THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, COMMERCE AND THE ECONOMY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 8, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy met with videoconference this day at 10:30 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Competition Act.
Senator Toni Varone (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I am Toni Varone, senator from Ontario and deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy. I welcome committee members and our witnesses, both in person and virtually, as well as those watching live.
I want to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Before we hear from our witnesses, let’s ask our senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Pupatello: Sandra Pupatello from Ontario.
Senator Tucker: Senator Geeta Tucker from Manitoba.
Senator Loffreda: Senator Tony Loffreda from Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, province of Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chair: Our committee received an order of reference from the Senate on June 9, 2026, requesting that this committee examine and report back to the chamber on Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Competition Act.
We will begin this morning with two witnesses representing the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, both joining us by video conference: Ms. Keyli Loeppky, Senior Director, Interprovincial Affairs, Alberta; and Mr. Bradlee Whidden, Economist, Western Region of Canada.
Welcome to our committee. As you are both appearing by video conference, I wish to remind you that should you encounter technical challenges, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal the chair or the clerk, and our technicians will work to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Please note that we may need to suspend if necessary.
Ms. Loeppky, I invite you to deliver your opening remarks. We will then follow with questions from senators. The floor is yours.
Keyli Loeppky, Senior Director, Interprovincial Affairs, Alberta, Canadian Federation of Independent Business: Good morning, deputy chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, is a non-profit, non-partisan association representing more than 103,000 small- and medium-sized businesses across Canada. CFIB’s policy positions are driven directly by our members through regular surveys, ensuring that the recommendations we bring forward to policy-makers reflect the experiences of business owners on the ground.
One message we consistently hear is that it remains far too difficult to do business across Canada’s internal borders. Whether it is duplicative regulations, differing standards or administrative hurdles, internal trade barriers continue to create costs and complexity for small businesses that want to grow higher and expand within their own country. That is why CFIB is pleased to support Bill S-239 and the additional transparency and accountability it would bring to the important work of reducing internal trade barriers in Canada.
While this legislation will not eliminate remaining internal trade barriers on its own, it represents an important and practical step towards building a more open, competitive and efficient Canadian economy.
Bill S-239 creates a simple but powerful accountability mechanism. It will require federal regulators to publicly respond to recommendations from the Competition Bureau regarding internal trade barriers while encouraging other governments to do the same.
One limitation, however, is that provincial, territorial and municipal governments are encouraged but not required to respond to the recommendations. Since many remaining internal trade barriers fall outside of federal jurisdiction, CFIB would welcome a mechanism to require responses from all orders of government. This would further strengthen the objectives of the bill.
Any additional transparency matters. For far too long, reports have been published, recommendations have been made and commitments have been announced without a clear line of sight into what action was taken or not taken. For small businesses, accountability is not an abstract principle; it is the difference between governments announcing progress and entrepreneurs experiencing it.
CFIB’s latest research shows that 63% of small businesses bought or sold goods and services across internal borders in the past year. More importantly, roughly three quarters of businesses told us they would like to expand into new Canadian markets if barriers were reduced. Put simply, Canadian entrepreneurs want to do more business with other Canadians.
The good news is that governments have begun to make meaningful progress. More progress was made on internal trade in 2025 and the first half of 2026 than in the eight years following the signing of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 2017, an agreement that was expected to significantly reduce barriers to trade within Canada.
The momentum we are seeing demonstrates what is possible when jurisdictions work together to build a more open and competitive Canadian economy. The challenge now is ensuring that momentum translates into meaningful results in practice.
Despite the significant progress, nearly 7 in 10 business owners told us that they have not noticed a significant change in doing business across Canada in the last 12 months. A business that is fully compliant in one province still finds itself navigating 13 completely different sets of rules when trying to conduct business in all other jurisdictions.
Barriers still exist when it comes to the movement of goods, services and labour, ultimately undermining competition, increasing costs for Canadians and discouraging growth.
Business owners are not asking governments to lower standards; they are simply asking governments to recognize that different rules can achieve the same outcomes. That is why Bill S-239 matters. The bill does not dictate outcomes or require governments to accept every recommendation from the Competition Bureau. Instead, it creates a mechanism for governments to publicly explain their decisions and their progress. This helps ensure that internal trade reform stays on the national agenda and that commitments are translated into meaningful action for businesses, workers and consumers.
At a time of great economic uncertainty, trade tensions with our closest trading partner and weak productivity growth, reducing internal trade barriers remains one of Canada’s greatest economic opportunities.
CFIB views Bill S-239 as a constructive measure that complements ongoing efforts under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and the Canadian Mutual Recognition Agreement on the Sale of Goods.
We encourage senators to support this bill and to continue pursuing broader reforms that will create a more open Canadian economy.
Thank you. We look forward to taking your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Loeppky. Senators, we can begin with five-minute questions each, including the answers.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning. My question is about the practical benefits of Bill S-239 for small businesses. I’m always impressed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. You represent 103,000 SMEs across Canada. So your presence here this morning is extremely appreciated.
Can you provide an example of a government-imposed trade barrier that is preventing a small business from expanding into another province? You have mentioned there are many of those. What does that barrier cost a business, maybe not in nominal terms? How would the accountability mechanism in Bill S-239 help us toward resolving it? Do you feel this bill will resolve some of those issues that it must resolve in the long term?
You mentioned that, in the last 12 months, your members have not seen a change of doing business across Canada. Will this bill change it?
Ms. Loeppky: Thank you, senator, for your question.
I will highlight a concrete barrier that does exist today, and that is the movement of food across Canada. I know in the discussions yesterday at this committee, the affordability of food was a topic that came up quite a bit.
Within Canada, as it currently stands, there are two ways that food is regulated: There is provincial regulation of food and then there is federal regulation of food under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA. Under provincial regulation of food, food products are only able to be moved within the province that the food is inspected within. Under the federal regulation system, with CFIA, food is allowed to move between provinces but is also allowed to move internationally when it is licensed and regulated through the CFIA.
One challenge that our members run into — small food producers — is that the burden of becoming federally regulated is so onerous that it is not feasible for many small producers who want to move their food interprovincially but who might not have an interest in moving their food internationally.
There have been many recommendations brought forward to the government by groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, to make the movement of food a priority, not only so we can increase competition for these small food producers, but also to give Canadians more choice about the food products they are able to access and, hopefully, lower prices for consumers.
When it comes to internal trade, transparency around information is significantly lacking. Groups like CFIB push products and governments to release information publicly about why they are doing things a certain way. Under Bill S-239, if the Competition Bureau were to recommend that food be able to move across Canada under different rules, governments would have to respond publicly to why, or why not, they might follow that recommendation.
