Thank you.
In addition to my leadership role at McMaster University, I'm one of the country's most vocal advocates for competition reform. I've contributed in modest but meaningful ways to the policy attention to these questions through opinion editorials in The Globe and Mail, the National Post, research published by McGill University and commissioned by ISED, various podcast interviews, and my newsletter “Regs To Riches”.
I think I'm back here to discuss the BIA with you because people are squirming. I don't mean “the people”. I mean corporate interests that have long benefited from the policy inertia on competition. The usual suspects have lost their monopoly on this conversation, which has meant that decision-makers like you are asking really important questions, like how we can promote more dynamic and fair markets. This is a good thing.
It's good because an Ipsos poll from earlier this year illuminated that most Canadians, 88%, say that we need more competition and that it's too easy for big business to take advantage of them as consumers. To me, this kind of last-minute, short-notice INDU meeting on a Friday before a long weekend feels kind of like a perfect example of just that—big business moving to skew a policy process that should be a no-brainer.
The initial amendments to the Competition Act that are currently contained in the BIA are a crucial down payment on competition reform. In this way they are, unfortunately, also a bit of a test. They are a test of whether Canada takes competition reform seriously. For way too long, we quite simply have not.
If you look at the available data, prices tend to go up after mergers, despite what companies claim before the merger occurs. The Washington Centre for Equitable Growth recently put together a searchable database of about 150 economic papers. A lot of these papers show empirical evidence that the permissive approach of authorities in the U.S. has led to higher prices and less competition.
Comparable Canadian research just doesn't exist, but there's so much that Canada should be learning from other jurisdictions. This extends beyond policy ideas, implementation and inspiration to a caution about the insane amount of lobbying dollars that are spent—usually by the largest technology firms—to stall antitrust policy change. A popular company tactic is the whitewashing of their perspectives through otherwise reputable think tanks and academics, or even the creation of shell organizations that are designed to resemble authentic grassroots interventions, like Meta's American Edge, or Amazon and Google's Connected Commerce Council.
Let's go back to the question of whether these initial amendments require further study or whether they should be retained. The challenge of wage-fixing has already been deeply explored through the good work of this committee. A range of stakeholders are in agreement that it must be addressed. Do we need to study whether the proposed AMPs are just too strong a punishment or a deterrent? Well, there's a whole body of literature that looks at the deterrent effects of fines in competition law and it supports what's in the BIA. Do we need to debate whether drip pricing has any utility for consumers that get tricked about what the actual retail price is for something by this deceptive marketing tactic?
These proposed changes are the absolute lowest hanging fruit. We shouldn't be examining them further at this point, because they clearly serve the public interest at a time when Canadians are under intense economic pressure. They'll improve the enforcement of the act. They were clearly foreshadowed in a February press release from the minister, they're aligned with analysis from the Competition Bureau and they've been discussed at length in the public domain, including at this very committee. Let's keep these encouraging, overdue amendments in the BIA. You must signal to Canadians that leaders in Ottawa will actually protect them and create the conditions for innovation and entrepreneurship.
Should they be studied further? Yes. We can study their implementation. We can debate the mechanics of that implementation, and we should support more research into the dynamics of competition in Canada, because we obviously need it. We don't need any more backroom baseball or tapping the brakes on reform.
You've heard from some respondents that having amendments contained in the budget bill is anti-democratic. Yes, budget omnibus bills are imperfect democratic tools, but there is an opportunity to better protect Canadians as they face the rising cost of living today.
Can we have more discussion about the nuances of these changes? Yes, and we will. Should we drop them altogether right now? No way. It is impossible to justify the status quo on competition in Canada, yet it persists.
The stakeholders that are agitating behind the scenes can go on the record with their concerns when the government launches a broad, open, inclusive and independent consultation on competition later this year. Such a consultation has been foreshadowed and endorsed by the godfathers of competition in Canada, like Senator Howard Wetston, Lawson Hunter and others.
At that time, those private actors who opposed these promising amendments—these early changes, this down payment—can step forward, instead of hiding behind their lawyers or lobbying behind the scenes. They can go on the record with their rationale for why we don't need these changes and convince Canadians. They can convince Canadians that there are instances where wage-fixing while the cost of living for Canadians rises is perfectly acceptable. They can come and convince Canadians that the AMPs proportional to the size of an offender are just too strong a deterrent. They can come and explain to Canadians why it's okay to hide the real prices from people when they're shopping online.
That is democracy, and that is what we need to improve Canada's competition laws.
Thank you.