(As prepared for delivery)
Introduction
Thank you for the kind introduction.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People.
It's hard to believe that it's been nearly seven years since I delivered my first speech to this group as Canada's newly appointed Commissioner of Competition.
In that speech, I spoke of the mountain we were setting out to climb to achieve our vision for the Competition Bureau.
At the time, I couldn't have imagined how far that journey would take us-or how much the landscape would change along the way.
We've since navigated a global pandemic, the highest inflation in two generations, three federal elections and-now-a fundamental restructuring of global trade.
Oh, and there have been a few tweaks to our competition laws along the way.
Today, I want to reflect on the progress we have made on our mission-both in strengthening competition law enforcement and advancing a culture of competition in Canada-as well as the work that remains to be done.
For what may be my final speech as Commissioner, I am going to switch up from my usual use of nature metaphors. I'm going for something a little more…rock and roll.
Many of you are old enough to remember Guns N' Roses' debut album, Appetite for Destruction. It came out in 1987 while I was in high school. We used to play it during our hockey warm-ups-which might explain why I spent so much time in the penalty box.
At the time, it was the soundtrack to teenage rebellion. Loud. Messy. Full of energy. And as I've come to realize, it was also a pretty good metaphor for the drivers of a healthy economy.
Growth doesn't come from the same people playing the same old songs over and over. It comes from a willingness to replace the old with the new-to make room for energetic new creators, with new ideas, who offer us something that's more compelling than the status quo.
This is what economist Joseph Schumpeter highlighted in the mid-20th century with his concept of creative destruction: a process where innovation drives growth by replacing the old with the new.
So, I think Canada needs some healthy Guns N' Roses energy-what I might call an Appetite for Creative Destruction.
And in many ways, the changes that have been made in competition policy, and our work to improve competition enforcement, have set the stage for that.
Setting the stage
I'll return to creative destruction in a moment, but I'll start by highlighting three stage-setting developments that stand out to me.
First, we received a significant budget increase for the Bureau, after many years of stagnation, which has allowed us to better equip ourselves for the realities of the economy of the 21st century.
Importantly, we did not simply use these funds to do more of the same.
We have built the foundation for a modern, digital-ready Bureau. This includes the creation of our Digital Enforcement and Intelligence Branch and bringing in new talent with diverse backgrounds and skillsets. We have now integrated technologists, data engineers, behavioral scientists and intelligence experts into our teams. We've implemented a digital approach across the organization, with an increased emphasis on proactive intelligence gathering to respond quickly to the changing dynamics of the modern digital economy.
We have also beefed up our litigation team to further support our commitment to use all the tools at our disposal and to vigorously enforce when necessary.
Second, the recently enacted transformative amendments to the Competition Act are giving us the tools we need to take on this important enforcement work.
We have heard the clear call from Parliament that more needs to be done to protect and promote competition in Canada. Many of these amendments, as you know, garnered unanimous support in their passage.
That's why we have worked to immediately put these to use, to conduct market studies in critical areas, to advance investigations, and to bring significant cases before the courts.
We have also swiftly consulted and issued revised guidance on the many changes to the law. We do so to provide clarity to Canadians in how we will enforce the new or revised aspects of the laws. It is important that I pause here to thank those of you who have participated in these consultations, as your input is critical and appreciated.
Third, we have seen competition policy elevated to the forefront of public discourse and government agendas more broadly.
Competition policy has moved from being a niche, technocratic topic to a kitchen table priority for Canadians.
Just last month, we have had the Minister of Industry pledge that the federal government will be "hawkish" on competition and that increasing competition is a central plank of the government's economic agenda. We have also seen many provinces and territories step up to take action on competition.
This is reflected across red tape reduction efforts, internal trade liberalization, the harmonization of standards, and commitments to open up sectors to greater competition.
At long last, Canada has begun prioritizing competition in the organization of our economic affairs.
But let me be clear: we have not yet reached the proverbial Paradise City. In many ways, this progress is just a start.
To take it home-to make competition a true pillar of Canada's economy-we need to see these efforts through, expand on them, and then relentlessly guard against back sliding.
Creative destruction
To understand why, let's return to our Appetite for Creative Destruction.