It might not change the overall outcome of food being able to move, but it would provide some transparency into government decisions and, hopefully, give groups like CFIB more outlets to make policy recommendations to open up the movement of food.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for your answer.
Do you think that accountability will improve competition across Canada and eliminate interprovincial trade barriers? Do you feel we will obtain our long-term objective in doing that or do you think the accountability measure is just not sufficient, and you would take it a step further?
Ms. Loeppky: Reducing internal trade barriers in Canada is one tool in the toolbox of advancing. The discussion around reducing internal trade barriers in Canada has been an ongoing conversation for some time. Movement and progress on this file have been terribly slow.
There is no better time than now to look at reducing these barriers, and this is one positive way that we could look at improving accountability, opening up some transparency and then, hopefully, reducing barriers through that.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: My question is to both of you, Ms. Loeppky and Mr. Whidden. I want to understand what pushback there might be from provinces. You can speak to the West, Mr. Whidden; Ms. Loeppky, you can speak to Alberta.
I hope that you can also do us the good service of asking this same question of your colleagues right across the country. I want to get a picture from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business about any concerns that you have or any concerns that you think the provinces might have with this sort of a mechanism being put in place. It is a simple ask that helps in communication and the understanding of different positions. So I do not see this as an intrusion whatsoever, but there has been a thought that it could be seen that way in certain provinces.
Even if it is, what would your response be to that? Could you speak about that federal-provincial relationship issue and whether this would be positive or negative?
Bradlee Whidden, Economist, Western Region of Canada, Canadian Federation of Independent Business: Thank you for the question, senator.
I cannot speak to what each provincial government may have to say about the legislation in terms of what objections they may have. I can imagine that they would say — as you said — that this, in some way, intrudes on provincial jurisdictions. I would agree with you. We don’t think it does. It simply encourages provincial governments to justify the barriers that exist from a competition lens.
As Ms. Loeppky said with food, the barriers of movement of food across Canada create a situation where food prepared or cooked in one place can’t be moved to another province without being federally inspected even if it has already been provincially inspected despite the border sometimes being only 20 minutes away. I would be interested to see all governments justify that from a competition lens.
I would agree with you that this legislation does not interfere with provincial jurisdictions.
Ms. Loeppky: Governments across the country have been outright in their support of reducing internal trade barriers. There has been a lot of talk, announcements, handshaking and MOUs signed. Governments are talking the talk; we want to see them walking the walk. This is one way to hold their feet to the fire in terms of that accountability mechanism.
With the way the legislation is currently written, provinces, territories and municipalities are not required to respond. I would suggest that the legislation could go further and actually require these governments to submit a response to the Competition Bureau.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you. I would ask you to go further and ask your colleagues at the CFIB in other regions representing other provinces and obtain a collective answer for us from your organization. Looking at this issue from the perspective of those in your organization who are the feet on the ground in each province, it would be helpful for us to understand where business stands in each province as it relates to this simple ask.
If you do have a recommendation for it to be strengthened, it would be worth hearing that. As a formal response, I would appreciate that. My colleagues would as well. Thank you.
Ms. Loeppky: Thank you. We would be happy to get back to you on that piece specifically.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you, witnesses, for your presentation. I appreciate the comments you have made in regard to this bill.
From a constitutional view of this bill, I can understand why this federal piece of legislation is worded such that it indicates that federal institutions “must” reply. However, we have no jurisdiction in regard to provincial institutions. We are just hopeful that they will recognize the value of this bill.
That being said, yesterday, the Competition Bureau was in front of us, and my attention was drawn particularly to their recommendation that clause 8 of the bill be changed. I don’t know if you were listening to the proceedings. Were you?
Ms. Loeppky: I tried to.
Senator Ringuette: Okay. Good for you.
The wording would not include the words “barrier to trade within Canada,” but the Competition Bureau suggested that it is implicit. I know you didn’t have a lot of time to look at it, but would you agree to such an amendment to the bill?
Ms. Loeppky: The amendment makes the purpose of the legislation broader and more all-encompassing. As long as it includes internal trade within that change, we would have no objections to the amendment.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
Senator Wallin: I would like to hear from both of you on the larger context of our discussion about competition and dealing with barriers both inside and outside Canada.
When we see the intersection of politics and competition, and what we’re now dealing with — the Buy Canadian Policy or keeping competitive U.S. airlines out of our skies, which we have been seeing for many years — where are the problems and issues there when we start to make domestic political decisions that are going to impact competition?
Ms. Loeppky: One of the barriers that has been quite visible from an international standpoint is the movement of alcohol within Canada. When Canada is making headlines saying that it is difficult or impossible to move alcohol products between provinces in our country, it looks like Canada is a place that is not open for business.
Trying to break down some of these barriers, showing that Canada is open for business, is incredibly important. Also, in the broader context of the ongoing U.S.-Canada trade war, there should be no reason that we can’t move goods and services more freely within our country. It is unfortunate that we have had to get to this point to make this a big priority across the country.
Mr. Whidden: I would say that is exactly right, especially in the current context. When it comes to the importance of performing well internationally, domestic competition enhances international competition. We want to ensure that our small businesses have the best leg up possible in order to compete with businesses around the world, and being able to move their goods and services throughout Canada is a big part of that.
Senator Wallin: With regard to the narrower issues we discussed yesterday about the requirement for Ottawa to explain its decisions, it sounds like there is a requirement to do it, but there are no consequences if they don’t.
We have seen in the past, in this country, decisions that governments have made about issues of competition, decisions about which companies are allowed in or which companies are allowed to buy other companies.
Sometimes we have not had full explanations for that. Do you think there needs to be some kind of incentive or punitive measure to ensure that governments are forthright about the reasoning behind their decisions?
Ms. Loeppky: Incentives would go a long way to encouraging provincial, territorial and municipal governments to respond. I also think that public shaming goes a long way. CFIB has an annual internal trade report card. The deputy chair mentioned yesterday the scorecard when it comes to this piece of legislation. CFIB has that scorecard. We would love to be able to take account of governments that are, or are not, responding to these recommendations from the Competition Bureau within that report card and hold their feet to the fire further. Incentives would absolutely be great, but public shame goes a long way.
Senator Wallin: Mr. Whidden, do you have anything else to add to that?
Mr. Whidden: What Ms. Loeppky said is exactly right. Ideally, the legislation might go a little further in terms of compelling governments, but this is a great first step in sending a signal that governments may feel the need to respond to, given public pressure to eliminate these barriers that have been a problem for decades at this point. Thank you.
Senator Wallin: Thank you.
