Business
Proposed changes to Canada’s Competition Act could kneecap our already faltering economy
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.
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
Each Albertan would save up to $2,850 in 2027—the first year of the hypothetical Alberta plan—while retaining the same benefits as the CPP. Meanwhile, the basic CPP contribution rate for the rest of Canada would increase to 10.36 per cent.
Despite a new report from Canada’s chief actuary about Alberta’s potential plan to leave the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and start its own separate provincial pension plan, Albertans still don’t have an official estimate from Ottawa about Alberta’s share of CPP assets.
The actuary analyzed how the division of assets might be calculated, but did not provide specific numbers.
Yet according to a report commissioned by the Smith government and released last year, Alberta’s share of CPP assets totalled an estimated $334 billion—more than half the value of total CPP assets. Based on that number, if Alberta left the CPP, Albertans would pay a contribution rate of 5.91 per cent for a new CPP-like provincial program (a significant reduction from the current 9.9 per cent CPP rate deducted from their paycheques). As a result, each Albertan would save up to $2,850 in 2027—the first year of the hypothetical Alberta plan—while retaining the same benefits as the CPP. Meanwhile, the basic CPP contribution rate for the rest of Canada would increase to 10.36 per cent.
Why would Albertans pay less under a provincial plan?
Because Alberta has a comparatively younger population (i.e. more workers vs. retirees), higher average incomes and higher levels of employment (i.e. higher level of premiums paid into the fund). As such, Albertans collectively pay significantly more into the CPP than retirees in Alberta receive in benefits. Simply put, under a provincial plan, Albertans would pay less and receive the same benefits.
Some critics, however, dispute the estimated share of Alberta’s CPP assets (again, $334 billion—more than half the value of total CPP assets) in the Smith government’s report, and claim the estimate understates the report’s contribution rate for a new Alberta pension plan and overestimates the new CPP rate without Alberta.
Which takes us back to the new report from Canada’s chief actuary, which was supposed to provide its own estimate of Alberta’s share of the assets. Unfortunately, it did not.
But there are other rate estimates out there, based on various assumptions. According to a 2019 analysis published by the Fraser Institute, the contribution rate for a new separate CPP-like program in Alberta could be as low as 5.85 per cent, while AIMCo’s 2019 estimate was 7.21 per cent (and possibly as low as 6.85 per cent). And University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe has pegged Alberta’s hypothetical rate at 8.2 per cent.
While the actuary in Ottawa failed to provide any numbers, one thing’s for certain—according to the available estimates, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate in a separate provincial pension plan while CPP contributions for the rest of Canada (excluding Quebec) would likely increase.
A few days ago, Public Services and Procurement Canada tabled their audited consolidated financial statements of the Government of Canada for 2024. This is the official and complete report on the state of government finances. When I say “complete”, I mean the report’s half million words stretch across three volumes and total more than 1,300 pages.
Together, these volumes provide the most comprehensive and authoritative view of the federal government’s financial management and accountability for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. The tragedy is that no one has the time and energy needed to read and properly understand all that data. But the report identifies problems serious enough to deserve the attention of all Canadians – and especially policy makers.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Following the approach of my Parliamentary Briefings series, I uploaded all three volumes of the report to my AI research assistant and asked for its thoughts. Each one of the observations that came out the other end is significant and, in calmer and more rational times, could easily have driven a week’s worth of news coverage. But given the craziness of the past few weeks and months, they’re being largely ignored.
With that in mind, I’ve made this special edition of the Parliamentary Briefings series fully accessible to all subscribers.
We begin with a summary of the purpose and scope of the three uploaded volumes of the Public Accounts of Canada for 2023–2024:
Volume I: Summary Report and Consolidated Financial Statements
- Purpose: Provides a high-level overview of the federal government’s financial performance, presenting the consolidated financial statements audited by the Auditor General. It serves as the primary accountability report.
- Scope:
- Audited financial statements.
- Analysis of revenues, expenses, and the accumulated deficit.
