Competition Is a Process, Not a Destination

Remarks by Jeanne Pratt, Interim Commissioner of Competition

Annual Conference of the Canadian Chapter of the International Institute of Communications

Ottawa, Ontario

October 20, 2026

(As prepared for delivery)

Introduction

Good morning, everyone.

To begin, I want to acknowledge that this event is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People. I’m humbled to be speaking to you from these territories.

I also want to thank the International Institute of Communications’ Canadian Chapter for the invitation. The organizers have put together a great program for this year’s conference.

It is a pleasure to be here with so many people who care deeply about the future of Canada's communications industry – a key industry upon which our collective future depends. Competition is foundational to ensure that Canadians can access quality services at a competitive price on an essential service that is the foundation of almost everything in their day-to-day business, work and personal lives.

I’ll use my time today—from my perspective as Interim Commissioner of Competition—to talk about the progress, opportunities and challenges to competition we have seen across the industry in recent years.

Let me begin with a simple proposition, which will be familiar to most of you in the room:

Competition takes intention.

In communications markets in particular, competition must be protected, nurtured and often fought for.

Competition in Canada’s communication markets faces distinct challenges.

Canada is large and sparsely populated. Building networks means making significant investments over long periods of time. Regulatory requirements serve legitimate public interest goals, but they can also introduce friction to the competitive process.

These factors can create a tendency towards concentration that, if left unchecked, can work against the country’s interest in having access to modern competitive communication services.

Promoting competition in these markets requires deliberate choices - choices that shape market rules, protect consumers, and give new competitors a fair opportunity to enter, expand and challenge established players.

Those choices matter because competition matters.

Competition drives firms to innovate. It rewards investment and efficiency. And over time, it can help deliver more options and better outcomes for Canadians.

Over the past decade in Canadian telecommunications we have seen, in many ways, a story unfolding of efforts to strengthen competition.

Those efforts have not been easy or popular.

But for those who rely on communication services in their daily lives – which today is almost all Canadians - they have been necessary, and they have made a difference.

It is with this in mind that I want to reflect on three themes today:

• First, what sustained pro-competitive policy and enforcement have achieved.
• Second, where important challenges remain.
• And third, what the next generation of competition issues may look like.

Competition Is Shaped by Policy Choices

Turning to the first of these, I come back to the fact that the telecommunications industry is a prime example of how competition outcomes are shaped by policy choices.

Decisions about spectrum, wholesale access, switching, consumer protections and merger review all influence the conditions under which new competitors can emerge and challenge incumbents, driving growth, innovation, and resilience.

And it won’t surprise you that the Competition Bureau has been an active participant in these conversations.

We fulfill our mandate both by reviewing mergers and conducting enforcement investigations, and through advocating for legislative and regulatory changes that promote competition and informed consumer choice.

We assess how market rules affect competition and, ultimately, Canadian consumers.

Over the past decade, we have participated in the development of a wide range of policy and regulatory frameworks, including the Wireless and Internet Codes of conduct, roaming, mobile competition, wholesale internet access and many other issues.

Across all of our interventions, the principle remains consistent:

Consumers benefit when markets are open to competition and when barriers to switching and expansion are reduced.

Bring “fourth” the competition

If there is one area where Canadians can see the impact of sustained pro-competitive policies, it is in wireless communications.

If there is one area where Canadians can see the impact of sustained pro-competitive policies, it is in wireless communications.

Over the past decade, regional competitors have grown into significant players in many parts of the country. In the areas where they are present, they are driving competition through lower prices and innovative service offerings.

These developments did not occur overnight.

There’s a reason we call these companies challengers – because we know that it’s a steep uphill climb to build a network from scratch in a large country like Canada. But these companies have risen to the challenge, helped along by a changing regulatory and policy landscape that is working to deliver more competition in communications markets.

The Bureau is proud to have played a small role in bringing on this competition.

Fifteen years ago we supported the development of the CRTC’s “wireless code of conduct.”

The code helped break down barriers to switching, enabling “new entrants” to win customers that would have otherwise been locked into long term contracts.

We supported roaming frameworks that helped emerging competitors grow, and wholesale frameworks that are expanding the benefits of competition to Canadians in more parts of the country.

And we have taken enforcement action when we believed competitive rivalry was at risk.

Over time, increases in wireless competition have delivered benefits to Canadians.

Today, Canadians are benefiting from increased competitive rivalry when shopping for wireless services. Consumers can choose wireless plans that include more features for less money from providers that are working harder than ever to win their business. This is what competition is all about.

I want to recognize the progress that has been made, but we won’t rest on our laurels.

That’s because competition is a process, not an endpoint, and there’s always more work to be done.

Why Preserving Competition Matters

I want to turn now to our recent merger enforcement, as it offers an important takeaway: it is hard to rebuild the benefits of competition once they are lost.

When an independent competitor disappears, consumers lose more than a brand name, they lose a source of competitive pressure.

And that means less innovation, fewer choices, and higher prices—the opposite of what Canadians need.

That concern is what informed the Bureau's approach to the Rogers–Shaw transaction.

You may have heard that we opposed the merger. For those who are unaware of the details – I believe you can catch a play about it this Fall.