Senator Pupatello: I wish to ask for a comment from you.
We have to be operating from what is actually factual. For example, in the news, the Americans are suggesting that their banks aren’t allowed to operate or practise in Canada. That is factually incorrect. We have a number of American banks that practise actively in Canada. We have to ensure that we are telling the truth and laying the facts on the table.
Likewise, the issues. It is easy to say, “Open the doors across the provinces and sell booze all over the place,” knowing full well that there is a different level of booze when we talk about detail. A Vintners Quality Alliance, or VQA, wine in Ontario is not the same as a wine made from imported juice in California and sold as a Canadian product. That kind of nuance becomes very difficult for companies that have invested heavily in making a VQA wine, and they want it to be treated as such.
It is great to say that we want to do this. I sat at those interprovincial trade tables to make that happen. Then you recognize that we need to get into the detail to figure this out.
There is an awareness that, certainly, we have to be more open, particularly with food. Food security is the new topic of the day, and we have to figure it out.
However, it is much more complicated than some would have us believe. I think you may be getting into that detail. Is there a board table? Is there a council that is going to be prepared to get into that level of detail to actually make it happen? You may have participated in that already beyond just the headline, “Open the doors,” but actually getting into the weeds of why it hasn’t happened yet and why we have some difficult decisions to make.
Ms. Loeppky: Thank you, senator, for your comment and your questions.
When we talk about competition issues in Canada, the big ones come up: banking, telecommunications and airlines. But we represent small businesses. We represent a business of five employees that wants to move their ice cream from Manitoba to neighbouring Saskatchewan and do small service providing there.
We’re able through our research to get to that granular detail of why it is so onerous to be able to move products within Canada. There might not be a completely brick wall that says that you can’t move your alcohol products between provinces, but the rules that are in place make it so difficult, onerous and costly that it prevents small businesses from entering the market.
For example, there are differences in alcohol products — I’m not disputing that — but there are things like font sizes on labelling requirements between provinces where there could be some alignment. We’re trying to get to the same objectives. It is important to include French and English, of course, but with things like font sizes, surely we can come to an agreement on them. There are many folks across Canada who are doing this important work, but the work is slow. More accountability mechanisms that could be put in place through this bill specifically matter.
There is great work that has been going on with the Committee on Internal Trade, or CIT, under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and the Regulatory Reconciliation and Cooperation Table, or RCT, which is under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement as well. All those groups are doing the hard work.
However, it also requires political priority to move these barriers forward and have them eliminated. Having this accountability mechanism does encourage that. Whether you agree or disagree with the recommendation being made, at least you are being forthcoming and transparent about why you are making that decision.
Mr. Whidden: The nuance you mentioned is exactly right. It is the kind of nuance that small businesses would like to see governments justify to Competition Bureau Canada.
Over the last two years, we have seen many of the barriers that different provincial and federal governments said were necessary and could not be removed actually could be removed when push came to shove and when it became apparent that we needed enhanced domestic competition in order to fight this trade war effectively. There is a lot more that perhaps governments need to move further on and that can be moved, but you are right that this nuance does exist for some issues. It can be justified, and it would be better if it could be justified publicly.
Senator Pupatello: Thank you.
Senator Tucker: I have no questions at this time.
The Deputy Chair: I have a question.
With respect to food, whether it is federally or provincially inspected, does the CFIB maintain a matrix of the difference between what the requirements are federally versus what the requirements are provincially?
Then juxtapose that against this: If I can buy my favourite Parmigiano Reggiano imported from Italy across Canada and across every territory, but I cannot buy in Manitoba the goat cheese manufactured in Ontario, do we have an uneven playing field? Are imports measured federally? How does all that work?
Ms. Loeppky: Thank you, deputy chair, for your question.
I am not going to pretend to be an expert on the differences between provincial regulators. There are some that are more rigorous than others, and some that are very close to the federal inspection level.
But the fact of the matter is that these provincial regulators exist and are keeping folks within each of those provinces safe when it comes to purchasing and consuming food products within that province. If it weren’t safe, we would be hearing about it quite a bit more.
There is a difference between provincial inspections and federal inspections, and I’m not disputing that. It is important that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has incredibly high standards that allow our food to be viewed internationally as top tier. That should remain in place.
However, there almost needs to be a tier between provincial and federally inspected products to allow small businesses to enter the market to move between neighbouring provinces — maybe not internationally — and work your way up to that federal inspection level to be able to slowly grow your business instead of taking on the onerous regulatory burden, but also the cost burden of meeting that federal standard.
Senator C. Deacon: Thanks to our witnesses for providing very clear testimony and insightful advice.
One of the questions I had last night of the bureau was what other information they might want to have retroactively asking for responses on past findings. I just want to get a sense from you, with any awareness you have, of the types of work that the bureau is doing where perhaps this could be broadened beyond a formal report to other findings or other things that the bureau is up to where a response could be beneficial from the provinces because we have to use every lever we have to keep the momentum up. I do think this element with the provinces is really important, not just with federal departments and agencies — about how to broaden this out, either by having it apply retroactively. Who knows? This could be two or three years before it receives Royal Assent, if it does.
Ms. Loeppky: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for your question. I think what you’re asking is important.
If the piece of legislation could go back retroactively to some of the recommendations that have already been made and require governments to respond, that would be positive. Working with other groups that are already doing the work is also important. For example, the Competition Bureau could work more closely with the Committee on Internal Trade specifically.
One of the things that was brought up yesterday was joint responses to some of these pieces. That would also broaden our insights into why decisions are being made the way that they are or looking for opportunities for different jurisdictions to work together more closely. Maybe that joint response opens people’s eyes to what is possible.
You’re on the right track in terms of the idea that broader is better. Retroactive implementation is a great move.
Mr. Whidden: That’s a great point. I would just add that the Regulatory Reconciliation Cooperation Table is also a great group to expand cooperation with.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you. The bureau is currently on its second market study of small business financing, and the transparency we think is needed there is significant. Companies suggested various barriers to raising money.
I’ve noticed over the years that your internal surveys of small businesses in our country regularly cite credit unions well ahead of any other financial institutions as being supportive of small businesses.
The purpose here is to promote competition. We have our confederation, which is a challenging structure. Can you think of any other things that have come to mind? If there aren’t, and it comes to you afterwards, again, when you reply to us with the thoughts from each of your colleagues in each of the provinces as to what could possibly be a negative in terms of the provincial responses to this very light obligation or piece of transparency, maybe you could provide that. Is there any other way we could be encouraging this transparency regarding competition?
Ms. Loeppky: Thank you, senator, for the question.
