Skip to content

Anticipating changes to the Competition Act: what businesses need to know

By Deanne MacLeod, K.C., Burtley Francis & David Slipp

On September 21, 2023, the Federal Government introduced Bill C-56: An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act (“Bill C-56”), with the short name: “Affordable Housing and Groceries Act”.[1] The full text of Bill C-56 can be found online, and you can track the progress of Bill C-56 through the Parliamentary system as it continues on its journey to become law.

The Government of Canada has indicated that the proposed amendments to the Competition Act (the “Act”) are intended to target the grocery industry in particular, however the effects of Bill C-56 are not limited to grocery chains and have the potential to impact the conduct of businesses in every sector.

What changes are proposed for the Competition Act?

Broadly speaking, the changes to the Act proposed in Bill C-56 can be categorized into the following three categories:

  1. Review of non-competitor collaboration. Extending the powers of the Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) to review and object to collaborations between non-competitors if a significant purpose of the agreement or arrangement, or any part of it, is to prevent or lessen competition in any market;
  2. Increased investigative powers. Granting the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (the “Minister”) the ability to direct the Bureau to investigate the competitiveness of any industry and providing the power for the Bureau to compel disclosure and testimony in so doing; and
  3. Eliminating the efficiencies defence. Repealing the “efficiencies defence”[2] to mergers that are found to substantially prevent or lessen competition in a market.

Review of non-competitor collaboration

Section 90.1 of the Act currently provides the Bureau with the power to challenge arrangements between competitors that prevent or lessen, or are likely to prevent or lessen, competition substantially in a market (the “Civil Review Power”) – as such the scrutiny is on arrangements between “competitors”. Bill C-56 will add language to the Act to extend the scope of the Civil Review Power such that if the Competition Tribunal finds that a significant purpose of the agreement or arrangement, or any part of it, is to prevent or lessen competition, it may make an order even if none of the persons are competitors. The new, expanded power is not limited to the grocery industry.

The example most cited by the Government in justifying this expansion is a scenario in which a retail business enters into a lease for space in a shopping centre that includes a restriction on the landlord’s ability to lease space to competing or similar businesses. The landlord and the retailer are not competitors, but their agreement may prevent or lessen competition. These restrictive covenants may be in leases for grocers, but they also appear in leases for retailers, restaurants and service providers of all types.  In addition to restrictive covenants in commercial leases, this expansion of the Civil Review Power has the potential to affect other business relationships. Without guidance on what constitutes a “significant purpose” of an agreement, the Bureau could target for review any number of common clauses in employment, franchise, service, supply, purchase or any other commercial contracts. Clauses likely to be targeted are territory designations, non-compete provisions and exclusivity clauses.

Increased investigative powers

Bill C-56 contains a suite of new provisions giving the Minister (but not the Bureau, on its own) the power to order an investigation into the competitive status of any industry in Canada. A recent example of this process can be seen in the Bureau’s recent review of and report on Canada’s national grocery industry.

The primary danger in this proposed change is that it has the potential to degrade the Bureau’s status as an independent law enforcement agency, and changes it into a tool of the Federal Government to be pointed at the unpopular industry of the day. This could distract the Bureau from its true enforcement work and occupy its limited resources. It remains to be seen whether this section of Bill C-56 will be enacted as proposed, as the concept of Bureau independence has been raised at debates in the House of Commons. It would seem to be more in line with the objects and intent of the Act to provide the Bureau with the mechanism to investigate the industries it – in its expertise – considers to be the highest priority in Canada.

Repeal of the efficiencies defence

Section 96 of the Act currently provides that if a proposed merger would result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in a market, it can be saved if such negative results are set off by gains in efficiency (often referred to as the “efficiencies defence”).

Bill C-56 proposes to repeal this section entirely, eliminating a unique feature of Canadian competition law that has been used to frustrate the Bureau’s ability to prevent mergers in the past.

Key take-aways

  • The Federal Government is continuing its overarching review and amendment of Canada’s competition law regime.
  • An expansion of the Competition Bureau’s power to review agreements between non-competitors may have positive effects on competition but has the potential to fundamentally impact several common commercial arrangements.
  • An increase in the Competition Bureau’s power to compel disclosure has been proposed, but only in respect of industry investigations ordered by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. This is a step in the right direction but potentially affects the independence of the Competition Bureau as a law-enforcement agency.
  • The efficiencies defence will no longer be available to justify a proposed merger that substantially prevents or lessens competition once Bill C-56 becomes law.

Stewart McKelvey will continue to monitor the status of Bill C-56 and provide further updates as and when more information becomes available.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Competition Law group.

[1] Bill C-56 remains under debate in the House of Commons, so its final form – and full impact on Canadian Competition law – remains unknown as of the date of this article.
[2] The efficiencies defence currently allows anti-competitive mergers to survive challenges if corporate efficiencies offset the harm to competition (https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2023/09/14/fighting-for-the-middle-class)

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top