unlegislated cap on emissions must be eliminated to allow the sector to reach its full potential.”
    • We continue to believe the federal government’s cap on emissions creates uncertainty, is redundant, will limit growth and unnecessarily result in production cuts, and stifle infrastructure investments. Together, we can drive investment into emissions reductions by simplifying the regulatory regime, establishing an attractive fiscal environment, and ensuring carbon policies protect our export industries.
  • Attract investment. The federal carbon levy on large emitters is not globally cost competitive and should be repealed to allow provincial governments to set more suitable carbon regulations.”
    • Recognizing the global nature of oil and natural gas, industry needs clear, competitive, and durable fiscal frameworks, including carbon policy and associated costs, sufficient to secure the required capital and incentivize investment in the sector. The current federal price and stringency trajectory results in uncompetitive costs compared to those we compete with to deliver our products to market.  Additionally, the potential benefits of a federal approach, like consistency across jurisdictions and connected carbon markets, has failed to materialize.  A solution is to revert back to the functioning system where provinces administer the policies and pricing to enable emissions-reduction investments, improve emissions performance, and maintain competitiveness.
  • Incent Indigenous co-investment opportunities. The federal government needs to provide Indigenous loan guarantees at scale so industry may create infrastructure ownership opportunities to increase prosperity for communities and to ensure that Indigenous communities benefit from development.”
    • Your intention of doubling Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program to $10 billion to support infrastructure ownership opportunities and increase prosperity for communities is aligned with our earlier recommendation. That being said, Indigenous loan guarantee programs are only effective if Canada fosters a competitive investment environment. We look forward to working with you on this initiative to grow the prosperity of Indigenous communities and earn their support for our shared ambitions.

The time is now to take action, signaling to the global investment markets that Canada is ready to move forward with achieving our shared vision of Canada as a leading global energy superpower.

We know the decisions in the coming months will have a lasting impact on Canada’s economic sovereignty, economy and global position, and that each of us—governments, industry, and Canadians—has a role to play. We can’t do it without each other.

The energy industry looks forward to working together, with you and your government, on an urgent basis, for the benefit of this country and Canadians nationwide.

Regards,

Continue Reading

Trending

X