The list is very long in terms of ways that we could improve accountability and transparency when it comes to competition, not just for internal trade barriers, but for any interaction with business and government or government with everyday Canadians.
There are many opportunities in terms of regulatory accountability and red tape reduction, specifically on internal trade. There are many barriers and reasons we can give. We’re happy to provide a full report, but as I said in my remarks, this bill specifically is just one tool in the tool shed to advance this. Like you said, it’s small, but it’s a step in the right direction. We haven’t had many steps over the last number of years, so we’re happy to support this one.
Senator C. Deacon: Specifically, if there are any amendments that you see that would help broaden out that long list, it would be worth our consideration, and we would appreciate that advice in addition to the response that is specific that I gave you about the perspective of businesses in each province as to the importance of this requirement.
Ms. Loeppky: Yes, thanks. We will get back to the committee.
Senator C. Deacon: Anything from you, Mr. Whidden?
Mr. Whidden: I have nothing to add. Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: It has been very insightful this morning. I’m just going to continue with Senator Deacon’s point about access to capital.
Our committee has devoted considerable attention to accessing capital funding for small- and medium-sized businesses, as you know. I know you follow that very closely.
From your members’ experiences, are there governmental policies or regulatory barriers that limit competition among financing providers? Could you elaborate on that? I know we touched on it briefly. Which issue would you want the Competition Bureau to examine most and governments to formally address? Would broadening this bill to cover recommendations for new measures that improve competition make it more useful in addressing those financing challenges? Access to capital is extremely important. Not everything is about money, but everything needs money, as we say.
Ms. Loeppky: Thank you, senator, for your question.
Perhaps my colleagues who are based in Ottawa and are closer to some of the financing policies would be better suited to answer this. I’ll get back to you more formally on that.
However, I just will point out one government policy right now that is having an incredible effect on small business owners, and that’s the regional response program for the tariffs that are available right now to businesses across Canada in response to the Canada-U.S. trade war.
Under the Regional Tariff Response Initiative, or RTRI, program, only businesses with over $1 million in revenue are eligible to access that program support. My members with five employees who make $500,000 in revenue have no way to access additional support at a time when their business is being severely impacted by tariffs. That’s just one example. It might not be access to capital specifically, but access to government support. There’s definitely a competitive aspect to that, where bigger businesses are having more access to that support, and small businesses aren’t able to access it.
I’ll follow up with my national colleagues about some of those financing recommendations.
Senator Loffreda: Yesterday, I raised the issue with the Competition Bureau. Would an annual public progress report help your members assess whether the recommendations are actually reducing costs and opening markets? What you measure improves, as we always say. I think we don’t do enough of that.
Ms. Loeppky: Absolutely. It would go a long way. There is not a lot of publicly available information when it comes to internal trade barriers in Canada. So more is welcome. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is trying to do that work through our annual internal trade report card, trying to look at indicators and how governments are working to reduce barriers. Adding this piece into the report card would be beneficial.
I would caution that it would be fairly difficult to assess the overall benefits of this piece of legislation specifically because it is fairly narrow in scope, and there is so much going on across Canada to also reduce barriers, so it would be hard to separate it out. But annual reporting on who’s responding and the quality of those responses would go a long way.
Mr. Whidden: That’s exactly right. We encourage all governments — provincial and federal — to measure and report on a variety of issues. Every government has an annual budget. It would make sense that those annual-type reports also extend to regulation, which includes internal trade regulation. Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, I would encourage that. My guess is that we will be going clause by clause in a couple weeks. So if you do have written answers to either Senator Deacon’s or Senator Loffreda’s questions, please submit them within that time period so that we can consider them.
Thank you very much for your participation. We greatly appreciate your testimony and insight. If you have anything further, again, to contribute in response to some of the questions, please send them to our clerk. Thank you.
For our second panel, we continue our study on Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Competition Act
I wish to welcome our next witness, Mr. Matthew Boswell, partner at Norton Rose Fulbright Canada and former competition commissioner between 2018 and 2025. Mr. Boswell, welcome to our committee. I invite you to deliver your opening remarks. Questions from senators will follow. The floor is yours.
Matthew Boswell, Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada: Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Deputy Chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy.
Before I begin, I should note that the views I express today are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Norton Rose Fulbright, its partners, clients or any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. Although I will draw on my experience in both public service, and may, in terms of private practice, the views I express today are my entirely my own and are offered in my personal capacity.
The importance of competition to the Canadian economy cannot be overstated. Vigorous competition and competitive markets drive lower prices, deliver more choice, better service, spur innovation, better products, higher quality, more efficient businesses and productivity growth. These fruits of competition are good for consumers, good for the economy as a whole and good for companies that want to compete in and outside Canada.
Much has been done over the last five years, as I’m sure you’re all aware, to improve competition law and policy in Canada, and there is also important ongoing work to build on those improvements.
The Competition Bureau played a significant advisory role in advancing reforms to the Competition Act by publishing detailed recommendations for reform of the law in response to a consultation on competition policy initiated by former senator Howard Wetston, and in response to the government’s consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada.
In 2023, the bureau put forward numerous proposals for reforms to the Competition Act, including a proposal that the act should require that government entities subject to bureau recommendations arising as a result of market studies should provide a public response to those recommendations within a reasonable time frame after the bureau’s market study report has been published. This recommendation was not taken up and included in the sweeping generational changes to the Competition Act that were enacted in 2022, 2023 and 2024.
Of course, I supported the bureau making this specific recommendation in our submission to the government’s consultation when I was the Commissioner of Competition, and I commend Senator Klyne for introducing Bill S-239, the Canadian prosperity act, to bring this important idea back into consideration.
I strongly support the Competition Act amendments proposed in the bill with one caveat. I agree with Interim Commissioner Pratt’s suggested amendment as set out in her letter to this committee dated September 2, 2026. That is, her amendment to the proposed section 10.1(8). The amended wording would ensure that the accountability mechanism put forward in Bill S-239 would apply to the full range of pro-competitive recommendations arising from bureau market studies.
The bill itself and the proposed amendment are of tremendous importance because we, as a country, need to remain focused on removing regulatory barriers to competition throughout our economy.
Modernizing the Competition Act and strengthening the Competition Bureau are very important advancements, but they are mainly directed at private restraints on competition. We must also take action against public restraints on competition in markets, as they also serve to hold our economy back.
Bill S-239 is an important step in advancing the efforts to tackle these public restraints on competition.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boswell.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Mr. Boswell, for being here. I had many dealings with your firm, which is always top of the class, so thank you.