- Overview of assets, liabilities, and financial position.
- Discussion of economic context, risks, uncertainties, and ten-year comparative financial data.
Volume II: Details of Expenses and Revenues
- Purpose: Presents the financial operations of the government, broken down by ministries and agencies, for detailed accountability.
- Scope:
- Financial transactions segregated by ministry.
- Details of appropriations, revenues, and transfer payments.
- Summary tables on ministerial expenditures by type, object, and other dimensions.
- Appendices providing additional details on budgetary authorities and their sources.
Volume III: Additional Information and Analyses
- Purpose: Offers supplementary analyses and financial data beyond what is included in the first two volumes, focusing on revolving funds, professional services, and shared-cost programs.
- Scope:
- Financial statements of revolving funds (e.g., Passport Canada, Canadian Grain Commission).
- Expenditure details on acquisitions, transfer payments, and public debt charges.
- Analyses of federal-provincial shared-cost programs and claims against the Crown.
- Miscellaneous financial and operational data for broader transparency.
The Audit: Based on these documents, could you identify the most serious threats to Canada’s economic stability?
From the Public Accounts of Canada 2023–2024, several serious threats to Canada’s economic security can be identified. These threats emerge from the broader fiscal and economic analyses, contingent liabilities, and uncertainties highlighted in the documents.
1. Growing Public Debt and Debt Servicing Costs
- Observation: Canada’s public debt charges increased significantly in 2024, rising by 35.2% year-over-year, largely due to higher interest rates on debt. The total accumulated federal debt stood at $1.24 trillion, representing 42.1% of GDP, up from 41.1% the previous year.
- Risk: Rising debt servicing costs reduce fiscal space for critical public investments, making the economy vulnerable to future economic shocks or downturns.
2. Contingent Liabilities and Indigenous Claims
- Observation: The government recorded $16.4 billion in contingent liabilities related to Indigenous claims in 2024, reflecting ongoing efforts to address past injustices. These liabilities have been increasing at an average annual growth rate of 30% since 2016.
- Risk: The unpredictable nature and scale of these liabilities could create significant financial pressures if settlements or court decisions require substantial payouts.
3. Legacy Costs from the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Observation: The government recorded $4.7 billion in pandemic-related expenses for 2024, including write-offs for expired vaccines and provisions for unrecovered loans and benefits.
- Risk: These costs highlight vulnerabilities in emergency financial planning and expose the government to further financial risks if similar large-scale public health crises occur.
4. Economic Pressures from High Inflation and Interest Rates
- Observation: Inflation returned to the Bank of Canada’s 2% target by mid-2024 after 41 consecutive months above this threshold. However, elevated interest rates (peaking at 5%) contributed to a softening economy.
- Risk: Prolonged periods of high interest rates could suppress household and business spending, slowing economic growth and increasing the likelihood of a recession.
5. Climate Change and Environmental Commitments
- Observation: Significant spending is allocated to addressing climate change, with over $1 billion dedicated to environmental programs in 2024, including pollution pricing proceeds and clean energy initiatives.
- Risk: Canada’s reliance on resource-intensive industries and increasing costs to meet climate targets create economic vulnerabilities, particularly in regions heavily reliant on fossil fuels.
6. Global Economic Instability
- Observation: Global supply chain disruptions, energy price volatility, and geopolitical events (e.g., Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) significantly impacted Canada’s economy, with slower GDP growth (1.5% in 2023) and reduced trade.
- Risk: External shocks could exacerbate domestic economic challenges, such as rising import costs or reduced demand for Canadian exports.
7. Labor Market and Productivity Challenges
- Observation: While job creation remained positive, population growth outpaced employment gains, leading to an increase in the unemployment rate to 6.5% by October 2024. Productivity improvements have been uneven.
- Risk: Labor shortages in key sectors and declining workforce participation among certain demographics (e.g., aging population) could undermine economic resilience.
8. Dependence on Resource Revenues
- Observation: Volatile global commodity prices impacted nominal GDP growth, with gains slowing to 2.9% in 2023 after double-digit growth in prior years.
