OPINION: What should communications policy look like under a Carney government?
Opinion by CAMP Executive Director, Keldon Bester. With the federal campaign over, effort is shifting from predicting the election’s outcome to what a Liberal government under Mark Carney might actually do. Communications policy is no exception, and absent the more central focus seen in previous elections there is room for speculation.
Read the full article here.
Letters: Doubling Down
May 4, 2024Welcome 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 installment we have:
Now let’s dive in.
No Retreat: A Carney Government Must Double Down on CompetitionAs Prime Minister Carney prepares to lead a minority Liberal government in Ottawa, Canada is entering a defining moment on competition policy. After two years of reforms aimed at taking on monopolies, there will be strong pressure from entrenched interests to soften the stance. But as CAMP argues this week, a Carney-led government must resist the urge to retreat. Canada’s concentrated economy—from telecom to groceries to banking—has already made life more expensive and less innovative. The solution isn’t more consolidation, it’s more competition. If a Carney government wants to strengthen affordability, sovereignty, and innovation, it should increase enforcement funding, support merger challenges, and bolster policy against gatekeeping behaviour in both digital and traditional industries. This isn’t just about consumers. A growing number of Canadians are shut out of opportunity due to the gatekeeping of dominant firms. Whether it’s banks shutting out non-traditional workers, grocers squeezing suppliers, or tech giants blocking innovators, monopoly power is choking economic dynamism. Instead of watering down competition reforms to placate the powerful, Canada should do the opposite: back the Bureau, fund enforcement, and break open bottlenecks. A pro-competition agenda isn’t some policy side hustle. It’s the backbone of a resilient economy that can adapt to external shocks—whether from Washington tariffs, monopolized digital platforms, or supply chain crises. A Carney government has the opportunity to build on the good work started by the previous government. They should take it. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
UK Grocers Fight Price War While Canadian Grocers Wrap Themselves in the FlagIn the UK, Sainsbury’s and Tesco are cutting prices in an all-out bid to win over grocery shoppers. Price-matching discount chains like Aldi, slashing margins, and boosting loyalty rewards—it’s a real price war, and it shows what happens when retailers are forced to compete. Compare this with Canada, where grocers are talking a big game when it comes to patriotism but doing little to address sky-high prices. Loblaw and others have leaned into "Buy Canadian" marketing, encouraging consumers to support domestic products while continuing to rake in record profits. We all enjoy seeing more maple leaves around, but patriotic branding is no substitute for real competition. While UK consumers are benefiting from aggressive price competition, Canadian families continue to feel the squeeze. Until Canada’s policy makers act to inject real competition into the food system, Canadians will be stuck paying more for less. It’s time to go beyond flag waving and bring real discipline to a sector that sorely lacks it. Apple’s App Monopoly Cracked Open, But Not for CanadiansIn a major win for developers and consumers, a U.S. judge ruled this week that Apple violated court orders by continuing to stifle competition on its App Store. The case stems from Epic Games' long-running challenge to Apple's 30% fee and rigid payment restrictions on its app store marketplace. Apple had tried to skirt the ruling by introducing a 27% commission on external payments—a move the judge deemed a willful violation. To give a sense of the impact of this monopoly tax on developers, for every $100 spent on the ultra-popular videogame Roblox, app stores make $22 in almost pure profit and the developer loses $35. Thanks to this decision, Apple is now forced to allow developers to direct users to cheaper payment options and third-party stores. This openness is similar to the benefits enjoyed by citizens of the European Union thanks to the Digital Markets Act (DMA). But unless Canada takes action, it’s unlikely any of this relief will reach Canadian developers or users. Without legal or legislative pressure, Apple has no incentive to extend fairer terms north of the border. The remedy is clear: Canada must bring its own antitrust case or adopt a proactive digital markets framework. Otherwise, we risk becoming a digital backwater, locked into the monopolized status quo while others move ahead. 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 |
A Carney Government Must Double Down, Not Retreat, on Competition
Last night the looming presence of a Trump administration cast a long shadow over the election that brought in a Liberal government last night. Now that the campaign is over, focus will quickly shift to how a Carney government will handle the threat to Canada’s economy and sovereignty.