I’ll go back to the Competition Bureau’s proposed amendment. The Competition Bureau proposes broadening the provision to cover the full range of recommendations arising from its market studies, as you know, including new measures to improve competition. Can you elaborate on that? You touched on it briefly.
Do you agree that the current reference to barriers to trade within Canada creates uncertainty and about which recommendations require a response? You also stressed a few points there.
Would you adopt the bureau’s exact proposed wording or recommend a more precise alternative, as you were mentioning and referring to the bureau’s wording? Please add some substance to that. We will give you more time for it.
Mr. Boswell: Thank you for the question. The bureau’s proposed wording is certainly effective in achieving the goal that Interim Commissioner Pratt set out in her letter, which is to make it very clear that the proposed amendment to the market study section of the act applies more broadly than merely to interprovincial trade.
That is because there are many other areas coming out of bureau market studies where other pro-competitive regulatory changes, other than interprovincial trade, could be addressed, and where the bureau in the past has made recommendations to address those. Limiting it to interprovincial trade is not a bad thing, per se, but it would be better if there were the full scope of positive regulatory reforms beyond interprovincial trade. That’s reflected in Interim Commissioner Pratt’s letter, which indicates that this type of broadening would be beneficial.
Please don’t misunderstand me. As I said in my opening comments, I applaud Senator Klyne for putting forward this bill. It’s an important step in the right direction in terms of what the bureau, including myself while I was there, advocated for, for a long time, which is a whole-of-government approach to enhancing competition in Canada, which includes pro-competitive regulatory reforms at all levels of government, because that is a demonstrably significant issue in Canada.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the response and for being here.
Senator C. Deacon: To start, over the last five years, we have heard Mr. Boswell say there has been a major change in Canada’s approach to competition and prioritization of competition. In my opinion, it is absolutely thanks to the work of our previous commissioner and the work he did to elevate Canadians’ understanding of the importance of competition and proposed legislative changes that were crucial to finally starting down the path to becoming a more pro-competitive economy.
It’s a pleasure. We have had the Competition Bureau here a lot, but we never had you when you were commissioner. It’s better late than never. I know we saw you at the National Finance Committee when the grocery and rent bill was going through. It is a pleasure to have you here. Thank you for that change that you enabled in the country. We’re going down the right road.
One of the things I have been asking about is how to broaden out what might qualify as something where we would ask for a response federally. I think about the Red Tape Reduction Act, the amount of work we have and the plumbing of our economy.
We have some great changes at the top of that. The analogy you have used in the past is a bathtub filling up with water; we’ve turned off the tap, but we haven’t pulled the plug yet. We haven’t started to get at all the anti-competitive legacy regulations, policies and practices across the economy.
Have we broadened out enough to be sure about that? Should we be looking backwards? Are there things we could look at, such as decisions the bureau has made in the past, or other things about which we could require a response? Beyond the new power of market studies, are there other things the bureau may have put out so that it would arm the bureau?
The other consideration is that this could take two years to pass if we get it through at all. Senate public bills have about a 1% chance of making it through to Royal Assent. It’s a tall order to get through the system. But we hope we get it through; it may be several years, and many things may happen over the next period of time. We want to make sure what’s relevant is included in this bill and allow the bureau to look backward.
If you could look at it that way, how do we broaden it out in terms of what’s included and how do we make sure that it could be applied retroactively? Thank you.
Mr. Boswell: Thank you very much for that question, Senator Deacon.
In terms of seeking to have it apply retroactively, that might complicate things, given the change of the market study framework that only came into place relatively recently. Trying to backdate this, as it were, to include market studies done before the specific market study power was provided might complicate matters.
I am very optimistic about the federal government’s approach to competition and pro-competitive regulatory reforms, given their announcement in the spring economic statement about developing a whole-of-government approach to competition policy and pro-competitive reforms. We’ll see how that manifests over the coming weeks and months. I don’t know where it stands.
In that initiative, they certainly could have the scope to go back on their own — there’s no legislation required — and look at some previous bureau recommendations and consider how they could address those. That’s on the retroactive point.
This whole-of-government approach looking forward, combined with this bill, will hardwire, for lack of a better term, the desired approach for Canada to be vigilant about anti‑competitive regulations.
It’s important to acknowledge — and the bureau has acknowledged this many times over the years — that the existence of anti-competitive regulations or laws at the federal, provincial or territorial level is not necessarily malicious. It’s the product, in my view, of something that was set out in a blue‑ribbon competition report that was published in 2008 — the Wilson report — where they acknowledged that Canada has historically been a country that hasn’t paid significant attention to competition in the organization of our economic affairs.
I believe that that has turned, and that has turned because of parliamentarians like this committee, members of Parliament and various initiatives advanced in Parliament, but most importantly, because Canadians are now acutely aware of, and call for, reform that allows for a more competitive economy.
That is driving a lot of action, and I believe that will continue because there has been — as I’ve said in speeches when I was commissioner — what I referred to as “a great awakening” in Canada of the importance of competition in the daily lives of Canadians. From the moment they wake up until the moment they go to bed every day, competition truly impacts them. The affordability question affects them all throughout their day.
I don’t think changing the bill to make it retroactive is necessary because there are many initiatives afoot already. There is nothing preventing the federal government as part of their whole-of-government approach from going back to look at bureau market studies and submissions to various federal departments on how to improve competition.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you. In terms of your time as commissioner, how important would this have been for you to get the feedback you needed from provinces as it relates to efforts? We have had a bit of questioning about whether this is an overreach with provinces. I don’t see it as such. I see it as a way to be accountable to Canadians on these issues that are of national importance and affect the lives of Canadians — from our most vulnerable to our wealthiest citizens.
Have you seen pushback that reinforces the importance of this? Have you seen situations in the past where this type of measure would have been crucial?
Mr. Boswell: In terms of the provisions in this bill that say, “Provinces may reply,” I’m not a constitutional law expert, but it is clear to me that it is a voluntary structure, and there is nothing binding on provinces requiring them to do anything. I would suggest that it is more indicative of a desire for more accountability and discussion about issues that are raised.
From where I sit, and where I have sat, more discussion, debate and transparency are always of great value even if the ultimate outcome, for a variety of potential reasons, is not necessarily a full win. Discussion, transparency and accountability are important for Canadians to see that the competition issues that impact their daily lives are being considered and discussed.
There is value in that aspect of the bill. It is indicative of a desire to have more discussion and debate about important competition issues.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you. I appreciate your objective and experienced comments.
I am looking at clause 8, both the one that was submitted by Senator Klyne in the bill and the one that is close to the same wording that is recommended by the Competition Bureau. It says, “to improve the state of competition in the market or industry,” in regards to federal-provincial institutions.