- Risk: Fluctuations in resource revenues leave Canada exposed to external shocks, particularly in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, heavily reliant on oil and gas.
These challenges underscore the need for proactive fiscal and policy measures to safeguard economic stability, manage liabilities, and address emerging risks.
The Audit: What would you recommend as the three most urgent areas to address to avoid deepening the economic crisis?
1. Manage Rising Public Debt and Debt Servicing Costs
- Why It’s Urgent: The rapid increase in public debt charges (35.2% in 2024) is crowding out fiscal space for essential programs. The federal debt, at 42.1% of GDP, has become a significant liability, with interest rate fluctuations posing an ongoing threat.
- Recommendations:
- Introduce stricter fiscal discipline by prioritizing expenditures that yield long-term economic benefits (e.g., infrastructure, innovation).
- Develop a comprehensive debt reduction strategy to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio in the medium term.
- Explore debt refinancing strategies to lock in lower interest rates where feasible.
- Impact: Reducing debt servicing pressures will free up resources for critical investments and improve Canada’s fiscal resilience.
2. Mitigate the Economic Impact of Contingent Liabilities
- Why It’s Urgent: Contingent liabilities related to Indigenous claims have grown exponentially (30% annually since 2016), creating fiscal unpredictability and potentially overwhelming future budgets.
- Recommendations:
- Accelerate settlement negotiations to limit litigation costs and interest on outstanding claims.
- Establish a transparent reserve fund specifically for contingent liabilities, ensuring predictable future payouts.
- Increase collaboration with Indigenous communities to address systemic issues and prevent further claims.
- Impact: Resolving liabilities promptly will reduce fiscal uncertainty and demonstrate Canada’s commitment to reconciliation.
3. Address Structural Labor Market and Productivity Challenges
- Why It’s Urgent: Despite job creation, rising unemployment (6.5% in late 2024) and productivity stagnation threaten long-term economic growth. Labor shortages in critical sectors further exacerbate vulnerabilities.
- Recommendations:
- Expand skilled immigration programs to address labor shortages in healthcare, technology, and green industries.
- Increase investment in workforce retraining programs, particularly for sectors undergoing automation or transition due to climate policies.
- Promote workplace flexibility and childcare access to increase labor force participation, particularly among women and aging workers.
- Impact: Enhancing workforce productivity and participation will strengthen the economic foundation and support GDP growth.
Rationale for Prioritization
These areas represent the most immediate threats to economic security and fiscal stability. Addressing them proactively can reduce vulnerabilities and position Canada for sustainable growth.
The Audit: What are the most surprising and disturbing details in these documents?
1. Rapid Growth of Public Debt Charges
- Detail: Public debt charges increased by 35.2% year-over-year to $47.3 billion, representing one of the fastest-growing expense categories. This reflects a combination of higher interest rates and the significant size of Canada’s debt.
- Why Disturbing: Such a rapid increase in debt servicing costs could divert funds from essential public services and programs. It also signals limited fiscal flexibility in the event of future economic shocks.
2. Ballooning Contingent Liabilities
- Detail: The federal government recorded $16.4 billion in expenses for Indigenous contingent liabilities in 2024. This is part of an ongoing surge, with liabilities increasing by 30% annually since 2016.
- Why Disturbing: While reconciliation efforts are vital, the sheer scale and rapid growth of these liabilities are fiscally unsustainable without structural changes or dedicated funding mechanisms. The risk of further liabilities emerging adds to fiscal uncertainty.
3. Significant Write-offs and Provisions for Pandemic Programs
- Detail: The government wrote off $1.2 billion in expired COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics and recorded $3.5 billion in provisions for unrecovered pandemic-era loans.
- Why Disturbing: These figures highlight inefficiencies in planning and administration during the pandemic response, leading to substantial financial losses. The scale of unrecovered funds also raises questions about accountability in the deployment of emergency programs.
