Letters: Gassed Up
October 19, 2025Welcome to Letters from CAMP, a newsletter on anti-monopoly activity in Canada and abroad, brought to you by the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project. In this instalment we have:
If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP Now let’s dive in.
Carney Government Approves Sunoco-Parkland Takeover Under Investment Canada ActThis week, the Federal Government approved the takeover of Canadian energy and retail company Parkland by the U.S. based Sunoco, a deal worth an estimated $9.1 billion USD. Parkland operates several thousand gas stations across Canada and internationally under several brands. In Canada, names like Ultramar, Pioneer, Chevron, and Esso will be familiar. Each of these is a part of the Parkland umbrella. They also operate a major refinery in Burnaby, B.C., a critical link in the province’s energy infrastructure. Industry Minister Joly has decided that this deal is a net benefit to Canada, but CAMP and our allies think otherwise. Immediately concerning are the fates of Canadian workers, especially if the takeover is used as an excuse to rationalize operations are move jobs down south to save on costs. Strategically, this deal also looks like a major loss for Canada, as control over critical infrastructure and fuel supply comes under control of a US corporation whose chair is a “mega-MAGA” type, as well as the former president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (now part of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation), a key instrument of America’s global economic grip. This transaction has a been an early failure of the government’s resolve to protect Canadian infrastructure and reinforce our sovereignty. Given our reliance on foreign firms for critical infrastructure, whether physical or digital, an the increasing the foreign ownership of domestic assets, including our own railroads, transactions like these continue to open fronts for future exploitation. While an unwelcome development, Sunoco-Parkland is just a prelude to future tests, namely the proposed merger of Canadian mining giant Teck and U.K. based Anglo American. It is time to confront an uncomfortable reality: Canada will need to change course if we want more and not less control over our economic future. A Little Bit of Lead, As a TreatProtein powder has been on the market since at least the 1950s. But in recent years the product has transitioned between a niche bodybuilding supplement to a lifestyle and weight loss product, and an important part of plant-based diets. Today, we are in the grip of a full-blown protein craze, with many (often erroneously) fixated on maintaining a high protein diet. This has driven a surge in the market for protein powders. But it now appears that protein enthusiasts may be getting more than they bargained for. A recent Consumer Reports study found that a number of popular protein powders, particularly the plant-based varieties, contain alarming levels of lead. It turns out that plants used in making protein powders, like rice, peas and hemp, are particularly good at absorbing heavy metals from soil. This makes them more likely to contain lead, either through its presence in the soil or through industrial contamination. While we all ingest a little lead every day, some of the products tested by Consumer Reports exceeded the weekly limit suggested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within a single serving. CAMP isn’t usually in the business of PSAs, but readers should certainly check to see if their favourite protein powder is on the list. This reporting reminds us of the need for effective regulation and the importance of systematic study by independent consumer protection groups like Consumer Reports, who have been at this work for decades. In the US, protein powders are considered dietary supplements and as such there are no limits on how much lead is allowed. The FDA expects companies to self-regulate, and tests only a fraction of manufacturers each year. The same is true in Canada. Although the Canadian Food Inspection Agency tracks chemical residuesin foods, protein powder’s status as a “dietary supplement” or “natural health product” can mean it isn’t subject to the same regulations that foodstuffs are subject too. We trust the companies that make the things we put into our bodies every day to maintain high standards, but this recent fiasco shows us that trust alone is not enough. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Big Tech’s Threat to Freedom of SpeechSince its inception, the internet has been a foundational enabler of the freedom of speech across the globe. But a new report by leading U.S. anti-monopoly organization Open Markets shows how the foundations of European democracy are under threat from tech companies that have come to dominate online spaces. The entrenched positions of companies like Google, Meta, X and TikTok and their position as key channels of communication give them an undue influence not only over markets, but over citizens and policymaking as well. A growing number of cases show how tech companies are actively putting their fingers on the scale, amplifying content that fits their own agendas and censoring others. This distorts our public discourse and creates direct risks to the stability of democratic regimes and the freedom of speech and expression. Canada is no stranger to this kind of behaviour. Take for example Meta’s degrading of the Canadian news ecosystem in response to the Online News Act. These companies leverage pervasive surveillance of their users to profile them and manipulate the content they are served. With no obligation to neutrality and no democratic accountability, they have the potential to be the most extensive propaganda tools ever created. Reckoning with the need to protect genuine freedom of speech, Open Markets argues, means constructing alternatives, digital commons that realize and uphold individual rights, freedom to speak and freedom from algorithmic discrimination. Policy tools, like neutrality and non-discrimination rules, can be used to protect the freedoms of people, rather than tech companies, and antitrust tools can be used to ensure compliance, and prevent the consolidation of power over users and legislators. In countries around the world, the failure to reign in these platforms has turned a problem of regulation into a crisis of sovereignty and may soon turn into a struggle for the survival of democracies. If you have any monopoly tips or stories you'd like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca
Follow CAMP on Twitter LinkedIn Instagram or Facebook |
Letters: Banking on Competition
October 12, 2025Welcome to Letters from CAMP, a newsletter on anti-monopoly activity in Canada and abroad, brought to you by the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project. In this instalment we have:
If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP Now let’s dive in.
Bank of Canada Senior Leadership Calls Out Banking OligopolyIn a speech to the Canadian Club this week, Bank of Canada Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers said that Canada’s banking oligopoly is holding the country back. Where have we heard that before?, To remedy the situation, Rogers put forward several ideas to encourage competition: regulated integration of crypto currencies into banking systems, finally getting serious on open banking to give people more control over their financial data and make it easier to switch banks, and finishing the job on the real-time payments system that would cut out banks as middlemen for all transactions in Canada. The message from Rogers is a welcome recognition of what CAMP has been saying all along. Canada’s highly concentrated banking oligopoly is a serious drag on our economy that primarily excels at squeezing Canadians. Now that the call is coming from inside the house, criticism of Canada’s banking system is impossible to ignore. While Rogers framed her remarks in the wake of the worsening relationship with the U.S., the harms of Canada’s banking oligopoly long predate the current American administration. The comfortable and conservative position of the Big Banks has left our economy sluggish and less able to adapt to the critical juncture we now face. While it’s good to see senior leadership of the Bank of Canada coming around, the Big Banks won’t go down without a fight. The same companies that have spent years slow rolling the release of open banking and the shift to modern payment systems are the first to slap the Team Canada logo on their foreheads. We need a movement that opens the door to greater competition and ensures the interests of savers and borrowers are protected. Making it easier to switch banks only works if there are better alternatives, and without stopping harmful consolidation and changing the rules around how new banks are created, there won’t be much more on offer. CAMP is glad to see Senior Deputy Governor Rogers on board, but the real fight is still to come. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Book Launch! Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About ItNostalgia is a hot commodity these days. Too often the distance of time papers over the very real problems we and the ones who came before us faced in the past. Objects in mirror were worse than they appear. But when it comes to the history of the internet, there’s a real historical and economic case to be made that things were once better, and we now find ourselves on the path of steady decline. Years ago, author Cory Doctorow put a name to this phenomenon: enshittification. This week, Doctorow releases his new book on the topic, Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It. Doctorow is a familiar and prolific champion of the value of democratic control over technology. Unsurprisingly, he is also a leading anti-monopoly thinker, unmasking the monopolization of creative industries and what we can do to break away from this path. The good old days of the internet are gone, dimly recognizable among the corporate walled platforms we’ve been corralled into over the last two decades. While we may have already reached peak social media, it’s a long way down to the bottom. Before creating a new future for ourselves, we need to figure out how we got here. To find out, in detail why the internet sucks now and what we might be able to do about it, grab yourself a copy of Enshittification. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Brazil Shows Us What Digital Governance Looks LikeLast month, as part of the Digital Brazil Agenda, President Lula announced a suite of ambitious new laws designed to reclaim the country’s digital sovereignty. Capitalizing on years of preparation and development of Brazil’s digital infrastructure and regulatory capacity, the laws update Brazil’s child protection frameworks for games, social networks and other apps, create a tax structure to stimulate the development of domestic digital infrastructure, empower their data protection authority, and proposes significant improvements to the regulation of competition in digital markets. Taken together, the agenda represents one of the most comprehensive assertions of sovereignty in the digital realm. Because of our anti-monopoly mandate, we’re most interested in Brazil’s proposed changes to its competition laws. The Digital Fair Competition Bill creates a means of designating “platforms of specific relevance,” and imposes on them responsibilities including transparency, interoperability, and non-discrimination. This is a similar approach to the E.U.’s Digital Markets Act “gatekeeper” designation, as well as the U.K.’s “strategic market status.” These designations recognize the realities of digital commerce today, where global platforms have become unavoidable intermediaries for all kinds of social, commercial, and political activity. Brazil’s approach is novel in that it not only regulates the conduct of these giants but also stimulates the development of domestic alternatives. When countries around the world are reconsidering their efforts to control digital giants, Brazil shows us what a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to digital infrastructure and regulation can look like. Brazil is not new to this. The country has been a leader in digital governance and digital rights, introducing a nationwide Digital ID system, and even building a local payment system, pix, as an alternative to foreign payments monopolies. As the U.S. shifts from reining in to boosting the power of Big Tech, Brazil is stepping up as a source of real governance in our digital world. If you have any monopoly tips or stories you'd like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca
Follow CAMP on Twitter LinkedIn Instagram or Facebook |
Rotman Debate: Are Canada’s So-Called “Oligopolies” Holding Us Back?
IN-PERSON ONLY EVENT
Agenda:
6:00 pm – 7:15 pm – Debate
7:15 pm – 8:00 pm – Networking Reception
Debate Proposition: Canada’s so-called corporate “oligopolies” are standing in the way of a dynamic Canadian economy.”
Are Canada’s so-called corporate “oligopolies” standing in the way of a more dynamic economy, or are large, scaled firms essential to driving investment, innovation, and stability? In sectors such as banking, telecommunications, grocery, airlines and beyond, Canada’s market concentration is often criticized for stifling competition, yet others argue that these structures provide the strength needed to support growth and resilience in the relatively small Canadian market.
This debate will bring together contrasting voices from a wide array of perspectives to examine what Canada’s competition agenda should look like. Are concentrated industries holding back productivity, affordability, and consumer choice—or are they a necessary platform for national competitiveness and stability? The debate will deliver candid, spirited, and thought-provoking insights on this critical issue at a moment when Canada is confronting fundamental questions about the future of its economy.
Letters: Hawkish
October 5, 2025Welcome to Letters from CAMP, a newsletter on anti-monopoly activity in Canada and abroad, brought to you by the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project. In this instalment we have:
If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP Now let’s dive in.