Then I look at the grocery study, and there was also a requirement for industry to take action. In the change to clause 8 recommended by the bureau, instead of saying, “competition in the market or industry,” should it read, “competition in the market and industry,” so that, if there were a recommendation from the findings of the study that industry also needs to move on in order to be more competitive, then they should also respond?
I guess it is difficult to pinpoint, but it is a question for me.
If it is also the issue that, in a study, there are recommendations for industry itself to implement in order to provide more competition in the country, then the follow-up question would be whether this bill should also say that industry has 120 days to respond.
Mr. Boswell: Thank you for the question. I understand the concern you are pointing out.
As originally tabled, Bill S-239 is very focused on federal-provincial-territorial regulatory impediments to competition, more specifically, interprovincial trade barriers in the version that was tabled, and the bureau’s amendment is still focused on regulatory barriers to competition.
As such, it is confined to government responses, whether it is a mandatory federal response within 120 days or the provinces may respond.
It would certainly require much more study to expand it and demand that industry respond because it’s focused on the regulatory barriers that governments create and public restraints on competition. More often than not, these are inadvertent because they have not gone back and modernized regulations or laws, or quite simply, in my experience, competition was never considered in the drafting of a regulation.
In my experience, that has been a significant driver: Policy‑makers have simply not thought about competition or the impact on competition of a regulation, such as red tape to start a business or red tape to enter into an industry or a sector that hinders new companies from coming in. There are many of these types of examples.
I would say that going to the point of mandating an industry response is beyond the scope of the bill.
Senator Ringuette: I am saying that it shouldn’t be within it.
Mr. Boswell: I don’t think so. I think that this is an important step on the public restraint side.
Senator Ringuette: Okay.
Mr. Boswell: Of course, there is nothing to prevent an industry from responding and providing their views on a bureau market study, whether through their trade association or otherwise.
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Mr. Boswell: However, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it should be mandated in this bill.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
Senator Wallin: To follow up, you have referenced this a couple of times. You don’t think the rules, regulations and red tape are malicious. There was no intent. Competition was simply not considered. But how can that be? Many of the public regulations on both sides are protections by nature; that is what they are doing, whether they are trying to protect health and welfare or protect a business in their own province or, then, in their own country.
Implicitly, they must be contemplating competition. How could they not?
Mr. Boswell: To me, there is an impact on competition. I agree with your point that sometimes that’s driven by lobbying, industry, incumbents and major players in different sectors of the economy.
My point at a high level was that the impact on competition may not be adequately thought through by policy-makers. I’m making general comments; I’m not targeting anybody in particular because that wouldn’t be appropriate. However, there is also a notion of regulatory capture where people who are designing regulations or amendments to laws are thinking about the industry only through a certain lens, not a broader lens or a lens of how to accomplish the same policy goals — as you said, health and safety, which are very important policy goals — without unnecessarily hindering competition?
Sometimes — and I think the bureau would agree with this — it is not possible. Sometimes, in order to achieve a certain goal, you have to put in regulations or laws that inevitably hinder competition. However, the OECD and the bureau have shown that you need to do work; you need to do a competition assessment on what you’re advancing in terms of regulations or laws that impact a sector of the economy. That’s also something that has not been done in Canada.
The bureau, in 2022, I think — it all gets a bit hazy — put out a recommendation for the use of competition assessment tool kits by regulators throughout the country. That was based on an OECD best practice. The OECD has recommended that Canada look at all laws and regulations being advanced through the competition lens. Look at it through other lenses, as well, but take the time to look at it through a competition lens and determine if there are other ways you can achieve those policy goals without hindering competition.
Senator Wallin: You’re quite optimistic about a new mindset toward these issues at the same time as we are going through a lack of negotiations with the U.S. We are seeing a lot of policy or political calls here for “Buy Canadian” and making the defence procurement process a Crown corporation. These things are dissuading, discouraging and, in some cases, the opposite of a competitive process when it comes to price.
Watching what we’re dealing with now and given your generalized optimism, where are you seeing that? Is there some move? Have there been any indications that keep you optimistic about that?
Mr. Boswell: I remain optimistic, but I also remain pragmatic. I understand that there are other policy issues, as I have said, that the government, or governments at all levels, have to consider. In the current context, there are also external factors that we have to consider as a country.
However, as those different ways of addressing the external factors are considered, I would hope that consideration is given to balancing the need for, for example, certain domestic procurement while also keeping in mind the long-term impacts on competition and trying to find the right balance that addresses the problem over here but also keeps in mind competition. Not for a second, senator, am I claiming that’s an easy exercise, but it is an important one we must continue to do.
Canadians expect that we will not just go to one-sourcing on certain things unless it is unavoidable.
The short answer is that I remain optimistic, but I also understand that pragmatism has to come in because of the current context.
Senator Wallin: One third of all government contracts are sole-sourced; there is no competition. One wonders whether there is only one company that does a certain thing in this country or whether rules and regulations have actually excluded too many people from participating and creating that competitive spirit. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Boswell: I don’t know the specific numbers, but I do know that, in my time as commissioner, I had occasion to meet with the Procurement Ombud, who has published recommendations, which I believe are public, regarding procurement in Canada and the impacts on competition. Procurement processes at the federal level could certainly be improved to enhance competition and expand the ability of companies to participate in procurement processes. The Procurement Ombud is an excellent source to talk about the interface at the federal level between, as you said, sole-sourcing rules for procurement and how that impacts competition.
Senator Wallin: The process itself is expensive, and, again, we had testimony this morning that SMEs can’t even access the support programs because it even costs too much for that, too. It is the same problem here.
Mr. Boswell: Yes. I have certainly heard that, anecdotally, while I was commissioner. Small- and medium-sized enterprises repeatedly told me that it simply took too much time and money to advance a bid.
Senator Pupatello: Given your past position, you can now speak freely from the outside looking in. If you made a top list of the three sectors that require the most attention related to more competitive regulatory work, how you would rank them? Which would they be?
Mr. Boswell: I haven’t personally done that, but I know the OECD has done that for Canada.
Senator Pupatello: Great.
Mr. Boswell: The OECD publishes something called the Product Market Regulation indicators. I can’t remember the frequency now with which they do it, but it goes through an economy, basically, and looks at the regulatory barriers to competition.
I don’t know if this is an exact quote, but the OECD has said that our regulatory environment ranks among the least competition-friendly in the sectors studied, which were what they described as network sectors, retail distribution and professional services. Those were three that the OECD identified.
Their reports are quite helpful on product market regulatory barriers.