This year's Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded, in part, to France's Philippe Aghion and Canada's Peter Howitt for their groundbreaking work on innovation and growth. Their research, which builds on the concept of creative destruction, fundamentally reshapes our understanding of economic progress as a dynamic cycle of renewal.
It's creative because it involves fresh ideas and technologies, but also destructive because it renders outdated products, services, and even entire business models obsolete. This cycle is the reason why industries evolve, why productivity rises, and why innovative economies see sustained increases in living standards.
Importantly, however, this cycle is not self-perpetuating. As Professor Howitt noted, new ideas come from disruptive people who challenge the status quo-but when they succeed, they often become the status quo themselves and seek to prevent the next round of innovations from displacing them. That is why competition policy plays a critical role in ensuring the cycle continues.
Or to return to our metaphor, effective competition policy whets the appetite for creative destruction.
In an interview earlier this month, the professor stated that "Canada should be rethinking competition policy, trying to make it even more possible for young, new, innovative firms to get a foothold in established industries."
The importance of competition policy is something I know our Prime Minister also agrees with. He wrote about business dynamism in his book-Value(s)-where he concludes that, and I quote, "Eternal vigilance in the name of competition is essential."
With this in mind, I want to speak to how the Competition Bureau has been using our new tools under the Competition Act in our vigilance as Canada's competition enforcer.
Mergers
Let's start with mergers.
The changes to our merger regime are some of the most significant of all the recent changes to the Competition Act. We have just published our proposed Merger Enforcement Guidelines-or as we like to call them, the MEGs-following a comprehensive review and consultation, and we are looking forward to receiving feedback on them.
These updates do not just reflect the recent amendments, they also incorporate new developments in the economy and in our thinking since the last version was published way back in 2011.
As an example of what this means, you will see more considerations in these guidelines around digital markets, platforms and ecosystems. It also includes more on dynamic competition and innovation, including how the Bureau is thinking about killer acquisitions.
Stylistically, you will also see a greater emphasis on plain language, which has been a priority across our work. We want to make our guidance more accessible to Canadians, while still providing the details that matter to technical audiences.
Consistent with that, we also intend to engage a diverse set of stakeholders through this consultation, including those with expertise in how competition impacts labour and privacy.
I do want to be clear that, while the amendments were significant, they don't impact the vast majority of mergers which the Bureau continues to review quickly.
Many of you may have been expecting Welcome to the Jungle. But, looking at data from our public merger register before and after the amendments were adopted paints a different picture.
While it is still early days, we have seen fewer anti-competitive mergers being proposed, meaning a higher clearance rate.
The average review time for decisions involving Advance Ruling Certificates or No Actions Letters is virtually the same. And cases involving a consent agreement-like RONA's acquisition of All-Fab-are proceeding faster on average.
If these trends hold, they are exactly what we would want and expect from a policy perspective.
Fewer anti-competitive mergers leaving the boardroom and faster, more certain resolutions in the small portion that do. All without burdening benign or pro-competitive deals.
Monopolistic Practices
Let's now turn to monopolistic practices.
This aspect of our enforcement work is critical to keep markets contestable and ready for creative destruction.
For example, in our landmark case against the Toronto Real Estate Board, the Competition Tribunal expressly embraced Schumpeter's conception of competition as (quote) "a dynamic process wherein firms strive to survive under an evolving set of rules that constantly produce winners and losers." The Tribunal went on to note that (quote) "dynamic competition, including innovation, [is] the most important type of competition".
I would be remiss here if I did not take a moment here to acknowledge the role played by former Chief Justice Paul Crampton in that decision. Following his retirement last month, I would like to recognize and thank Paul for his significant contributions to competition law and policy throughout his career, which spanned the Competition Bureau, private practice, the OECD, and the federal bench. I am sure that in his speech tonight he will share many interesting stories and reflections on his impressive career.
Turning back to monopolistic practices, last month, we published our new Anti-Competitive Conduct and Agreements Guidelines.
These are designed to set out a consistent and unified enforcement approach to the provisions of the Competition Act that target monopolistic practices.
The result is the most comprehensive set of guidelines we have issued on these provisions.