4. Rising Unemployment Despite Job Creation
- Detail: While 475,000 jobs were created in 2023, the unemployment rate rose to 6.5% by late 2024 due to population growth outpacing employment gains.
- Why Surprising: Despite strong job creation, an inability to keep pace with population growth signals structural issues in labor force integration. This poses a risk to Canada’s economic competitiveness and social cohesion.
5. Declining Corporate Income Tax Revenues
- Detail: Corporate income tax revenues decreased by 0.7%, driven by reduced taxable income despite an overall increase in total revenues.
- Why Surprising: The decline in corporate tax revenues during a period of economic recovery raises concerns about potential tax avoidance, economic inequality, or over-reliance on other revenue streams, such as personal income taxes.
6. Substantial Environmental and Climate Spending
- Detail: Over $1 billion was allocated to environmental programs, including pollution pricing proceeds. However, the documents note Canada’s slow progress toward net-zero targets and risks to resource-dependent provinces.
- Why Disturbing: While necessary, this spending may be insufficient given the scale of the climate challenge. The mismatch between spending and measurable progress on climate goals risks long-term environmental and economic consequences.
7. Unanticipated Costs of Indigenous Reconciliation
- Detail: Beyond contingent liabilities, the government is facing unpredictable settlement costs due to increasing litigation and the complexity of claims. These have already exceeded $60 billion since 2016.
- Why Disturbing: The ongoing financial impact of these settlements reflects Canada’s historical neglect of Indigenous issues. Resolving these claims is essential, but the lack of predictability or dedicated funding highlights systemic shortcomings in reconciliation strategies.
8. Softened GDP Growth and Inflation Challenges
- Detail: Real GDP growth slowed to 1.5% in 2023, and inflation remained high throughout the year, only reaching the Bank of Canada’s 2% target by mid-2024.
- Why Disturbing: The prolonged inflationary period and sluggish growth signal a fragile recovery. These economic conditions could exacerbate income inequality and lead to further fiscal strain.
9. High Provisions for Unrecovered Loans
- Detail: Provisions of $3.5 billion were recorded for emergency loans provided during the pandemic. The government continues to face difficulties in recovering these funds.
- Why Disturbing: This provision raises serious questions about the efficiency of loan administration and the government’s ability to safeguard public funds during emergencies.
10. Heavy Dependence on Volatile Resource Revenues
- Detail: Nominal GDP growth slowed to 2.9% in 2023, largely due to easing commodity prices after a surge in 2022. Resource dependence remains a key economic vulnerability.
- Why Surprising: Despite global shifts toward renewable energy, Canada’s reliance on resource revenues remains high, posing long-term risks to economic diversification and stability.
 |
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Trump has started negotiations to end the war in Ukraine
The White Pill: Big Government Can Be Defeated (Just Ask the Soviet Union)
Delusional Rumour Driving Some Migrants in Mexico to Reach US Border
Your towing rights! AMA unveils measures to help fight predatory towing
Senator Introduces Bill To Send One-Third Of Federal Workforce Packing Out Of DC
Dig, Baby, Dig: Making Coal Great Again. A Convincing Case for Coal
B.C. traveller arrested for drug exportation during Calgary layover
-
Daily Caller2 days agoFormer FBI Asst Director Warns Terrorists Are ‘Well Embedded’ In US, Says Alert Should Be ‘Higher’
-
Business1 day agoTwo major banks leave UN Net Zero Banking Alliance in two weeks
-
Business1 day agoFor the record—former finance minister did not keep Canada’s ‘fiscal powder dry’
-
armed forces1 day agoTop Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return
-
Business8 hours ago
The Strange Case of the Disappearing Public Accounts Report
-
Opinion4 hours agoThe idea of ‘democracy’ championed by globalist elites is far from what the people think
-
Artificial Intelligence2 hours agoUS House report exposes Biden admin push to use AI for censorship of ‘misinformation’
-
Business49 mins ago
Canada’s chief actuary fails to estimate Alberta’s share of CPP assets