Mr. Chair, Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.
I am Anthony Durocher, Deputy Commissioner of Monopolistic Practices at the Competition Bureau and I am joined by my colleague Alexa Gendron-O'Donnell, Associate Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau's Economic Analysis Directorate.
The Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that ensures Canadian businesses and consumers prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace.
The Bureau administers and enforces Canada's Competition Act, which involves investigating and addressing abuses of market power, anti-competitive mergers, price-fixing and deceptive marketing practices.
Competition law enforcement requires more than theory. Evidence-based enforcement is at the heart of what the Bureau does and this requires that our decisions be based on credible evidence that can withstand judicial scrutiny.
It is also important to recognize that we are enforcers, not adjudicators. The Competition Act requires us to meet several thresholds and standards, such as proving there has been a significant harm to competition.
Regardless of if we want to bring a case forward, we are guided by the decisions of the Competition Tribunal and courts.
It is difficult to turn on the television or read the news without seeing the increasing role of data in our economy. The power that data now represents, and the control that digital platforms have over it, deserves careful consideration. The bureau recognizes its important role in this area and strives to be a leader through both its enforcement work and its policy work, both of which we plan to discuss today.
We understand that this committee is particularly focused on privacy. It is important for me to say from the outset that safeguarding privacy is not an explicit goal under the Competition Act, so our role is limited in this regard. However, there are two ways privacy can be relevant to our work. First, if companies compete to attract users by offering privacy protection, then this dimension of competition can be a relevant factor in reviewing anti-competitive activity. Second, if companies mislead consumers about whether and how their data will be used, this may also raise concerns under the Competition Act.
There are many obvious benefits associated with the collection and analysis of data, particularly for driving innovation, but there are also risks. The bureau has a mandate to safeguard competition in the digital economy, and we continue to prioritize this work. However, it is important to acknowledge that competition law has its limits. It is not a cure-all for the broader threats that data and data-driven platforms may pose for society, such as breaches of privacy, election tampering or manipulation of public opinion. These risks go beyond our legal mandate. Nevertheless, we are happy to bring our competition expertise to bear on this important discussion, as these issues are cross-cutting and will benefit from collaboration across government to protect Canadians.
A little over a year ago, the bureau published a comprehensive white paper entitled, “Big data and Innovation: Implications for Competition Policy in Canada". The purpose of this paper was to engage with stakeholders by prompting a discussion on how the emergence of big data should affect competition law enforcement.
Following an extensive consultation, the bureau found that there's no need for hasty moves in this area. The current framework is up to the task, but our tools must evolve to deal with the complex issues arising from digital platforms, such as those that monetize user data through advertising by offering free services to consumers.
A recurring concern we hear about is the large and growing size of some tech firms, but big doesn't necessarily mean bad. Becoming big is the reward a firm could get for successfully introducing an innovative product. We should not punish this success. Only when we find evidence that a big firm is engaging in harmful anti-competitive conduct should we intervene.
It is important to find the right balance between preventing any competitive behaviour that harms Canadian consumers and avoiding undue over-enforcment and the inadvertent harm this may cause to innovation and the economy. Some of the issues that we have heard about relating to the digital economy and our monitoring include firms buying emerging competitors or excluding disruptive ones; firms that may use artificial intelligence or algorithms to collude and fix prices; and firms misleading consumers about whether and how their data will be used. If we find evidence that any of these practices violate the Competition Act, the bureau will act to protect Canadians.
We have already conducted several notable investigations in the digital economy, including against Google over an alleged abuse of market power related to its search engine, and the Toronto Real Estate Board, or TREB, over its real estate data.
Our case against TREB is a great example. We were able to stop TREB from withholding its real estate data from agents who wanted to offer innovative online services to homebuyers and home sellers. This case exemplifies how we are ensuring that Canadian consumers benefit from the innovation happening in the digital economy.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss the bureau's white paper, as well as these recent cases, in greater detail during the question and answer period.
The digital economy is a top priority for the Bureau. We will continue to monitor the online marketplace, including the conduct of large tech firms.
We will also continue to work closely with our domestic and international partners and carefully review the actions taken by our international counterparts. However, laws and competitive dynamics may differ significantly between countries, and we must remain mindful of that.
The Bureau also encourages all Canadians to reach out to us if they have any evidence of violations of the Competition Act.
Before fielding your questions, I would note that the law requires the Bureau to conduct investigations in private and keep confidential the information we have. This obligation may prevent us from discussing some past or current investigations.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss our work and look forward to your questions.
Thank you.