Senator Pupatello: For clarity, what you would put in the “professional services” category?
Mr. Boswell: They put in things like accounting, legal, engineering and those types of things.
Senator Pupatello: I am going to presume that has to do with certification processes, and that is why.
Mr. Boswell: Yes, self-regulatory organizations and those sorts of things — accreditation.
Senator Pupatello: Right.
I think you mentioned in previous answers that the environment has changed such that we need to take care of ourselves more, given the activities of our not-so-friendly neighbour. We have to do more about local consumption, which means we want to get access, intra-country, more today than ever. We never really worried about it before.
In that regard, intra-country — the OECD is looking at us from the outside — but inside of Canada and from an interprovincial perspective, what sectors would have been your top areas of concern or the areas from which you received the most complaints or where you think the most work is required?
Mr. Boswell: I don’t have a list handy with the sectors I would say are my top concerns. These issues have certainly been the subject of a lot of public discussion. Trucking across the country is a good example. Another issue is professions: barriers to entry from moving from one province to another.
Also with respect to professions, foreign accreditation, which is a significant issue for people new to Canada who have accreditation outside Canada but who are simply blocked or face tremendous difficulty entering their area of expertise in Canada, which, by extension, limits competition in Canada because we have people who are talented, coming in and able to do things, but they can’t get accredited across the country.
Senator Pupatello: Yes, because inside the country is a different story because our overall environment of standard of living and level of education are pretty good across Canada.
Where I am concerned is when the OECD or people from the outside look in and then lead with a title like, “Oh, my God, you can’t go with foreign accreditation.” I always want to hear the other side of that. Why is that? There is often a good reason why that is the environment today, because people come from places where their system simply isn’t as sophisticated or as high a level of education as ours, so that we do have a high standard in some areas and demand anyone coming in has to meet that standard.
While I agree it is difficult to get to it when they get here, some of the work is that you need to know this before you come. This is the environment here and this is what you need to meet.
Whether it is in the reporting of the Competition Bureau or some organization, it tends to be that no one is in charge of making sure that we do make the entranceway in easier. I certainly found that at a provincial level when we worked on doctor accreditation with foreign-trained physicians. There is a difference, depending upon what country you come from. I’m not sending my family to a doctor unless I’m certain they’re meeting this standard. As difficult as that is to hear, that’s the reality. But people don’t talk about it saying, “By the way, this is how big this issue is.” It’s not as simple as opening the door. It is quite complicated.
Telecommunications is the same thing. One company built all the infrastructure, paid for all the assets and is still on its debt. Other little companies came along and wanted to hook into all of their assets, and then they were wondering why they are being blocked. Even if that is right or wrong, depending on where you fall, it becomes an issue of how you negotiate how to let them in rather than whether we let them in or not. It’s about how. How much would they pay? People don’t care about that level of detail. You need to deal with that detail when you are trying to fix it and negotiate a solution. I’m not sure how much you get into that.
Even you came here today saying, “All this terrible regulation is all over.” There is often a reason it was built this way. I don’t want to oversimplify because it is not simple; if it were, it would have been fixed by now with some of the leadership that we’ve had in governments over the last three or four decades.
Mr. Boswell: I agree with you that it is not simple.
What I would take issue with is that there has been attention put on doing the complex work. I’m not disputing that it’s complex. I agree with your point that it takes work. It is complex. It is not simple.
I apologize if I came off as saying this was an easy fix; it’s not. It is a lot of work. But we need to do the work, and I don’t personally believe we’ve done the work in this country.
Senator Pupatello: Yes.
Mr. Boswell: Other countries have done much more than us and demonstrated how successful that can be. I don’t have all the information today. I would point to Australia, their productivity commission and their national competition efforts, which were a huge amount of work.
Senator Pupatello: Yes.
Mr. Boswell: They were very targeted on doing the work to make their economy more competitive. The results of that, even on a conservative basis, demonstrated a significant increase in their GDP to the tune of — I believe in 1990s dollars; please don’t quote me on this — something like $5,000 Australian dollars per household was the benefit.
Senator Pupatello: Yes.
Mr. Boswell: That amount was, conservatively, what they estimated by the competition work they did at all levels of the Australian governments.
Senator Pupatello: Yes.
Mr. Boswell: They have a similar structure to ours.
Senator Pupatello: I think you are right. You need to determine whose job it is, because until you are pushed into this emergency situation, it is not an overseer’s rule. They just look at it and say, “These are my rules; this is what I’m following.” That was the case with physicians, for example. Whose job was it? Was it the Royal College? Was it the government? Who is worried about who is coming in from outside?
Often, it’s like the sky is falling. Oh, my God. If you do this, it will be a disaster. We dealt with this in Ontario when we were allowing, in a test case only, double-barrel trailers on trucks because you would literally have to come across the country and keep unhooking a trailer as you crossed every border. It was outrageous. Yet, we had a lot of pushback to do that. We allowed it in any event. The sky didn’t fall. Now, of course, you see that and the productivity is obvious with the logistics.
I get your point. I still go back to the fact that, until we’re pushed with that emergency environment, it is not in their job description necessarily. Maybe you really need to be in this environment of leadership to say, “Okay, now we need to do it. Americans are not going to buy our booze after a certain date. We need to buy booze.”
Thank you for coming. It is fascinating to see what you did while you were there and your opinions now that you are looking from the outside.
Mr. Boswell: Thank you. To go back to whose job it is, what the bureau has said for years is that it would be ideal if Canada modelled itself after Australia, where it was the Australian federal government that took the lead and used federal levers, including money to the Australian states, in exchange for pro‑competitive reforms. So what the bureau has advocated for —
Senator Pupatello: We are confederated in Canada, so we get to have the honey but not the stick here, right?
Mr. Boswell: Yes, it takes work.
Senator Pupatello: There is no stick in a federated collection of provinces.
Mr. Boswell: It takes work and planning in terms of potentially using transfer payments. I don’t have the exact formula. The spring economic statement laid out this whole-of-government approach that the federal government could lead.
Senator Pupatello: Very good, thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I have a question. I asked it yesterday, then I was led to the grocery study, which I looked up last night.
I still have a disconnect between what the Competition Bureau does, what Bill S-239 is trying to achieve and the anti‑competitive behaviour that Canadians feel every day at the street level.
I will walk you through a lived experience where we owned a rather large regional plaza. We had a grocery tenant that will go unnamed that launched anti-competition behaviour because the dollar store that was there was selling food. The Italian bakery was also selling food. They had an exclusive lease where all food products were theirs.
It became worse, because that’s when that food store launched a credit card. The bank tenant we had launched an anti‑competitive behaviour complaint against the food store for launching their credit card. It was so anti-competitive.