Well before the election, whispers began calling for Ottawa to soften its stance on competition policy and to embrace the outdated notion of creating national champions through consolidation as a shield against turbulent times. This would be a grave mistake.
Now, more than ever, robust competition policy isn't a peacetime luxury but a critical tool for navigating economic volatility, safeguarding our economic independence, and building resilience against external shocks. Weakening our resolve on competition would be akin to disarming precisely when the threats are mounting.
Canada has, commendably, made strides on competition in recent years. Federal legislation passed in 2023 and 2024, backed unanimously by all MPs, aimed squarely at tackling the cost-of-living crisis by strengthening the Competition Act. These reforms weren't mere tinkering; they empowered the Competition Bureau to launch meaningful investigations into sectors that profoundly impact Canadians' daily lives – from the grocery aisles and gas pumps to the opaque world of digital advertising. The Bureau's ongoing suit against Google's alleged abuse of dominance in online advertising is a prime example of this renewed vigour, signalling a welcome shift towards tackling bigger monopolies, more frequently.
But, this progress could be fragile as a new government takes the helm. The economic tremors emanating south of the border risk reviving misguided calls to sacrifice competition at the altar of perceived stability. Allowing dominant players to further consolidate in pursuit of elusive scale won't make Canada stronger; it will make our economy more brittle, less innovative, and ultimately more vulnerable. Decades of permitting market concentration have already left Canadians with fewer choices and higher prices in critical sectors like telecommunications, banking, and transportation. We've seen the consequences in everything from cell phone bills to air travel fiascos.
Simultaneously, powerful external forces are pushing back. American tech giants, sensing alignment with a U.S. administration hostile to international regulation – whether it's Europe's Digital Markets Act or core policy areas like taxation – are increasingly assertive. We saw this playbook during the debate over Bill C-18, where Meta blocked news access and Google threatened similar action. These platforms are not just companies; they are integral parts of Canada's economic and communications infrastructure, controlling key gateways for information and commerce.
Ceding ground on regulating their conduct, whether through competition law or other means, isn't just an economic issue – it's a fundamental question of sovereignty. Trading away strong competition enforcement would leave Canadian firms exposed to unfair practices and diminish our capacity to uphold our own laws against powerful foreign entities that operate within our borders. It sends a signal that economic might can override fair play.
The path forward requires doubling down on competition, not retreating. A strong competition policy is a two-pronged weapon: it directly addresses the cost-of-living pressures felt by Canadian households by fostering choice, challenging price-gouging, and preventing dominant firms from extracting excessive profits. It also serves as a bulwark to our economic independence by ensuring a level playing field where Canadian businesses, large and small, aren't stifled or shut out by the anti-competitive tactics of dominant domestic or foreign firms. Competition policy is key to ensuring all corporations compete fairly.
To make this vision a reality, the federal government must take decisive action:
- Back the Bureau: The government must send a clear signal that it supports the Competition Bureau's mandate to challenge anti-competitive conduct, regardless of whether the firm is domestic or foreign. This includes firmly standing behind high stakes, necessary investigations and litigation like the one against Google's dominance in online advertising.
- Invest in Enforcement Capacity: The Competition Bureau needs the resources to match its expanded mandate and the complexity of modern markets, especially digital ones. Despite recent progress, its real funding remains below early 2000s levels. Increasing annual funding from the current $60 million towards $100 million is a necessary investment to enable effective monitoring and enforcement in critical sectors, ensuring the Bureau can act swiftly and effectively, not just reactively.
- Break Economic Bottlenecks: Competition policy is just one ingredient in a more competitive and resilient economy. Across sectors like banking, transportation, and communications, key economic infrastructure is under the control of powerful gatekeepers. The new government should adopt an approach to regulation of federal sectors that transforms these economic bottlenecks into the foundation of a more diverse and dynamic economy while preserving Canadian ownership.
In an era defined by economic uncertainty and geopolitical shifts, retreating on competition policy would be a mistake. It is precisely through a commitment to open, fair, and competitive markets, enforced by a well-resourced and independent regulator, that Canada can bolster its economic resilience, empower its citizens and businesses, and safeguard its sovereignty. The time for half-measures is over; Canada needs a competition policy ready for the challenges ahead.