Hawk Talk: Joly Sends Strong Message on CompetitionIn a speech at the Competition Bureau’s 2025 Competition Summit, Industry Minister Melanie Joly said the current government will be “hawkish” to drive affordability. For the Minister’s first major public appearance related to competition, this is good news. But talking a good game is the easiest part of the fight against monopoly. The real test will be whether the Minister backs that tough talk up with real action. Her first opportunity to make good on that front? Hiring a hawk Commissioner of Competition to lead the Competition Bureau when current Commissioner Boswell’s term expires early next year. It’s clear why the government wants to send a strong signal on competition and the cost of living. Affordability is the top issue on the minds of Canadians these days, and in key sectors like grocery, banking, and telecommunications, anti-competitive monopolies cost Canadians billions every year. Under Commissioner Boswell, the Competition Bureau has made huge strides in protecting Canadian consumers and businesses. From investigating anti-competitive practices in grocery, real estate, and gas stations, to standing up to Big Tech firms like Google and their monopoly over the online advertising market. CAMP would be glad to see Boswell stick around, but he’s been Commissioner since 2019, and a more assertive Bureau cannot be the legacy of a single Commissioner. It needs to become the norm. To be a true competition hawk, the next Commissioner must have a vision for how the Competition Bureau can play a role in improving both sides of the affordability equation. The Bureau can break down monopolies in the markets that matter to everyday Canadians - grocery, banking, airlines, and telecom – while improving paycheques by tackling monopolies in labour markets that can suppress wages. There will be powerful voices saying that what Canada needs is a dovish Commissioner, to placate the dealmakers and attract “investments” that sell off Canada and sell out Canadians. Canadians cannot afford this. Personnel is policy. If this government truly wants to be hawkish on competition, hiring a hawk Commissioner is the first step. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Do Not Pass Go: Subscribe to Canada’s Newest Anti-Monopoly News OutfitCAMP doesn’t have a monopoly on Canada’s anti-monopoly space, and we’re not looking to build one. We need people and organizations of all kinds involved in the fight against monopoly. That’s why we’re pleased to bring to your attention the launch of Do Not Pass Go, a new anti-monopoly reporting outfit helmed by veteran journalist Peter Nowak. With a background in fighting for the little guy in monopolized markets like telecom, Peter is bringing deep reporting and research experience to monopoly and competition issues across the economy. Canadians depend on journalists of all kinds to expose and understand the monopolies around us, and Do Not Pass Go is a welcome edition amid the news industry’s ongoing struggles. The outfit is off to a strong start, landing and interview with Commissioner Boswell for one of their first episodes. We’re keeping this segment short because Peter’s work speaks for itself and we encourage you to check it out and subscribe. We need all the eyes we can get on Canada’s monopoly problem, and Do Not Pass Go is set to make an important and independent contribution to accurate coverage of the monopolies that make up our economy. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Delisting the CompetitionThis week the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced they are suing Zillow and Redfin, two major players in the internet listing service (ILS) market, websites that list rental units used by prospective tenants. The FTC alleges that Zillow paid Redfin $100 million USD to stop competing for apartment listings, gradually handing their advertising clients, listings, and even their employees over to Zillow. This is, plainly put, about as anti-competitive as it gets. The FTC argues that this conduct harms both tenants and landlords, and represents a de facto consolidationof the ILS market, of which Zillow already had nearly 50% market share. This consolidation-by-another name made it easier for Zillow to raise its prices for rental advertisers and drop access to similar services offered by Redfin. For renters, the lack of competition reduced incentives to improve the user experience and offer innovative features. Years ago, firms like Zillow and Redfin were the good guys in an important Canadian competition law case. After a long court fight that ended in 2018, Toronto Real Estate Board (now the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board) lost the ability to keep these innovative companies out of the real estate market by denying them access to critical housing data. But in the world of monopolies, if you don’t die a hero, you just might live long enough to become the villain. This isn’t the only time Zillow has come under fire for anti-competitive practices in the U.S. Earlier this year, Compass, another listing firm, sued Zillow for preventing listing from being posted on multiple board calling them a “monopolist gatekeeper”. This new case is a reminder that protecting competition requires constant vigilance. Without effective enforcement, yesterday’s challenger is more than happy to become tomorrow’s monopolist. If you have any monopoly tips or stories you'd like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca
Follow CAMP on Twitter LinkedIn Instagram or Facebook |
Cornering the captive market
Winnipeg Free Press
Texas-based firm commands 80 per cent market share of telecom services for provincial and territorial inmates after securing non-competitive, highly lucrative contracts
Canada’s productivity problem takes center stage at Competition Summit 2025
Betakit
Canada is becoming increasingly anti-competitive and unproductive due to overregulation, industry heads and officials told attendees at Canada’s Competition Summit this year.
Hosted by Competition Bureau Canada, the annual event brought together business leaders and regulators to discuss market competition issues in Canada. Industry minister Mélanie Joly set the tone when she told the room the government would be “hawkish” on competition.
The comment lived on throughout the day’s programming and conversations as an encouraging sign that the government recognizes the importance of a competitive market. Most of the afternoon, however, focused on what the government is doing wrong.