What I’m getting at is this: What levers do you actually have that take it from regulation down to the street level where Canadians will get that benefit?
It seems there is a labyrinth — you cannot do this; this is provincial; this is municipal — of levers that you can’t pull. Where is that?
The answer I received yesterday was we got Sobeys to volunteer to do something. Is that where we’re at in the Canadian experience? Do we have to take our legislation and then go hat in hand to the big retailers and say, “We need you to volunteer to not be anti-competitive”?
I have a disconnect there.
Mr. Boswell: What I can say at a high level, particularly as a result of reforms to the Competition Act over the last five years, is that the bureau now has much stronger enforcement powers — dramatically stronger enforcement powers — than they had in 1991, and expanded enforcement powers into new areas that they can then use to investigate companies, engage with companies about their conduct and resolve that conduct.
It’s fair to say that sometimes the best way to resolve problematic conduct in multiple different aspects of the Competition Act is to enter into some sort of resolution with the company in question through what’s called a consent agreement where the company in question commits not to engage in that conduct going forward. Sometimes those consent agreements include a financial penalty. Sometimes they don’t. This is part of the bureau’s everyday work: trying to make the determination if we have a competition problem here. Who’s the perpetrator of the competition problem? How do we resolve it? Are we able to resolve it without going to trial because trials can take years to resolve an issue and are incredibly expensive for the bureau, and the bureau has finite resources? So there are multiple examples.
This is just a reflection of the reality of the bureau’s work, where sometimes they enter into a consent agreement, which is the equivalent of a binding court order, that resolves the problem. Of course, when you’re doing that, sometimes you have to take perhaps a little bit less than you would take if you went all the way to trial and won, but you get the instant solution that the company in question has entered into this agreement that has the force of a court order that stops the conduct that you’re talking about.
The Deputy Chair: But you do get that far down to the street level where this is affecting Canadians?
Mr. Boswell: Absolutely. There are many, many examples of that, where through the bureau’s enforcement action, conduct that’s affecting potentially a big geography or a very small geography has been stopped, and the pro-competitive, pro‑consumer benefits are allowed to flow, but I would say that it’s a very intricate sort of assessment of reaching an agreement, going to trial, prioritizing your resources and picking the right cases.
It’s a very big task the bureau has. They have better tools now. They have more budget now than they had six years ago, but the work is very complicated. There are a lot of economic tests and deep analysis that have to go into it, but they get results.
The Deputy Chair: Okay. These are consent agreements there because the regulations don’t go far enough and you need to enter into these? Or is there an opportunity down the road to amend these regulations so that the consent agreements — like, that behaviour is just outlawed? Where is that slippery slope?
Mr. Boswell: Sometimes you’re right. Sometimes it requires bureau enforcement action to highlight a problem that is being permitted by the regulatory structure that shouldn’t be or that is being sort of protected by the regulatory structure, and the bureau has brought multiple cases over the years, where with its enforcement action it highlighted a particular problem.
The Deputy Chair: Very well. Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: I wish all my colleagues in the chamber could be here for this Masterclass in Canadian competition. I want to follow up on the questions of my last two colleagues because what became very clear is that we have this big review, we have this big legacy that we’re sitting on, and we have to find ways to pull the plug. It seems like the red tape reduction act and the signals we got in the Spring Economic Update are great, but we do need tools that really drive that.
I think you mentioned earlier the one bright spot in the midst of the pandemic in August 2020 was that Competition Assessment Toolkit that the bureau put out, but two or three people were looking. It didn’t get the response that we needed.
Mr. Boswell: Yes.
Senator C. Deacon: But it’s that simple pro-competitive review of legislation that is the plumbing of our economy. It’s what drives every action in business that is so essential.
Given that we sort of moved away from Bill S-239 in general, I’m going to ask you to freewheel a bit for us. I’m so grateful to have the opportunity to have you in committee. Give us some guidance. If we were to put effort into this issue, what are some things that you’d say, “Well, wouldn’t it be great if . . . .”?
Mr. Boswell: One of the simplest things at the federal level — I’m not coming up with something new. This is something the bureau’s talked about in the past — is some sort of mechanism inside the federal system, the federal public service, to mandate competition assessments, to include competition as a required section in memos to the cabinet on legislative changes or regulatory changes. That just hardwires it into the thinking and into the processes across the federal government to say that you need to think about this. You need to have turned your mind to it.
Some people may not like this because it probably means having certain expertise in departments across Ottawa, but to have people in departments who think about competition and the impact of competition on the sectors that they’re regulating, so that when they have to put forward a memo to the cabinet, they have people who have thought about it and who are, for lack of a better term, up to speed, on international best practices and on how to — back to Senator Wallin’s point — balance the policy objectives on one side, but also take into account competition on the other.
So that would be a significant win, from my perspective, to hardwire thinking about competition into the federal public service writ large and make people show that they’ve done the thinking and what the outcome of their thinking is.
Senator C. Deacon: You don’t need to stop.
Mr. Boswell: Obviously, as I said in response to multiple questions, this whole-of-government approach would be excellent, and it would be very valuable for our economy and for productivity. I didn’t come with proper dates written down and everything. I didn’t realize the Competition Assessment Toolkit was 2020.
Senator C. Deacon: I just remember it was a bright spot amidst the pandemic, that’s all.
Mr. Boswell: If you’re talking about bigger macro issues, we have a productivity crisis in Canada, and Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada Carolyn Rogers made what became a pretty well-known speech, saying that the productivity crisis in this country — a huge part of that — is the lack of competition in our economy. So everything the federal government can do to address that is beneficial in the long term for productivity growth in this country, and that translates into better lives for Canadians.
Senator C. Deacon: I look forward to seeing you at the play “Rogers v. Rogers” and hearing the inside story as lived out in that play. Thanks very much, Mr. Boswell, for being with us — sincerely.
The Deputy Chair: Senators, is there anything further? Are there any questions or comments? Okay.
With that, thanks to all our witnesses for taking the time to appear before us today. The panels were informative. We appreciate your insights into our study. If you have anything further to add, written or otherwise, feel free to contact our clerk, Matthieu.
Colleagues, thank you very much for your contributions, questions and preparation. Your thoughtful participation is always appreciated.
I want to take a moment to thank our staff who support our committee: our clerk, Matthieu; our analysts, Brett and Adriane; our colleagues in our offices; the interpreters; the team transcribing and editing this meeting; the committee room attendant; the multimedia services technician, the broadcasting team; the Recording Centre; ISD; and our page, Noor.
(The committee adjourned.)