Letters: Looking for Competition
April 27, 2024Welcome 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 installment we have:
Now let’s dive in.
Evaluating the Federal Platforms and Their (Lack) of CompetitionAs Canadians head out to vote on Monday, CAMP has assessed the federal party platforms from our single-issue anti-monopoly voter perspective. Unfortunately, the results are not promising. In contrast with the cross-partisan support for strengthening Canada’s competition policy in 2023 and 2024, no national party has competition as a cornerstone of its economic policy commitments. To their credit, the Conservative platform leads with not only mentions of policing unfair competition, but also includes a commitment to engage in an “oligopoly review” of federally regulated sectors and move forward on open banking. Though we can only read so much into two bullet points, both have the potential to be important steps in tackling domestic oligopolies in key sectors. The single mention of the Competition Bureau in the Liberal platform is to bolster the ability to support new Made in Canada requirements for manufacturers. While Liberal leader Mark Carney has made commitments to reduce our dependence on U.S. tech giants, to date these have taken the form of procurement requirements rather than regulation of the behaviour of platforms that control important channels of communication and commerce. The NDP score points with its support for a mandatory grocery code of conduct and support for cooperatives as a competitive alternative in Canada’s food system, but the platform is effectively silent on how an NDP government would defend the interests of Canadians from American firms intertwined with our economy. Competition as a side-show or no-show in platforms is an issue as Canadians face a monopoly threat on two fronts. From abroad, the digital giants that control much of our communications infrastructure are now in the orbit of an American administration looking to strongarm supposed friends and enemies alike. Within our own borders, our homegrown monopolists are rushing to wrap themselves in the flag while continuing to fleece Canadians across the economy. To build a more resilient economy and society, Canada will need to move quickly to tame these monopoly threats. Whatever the outcome of Monday’s election, it’s clear there is work to do to ensure elected policy makers understand the monopoly threat that faces Canadians within and without. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Tariffs Mean the Big Will Get BiggerWhile it’s clear businesses around the world are hurting from Trump’s erratic enthusiasm for tariffs, that damage is not spread evenly throughout the economy. In a replay of the COVID-19 pandemic, small businesses are much more exposed to this kind of whiplash economic policy than their monopolist counterparts. Big companies like Walmart, Apple, and Albertsons are using their market power to either dodge tariff costs altogether or shift them onto suppliers. Smaller businesses, without political clout or negotiating leverage, are being crushed by higher input costs and disrupted supply chains. Just as we saw during the pandemic, we should be prepared for firms to exploit tariff-driven uncertainty to pad profits, pushing price hikes onto consumers under the cover of responding to swings in trade policy. Without targeted support for small and medium sized businesses and competition policy to police abuses of market power tariffs will accelerate consolidation and concentration at our expense. During the pandemic, federal policy makers stepped in to stem a wave of bankruptcies arising from the pandemic, but that support was extended to the oligopolies best able to weather the storm on their own. Canada's policymakers must learn from the experience of the early days of the pandemic and design responses that prioritize broad-based economic resilience, not just help the biggest incumbents weather the storm. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
The Canadian Election Gets Weird On Meta’s PlatformsNew reporting from The Logic reveals a disturbing surge in scam political ads on Facebook ahead of Canada's federal election. With Meta blocking legitimate news under its standoff with the federal government over C-18, disinformation is flooding the platform. Fake news stories, deepfake videos, and doctored images of political leaders are being pumped out by scam networks to mislead voters and promote crypto frauds. Nearly a quarter of Canadians have seen these fake ads, often styled to impersonate CBC, CTV, or other trusted news sources. Despite promises to crack down, Meta’s enforcement remains reactive and ineffective; and because Facebook dominates social media news distribution, there are few alternative venues for real election information to reach users. This chaos shows the dangers of monopoly platforms. When a single company controls critical information flows, its policy choices — or negligence — can have outsized impacts on democracy. Canada's upcoming election highlights the urgent need for stronger competition in digital markets, regulation of critical communication channels, and real consequences for monopolies that fail to meet their responsibilities to the public. 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 |
Google guilty ruling in antitrust case could boost Canada's lawsuit against tech giant
The Financial Post
Alphabet Inc.’s Google LLC last week was found guilty of illegally building and maintaining a monopoly in some online advertising markets by a judge in the United States, the second major blow to the US$1.8-trillion company that could break up its digital empire and shift the balance of power online.
