Joint Statement on the Competition Act Review Consultation
On February 7, 2022, the federal government announced plans to review the Competition Act - Canada’s key legislation for addressing monopoly power. As part of our mandate to support individuals and organizations in navigating and reforming Canadian competition law, CAMP has brought together advocates, researchers, and scholars to answer the question: what is needed from the review process to ensure it is fair, open, and inclusive? Together, we have drafted a letter outlining these needs.
If you or your organization would like to join as a signatory, please contact us at hello@antimonopoly.ca.
***
English Version
September 9, 2022
Minister Champagne,
Re: Consultation on the Competition Act
We applaud your leadership in championing the need for Canada to modernize its competition law and policy. The targeted amendments to the Competition Act as part of the most recent Budget Implementation Act sent a strong signal to Canadians that your government is serious about competition reform.
There is now the momentum to undertake the more expansive and wide-ranging review of current rules and enforcement tools required to develop a robust competition law and policy that is both adapted to our modern economy and reflective of the Canadian values of fairness and inclusion.
To accomplish this, the review process should be designed to actively seek the views of Canadians whose lives are directly impacted by our competition law. This means moving beyond the cloistered economic and legal community that has dominated policy and law reform discussions in the past. Canada’s competition law is felt in nearly every aspect of the daily lives of ordinary Canadians. This is why their voices must inform the future of this body of law.
To do so, the undersigned individuals and organizations request that any consultation on Canada’s competition law have the following characteristics:
- Format: the consultation should be open to all Canadians, and allow for direct submissions to departmental staff, not facilitated by a third-party or expert panel; the format should be accessible and accommodate the needs of those with disabilities
- Style: The consultation should be written in plain language that is easily understood by non-experts. Technical language should be avoided and should be clearly defined and supplemented with illustrative examples when necessary.
- Duration: to allow a wide variety of organizations and individuals to participate appropriately, the consultation should be open for submissions for at least 3 months.
- Scope: the consultation should not be limited to select areas of Canada’s competition law and should allow for comments on the role of competition in Canada’s broader socio-economic policy goals and related areas, such as privacy, consumer protection and data protection.
- Participants: departmental staff should make best efforts to publicize the consultation and include a broad range of participants, building on the example of regulators such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States.
- Output: any products bringing together the input provided by Canadians to the consultation should be developed by departmental staff, not any third-party. Any data collected should be made available, subject to applicable rules of confidentiality.
A consultation conducted with the above will give Canadians the confidence that the policy conversation is truly open and free of dominance by the same monopoly interests the law is designed to police. Your government had the courage to take the first steps to building law that protects Canadians and promotes free and fair competition, and we look forward to the next steps toward broader review and reform.
We thank you for your time and consideration.
Signatories
Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project (CAMP)
OpenMedia
Social Capital Partners
Kean Birch, Associate Professor, Co-Editor, Science as Culture, York University
Denise Hearn, Senior Fellow, American Economic Liberties Project and co-author, The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition
John Lawford, Executive Director / General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Center (PIAC)
Andrew Nixon, Arrell Scholar, PhD Candidate, University of Guelph
Jennifer Quaid, Professeure agrégée / Associate Professor, Vice-doyenne à la recherche / Vice-Dean Research, Section de droit civil / Civil Law Section, Faculté de droit / Faculty of Law, Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa
Karim Bardeesy
Dwayne Winseck, Professor at School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University and Director of the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project
Ben Klass, Consultant and PhD candidate at Carleton University School of Journalism and Communication
Patrick Leblond, Associate Professor and CN-Paul M. Tellier Chair on Business and Public Policy, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa.
Canada Needs a Modernized Competition Law
“The coming consultation is an occasion Canada can use to lay a strong foundation for bold and more far-reaching reform of its competition law. But to best use that moment, it must give all citizens an opportunity to contribute their perspectives on an issue that affects them daily.”
Antitrust watchdog should just say no to Rogers and Shaw merger
“So instead of pursuing a remedy that gives up on existing competition in the hope that another player might one day fill the void left in the wake of the merger, the best outcome for Canadians in this saga is one word from the commissioner to the Rogers and Shaw families: No.”
Rogers outage another reason to get rid of Canada’s efficiencies defense in competition law
“We need competition laws that enable a greater number of diverse competitors to provide services in our markets, and provide redundancies in the infrastructure underlying our daily life. When key networks are monopolized, our economy becomes more fragile as private interests retire redundant infrastructure with impunity.”
Rogers outage demonstrates Canada’s misplaced focus on efficiency in its competition law
CAMP statement in response to Rogers’ outage:
“Today’s nationwide outage of the Rogers network showcases the far-reaching effects of Canada’s oligopoly telecommunication markets, and the consequences of our misguided focus on efficiency over resilience in our competition law and other areas of economic policy.
The economic and social costs of this event are a reminder of the value of diverse, dynamic, and democratic markets, and the fragility and risk associated with the consolidation of economic power.
Canada’s competition law must be reformed to halt the efficiency-driven consolidation that harms Canadian consumers and businesses , and makes our economy less resilient.”
-CAMP
Want help with inflation? Reform the Competition Act
“Under European competition laws, businesses can be fined for abusing their dominant position in a market to exploit purchasers or sellers… Canada has no equivalent exploitation doctrine in its competition law. It is not illegal for dominant firms to leverage their market power to earn excess profits, exploit consumers or even exploit workers.”