Our consultation on these guidelines runs to the end of January and we hope that many of you will participate.
In terms of case work, in addition to our ongoing case against Google, we are putting our new tools to work in sectors that matter for Canadians, including those that go to the heart of concerns about food and housing affordability.
This includes our investigations into property controls and real estate commissions.
Regarding property controls, we're encouraged by the changes we're seeing in the retail grocery industry since the amendments and the publication of our property controls guidance.
Some companies have voluntarily committed to removing these controls and, in doing so, reducing barriers for new entrants.
Manitoba has also introduced complementary legislation to prohibit property controls in the grocery sector.
Nevertheless, the widespread use of property controls in the grocery sector remains a concern. Our investigative work is ongoing, and you should expect further announcements in due course.
Our real estate cases are also a priority for us. For most Canadians, the purchase or sale of a home is the largest transaction that they will undertake in their lives.
We are concerned that real estate commission rules may be discouraging agents from competing to offer lower commission rates, which may be driving up costs for homebuyers. This is another area where we expect to have more to say in the coming months.
Deceptive Marketing
Let's move on to deceptive marketing.
This is an area where we have been particularly active before the courts. In fact, we currently have four separate matters in litigation. This underscores our commitment to protecting consumers from these practices. It also reflects the investments we have made in strengthening our litigation team.
Of course, most businesses want to stay on the right side of the law. And we have been working very hard to provide guidance to assist businesses in doing so, notably with the release of our environmental claims guidelines.
Budget 2025 proposes some amendments to the greenwashing provisions to provide more certainty to the marketplace while maintaining protections against false claims. If these changes come into effect, we will adjust our guidelines accordingly.
Deceptive marketing continues to be a dynamic area of competition law-one where we must remain agile and responsive to evolving consumer behaviour, including trends like the growing 'Buy Canadian' movement.
AI is also changing the game for deception. We recently raised some of these issues with our paper on synthetic media that was published with our counterparts from the Canadian Digital Regulators Forum.
A poll commissioned by the Canadian Journalism Foundation last month found that nearly nine in 10 Canadians are concerned about deceptive online content generated by artificial intelligence, with nearly half encountering misleading or false information daily or several times weekly. This is concerning, and only a slice of online deception falls under our purview. But I can tell you that the Bureau is committed to protect consumers against deceptive business practices in the age of AI.
Again, our investments in building out our Digital Enforcement and Intelligence Branch have equipped us well for this. The branch has played an instrumental role in bringing technical expertise and behavioural insights to our work in these emerging areas.
Cartels
I'll move on now to our fight against cartels. This is where I first got my feet wet in competition law when I joined the Bureau in 2011.
Immunity and Leniency application numbers are up compared to the last few years, but we are not waiting for immunity applicants to come Knock, Knock, Knockin' on-the Bureau's-Door.
We are focusing on other ways of detecting cartels. This includes outreach to public procurement agencies, partnerships with domestic law enforcement agencies, our tip lines and new international initiatives such as the one aimed at deterring and detecting bid-rigging leading to the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
One important area to note is our increased vigilance on procurement. The federal government has recently announced significant investments, most notably in defence spending and housing.
These are big opportunities, but also big responsibilities. Public procurement shapes competition for years to come. How governments buy goods and services affects who competes, who grows, and who innovates. That's why competitive bidding is so critical- to protect public value and taxpayer dollars.
Governments at every level must stay alert to the risk of bid-rigging and should think about how their procurement processes can foster as much competition as possible, including from small and medium sized businesses, to compete for contracts.
That's why we recently launched a Procurement Hub with guidance for procurement professionals and businesses, and we are significantly increasing our outreach and collaboration on this front.
Advocacy
Lastly, let me speak briefly about our competition advocacy efforts.
We continue to see extraordinary potential to grow the economy though pro-competitive regulatory reform, across all levels of government.
The Bureau is playing an active role in this. We've used our new market study powers to recommend pro-competitive reforms in Canada's passenger airline sector and are now using them to examine barriers to competitive financing for SMEs, both critical issues.
And hopefully for those that have been part of those studies, you see the efforts we have made to minimize burden and maximize value-added.