Letters: Google is a Monopolist (Again)
April 20, 2024Welcome 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 installment we have:
Now let’s dive in.
Judge Finds Google Holds Illegal Online Ad MonopolyIn a historic decision, a U.S. federal judge ruled this week that Google broke antitrust laws in the online advertising market. Judge Brinkema determined that Google unfairly limited competition by buying up competitors and creating conflicts of interest through its control of multiple parts of the online ad system. This marks the second time Google has been declared a monopolist in the U.S., following a 2024 ruling about its search engine dominance. The next big question is what penalty Google will face. The judge might force Google to sell off major portions of its advertising technology business, including the DoubleClick platform it bought in 2008. Such changes could create more competition in online advertising, potentially helping advertisers, publishers, and consumers worldwide by lowering costs and improving services. However, if the remedies only apply to Google's U.S. operations, other countries might not see the benefits. That's why a similar case in Canada remains important. Canada's Competition Bureau is pursuing its own legal action against Google, covering the same issues in online advertising. The U.S. victory helps the Canadian case, but regulators still face challenges in our own legal system, which has gravitated towards a narrow interpretation of competition law. The case is another reminder that global authorities can take on these tech giants and win. In doing so, the U.S. has taken an important step to dismantling one of the many monopolies that make up its economy. Now it's time for Canada to ensure our own citizens see the same benefits. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
New Report Dives Into Canadian Labour Market ConcentrationMonopolies can emerge in any market, and the market for our labour is no different. When companies don’t have to compete for employees, they squeeze wages, degrade job conditions, and unfairly restrict workers. This week, economist and CAMP co-founder Robin Shaban released a new report with the CSA Group reminding us that fair competition isn’t just a consumer issue; it’s a worker issue too. Looking at labour market concentration across over 800 local job markets from 2018 to 2023, Shaban found that markets with few options for workers are not limited to small or remote communities. The data reveal significant labour monopsony (the term of art for when a single buyer rather than single seller has too much power) even in mid-sized Canadian cities. Certain sectors stand out nationwide: health care, post-secondary education, and social services all display high employer concentration. While competition law has long ignored the concerns of workers, the tide is turning. Reforms in 2024 strengthened the role of labour in Canadian merger law and just this week the U.S. DOJ secured a win against a conspiracy to fix the wages of home nurses in Nevada. These are big steps forward, aligning Canada with a growing North American effort to tackle wage-fixing, no-poach agreements, and employer concentration that keeps workers down. Shaban calls for strengthened enforcement by equipping the Competition Bureau with resources and expertise in labour economics and a greater focus on employer concentration in collective bargaining. The first of hopefully many studies of this kind, this new report shines a light on the market that ensures we get a fair day's wage for a fair day's work 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Meta's Monopoly on Trial: Zuckerberg Takes the StandOver a decade ago, Facebook (now Meta) spent billions to buy two rising rivals – Instagram and WhatsApp. Now, those same deals might be on the chopping block. In a Washington, D.C. courtroom, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is pursuing a landmark case to break up Meta. This was the first week of the trial, and it kicked off with blockbuster testimony from none other than Mark Zuckerberg himself. The FTC’s opening arguments wasted no time in framing the narrative: Facebook’s purchase of these companies wasn’t benign or pro-consumer – it was a deliberate move to “snuff out” nascent competition and maintain a social networking monopoly. Meta argues the FTC has drawn the market too narrowly, excluding platforms like TikTok, YouTube, or iMessage that Meta says compete for users’ attention. The trial comes just a week after the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of Sarah Wynn-Williams, former Director of Global Public Policy at Meta. Beyond the consumer harms outlined in the antitrust trial, Williams alleged Meta executives compromised U.S. national security to expand its business in China. The two events are a reminder that monopolies are not just corrosive to our economic lives, but our sovereignty as well. To keep up with the day-to-day developments of the trial be sure to subscribe to Big Tech on Trial for coverage as the historic event unfolds. 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 |