Letters from CAMP: Mythic Markets
Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project
CAMP is fighting for a more democratic economy
Welcome to Letters from CAMP, a newsletter on anti-monopoly activity in Canada and abroad, brought to you by the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project. In this installment we have:
Let's dive in.
Market Myths Cost the Middle Class
There’s a long-held myth coming straight out of the 80s that free markets and global trade would save us—that they’d spark innovation, drive down prices, and boost wages. Instead, what we’ve seen over the past 50 years in Canada is just the opposite: stagnating wages, rising prices, and an economy dominated by a few powerful players, particularly in sectors like telecom and finance.
Professor Dan Breznitz, in his latest Globe and Mail column, digs into why this happened. The big players, especially in the Canadian economy, aren’t just failing to innovate—they're actively hoarding wealth, earning high profits while making minimal investments in areas like research and development (R&D). Meanwhile Canadians find themselves not much further ahead than the previous generation, today’s real median wage is similar to that of the 1970s.
What led us down this path? Breznitz describes our misguided faith sharply, “a sort of religious belief that happily led us to thoroughly dismantle our ability to govern, even of basic things such as ensuring competition.” Canada, like many of its international peers, turned away from competition policy under the assumption that opening some markets to global competition would take care of our problems for us. Likewise, Canada is not alone in dealing with the consequences of this turn way from competition, but that’s cold comfort to those dealing with the day to day consequences.
Breznitz’s piece points to a harsh reality: abandoning our ability to govern markets doesn’t lead to prosperity but instead to monopolization and stagnation. There are a number of economic tools that can improve the lot of everyday Canadians, and a greater appreciation and implementation of competition policy is one of them. Thankfully, Canada is beginning to pick up and put these important tools to work. Hopefully we’re not too late.
Toronto’s Ticketmaster in the Making: Rogers Offers to Buy Bell’s Sports Stake
On the theme of unchecked corporate power, the sports world got its own reminder this week with Rogers Communications' proposed purchase of Bell's stake in Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment (MLSE) for a cool $4.7 billion. With this deal, Rogers will now own 75% of MLSE, giving it control over Toronto’s biggest sports franchises, including the Leafs, Raptors, and Toronto FC. Bell is bowing out of co-ownership, but don’t worry, they’ve locked in a 20-year media rights agreement with Rogers, meaning they’ll still be in the game—just on the broadcasting side.
领英推荐
What does this mean for fans? Higher prices, fewer choices, and the slow crawl toward a home-grown version of Ticketmaster—where one entity has enough control to squeeze the life (and cash) out of the fan experience. By consolidating control over both the teams and the broadcast rights, Rogers is ensuring that the sports and media landscape in Toronto is increasingly dominated by a single player. Sound familiar? It’s the same playbook seen in telecom and finance, where power isn’t about fostering competition or innovation, but about maintaining control and extracting value.
Unsurprisingly, Rogers sees a win for everyone, with CEO Tony Staffieri boasting that it will unlock more value for shareholders and maintain long-term Canadian ownership of these iconic teams. But as we’ve seen before, these claims of economic contributions and "investments" are about maintaining dominance rather than serving the public. As ownership continues to concentrate, fans can expect to pay even more for tickets, streaming, and merchandise.
CAMP Live: AI, Big Tech, and the Future of Competition at Competition Bureau Summit
This week, CAMP was front and center at the Competition Bureau’s Competition Summit, showcasing our leadership in the fight against monopolies and for fair competition.?
First up, Robin Shaban, CAMP co-founder and chair, participated in a panel that focused on how AI is reshaping competition. Robin highlighted the critical need for proactive regulation as automated systems expand their role in industries like healthcare, e-commerce, and education. Later in the day, CAMP advisory board member Vass Bednar hosted a fireside chat on the potential opportunities and risks of broad AI adoption for consumers in Canada.
Both talks highlighted that AI can either be a tool for fostering competition or—if left unchecked—a way for dominant firms to further entrench their monopoly power. Regulators need to be agile to ensure that AI doesn’t become just another tool for corporate consolidation.
Finally, CAMP executive director Keldon Bester took to the debate stage to tackle a critical question: Can Big Tech be trusted with the future of AI? Spoiler alert: They cannot. The CAMP team laid out the case for why tech giants have proven time and time again that their monopoly positions in digital markets are incompatible with the kind of innovation and competition we need in our economy.?
With Big Tech’s dominance extending into AI through exclusive partnerships, acquisitions, and control over essential infrastructure, it’s clear that these companies aren’t interested in fostering a competitive environment. They’re interested in solidifying their control, and only assertive competition policy can guarantee a fairer future.
If you have any monopoly tips or stories you'd like to share, drop us a line at [email protected]
On a trek into the lasting arctic
2 个月I am picking up anything I can land my hands on written by Prof Dan Berznitz. Thanks for putting this one out there!