Our ongoing work is animated by the same principle:

Maintaining meaningful rivalry matters.

That is one of the most important objectives of competition law, and it remains a central focus of our work.

Home Internet: Progress and Unfinished Work

Moving now to broadband internet, we see a more complex picture.

On the one hand, Canada has world-class networks. Investments across the country are enabling deployment of fibre infrastructure, and this represents a major achievement for the industry.

On the other hand, many Canadians still face limited options when choosing a provider. In many communities, competition continues to centre on two major facilities-based networks.

The challenge is not just supporting the expansion of modern infrastructure across the country, it is ensuring Canadians benefit from meaningful competitive choice wherever possible.

For that reason, the Bureau has consistently supported policies that enable more competitors to participate and grow. We have advocated for wholesale access measures because we believe competition and investment can coexist.

We understand that getting that balance right is not simple. We appreciate that stakeholders often bring different perspectives, with a focus on investment incentives or on access and entry to the market.

There can be reasonable disagreement on the balance to be struck, but the central policy issue remains straightforward—network investment is important, but not sufficient for Canadians to see the benefits of a more competitive market.

To do that, we need to make sure that competitors can deliver choice, innovation, and lower prices for Canadians.

Competition Requires the Ability to Switch

And that is why, while seeing new entrants breaking into the market is critical, it is not enough on its own.

Competition works only when consumers can act on the choices available. A new competitor cannot effectively challenge established providers if customers face obstacles when trying to switch their plans.

That’s why, for many years, we have consistently advocated for measures that make switching easier. This includes measures such as data portability, device unlocking, contract transparency, clearer disclosures and protections against unnecessary fees.

The idea here is simple: for competition to work, consumers need to be able to compare options, understand what they are buying, and switch providers with confidence.

In other words:

Barriers to switching are barriers to competition.

This basic principle continues to guide our advice to the CRTC and other regulators. It is why we support their efforts to simplify consumer disclosures. And it is why we push to make sure that consumers have access to clearer information and greater control.

And it is why we know that informed consumer choice and competition policy often work hand in hand.

Data Portability and the Next Frontier of Competition

I now want to speak to some of our recent work, as well as some of the topics we have in our sights for the future.

It will come as no surprise that we anticipate that many of the next-generation competition questions will revolve around data.

Earlier this year, we released the report, Your Data, Your Control, which examines how data portability can reduce switching costs and empower consumers. The concept will be familiar to those in the communications space.

Telecommunications number portability transformed what was once a significant switching barrier into a routine consumer expectation.

Data portability seeks to apply a similar concept more broadly. When consumers can securely and easily move their data between providers, barriers to switching fall.

This allows competition to become more dynamic, and for innovative firms to find new opportunities to compete.

Of course, portability is only effective when consumers trust it. This was a key finding of our report.

That trust requires strong privacy protections, robust security safeguards and interoperability across systems.

This is one of the many areas where we see competition and privacy policy increasingly intersecting.

As government moves forward with open banking, getting these frameworks right is a critical step if we are to see them continue to be rolled out across other industries.

AI, Innovation and Market Power

We see the same connection between data and competition in the artificial intelligence space.

AI is changing how firms operate, make decisions and engage with their customers, and the communications sector is certainly no exception.

These technologies and tools can help firms offer services, become more efficient and support innovation.

But it can also raise important questions. How might access to data affect competition? Will AI reinforce advantages held by large incumbents? Could algorithmic pricing systems create barriers to consumer information or switching? How do we preserve competitive markets while encouraging innovation?

These are not simple questions. The challenge for competition authorities is not to resist innovation, it is to ensure that markets remain open, contestable and competitive.

This will continue to be one of the defining policy conversations in the coming years.

Keeping Our Eyes on the Skies

Looking ahead, or rather up, the next frontier of communications competition may be reaching new heights—literally.

Low-Earth-orbit satellite systems are already reshaping connectivity in many rural and remote communities. They are providing viable options where traditional networks can be difficult or uneconomic to build.

That is just the kind of disruptive innovation that competition brings about.

New technologies challenge existing assumptions. New entrants create new possibilities. New solutions reach consumers who previously had few alternatives.

The question on everyone’s mind is what comes next.

Will new challengers emerge on the horizon?

How will partnerships between satellite operators and terrestrial providers shape future market dynamics? Will satellite operators and terrestrial providers remain partners, or will they compete with each other?

And what will all of this mean for Canadian businesses and consumers?

We don’t have all the answers, but we will continue to keep our eyes on the skies.

Competition Is Never Finished

Let me close with one final thought. Competition is not a destination, it is a process.

Just when a major market or sector seems stable, or the competition challenges of the day seem to be solved, a new technology emerges or a new business models appear.

Sometimes new forms of concentration develop and new barriers arise.

That has been true throughout the history of communications markets. And it will almost certainly remain true in the future.

The encouraging news is that we know what works. We know that consumers benefit when they have meaningful choices. We know that laying the groundwork for strong challengers matters.

We know that open markets create incentives for investment, innovation and growth.

And we know that sound regulatory and competition policies can make a difference.

Many of the developments we see today—from stronger regional wireless competitors, to improved switching rights, to emerging alternatives in broadband markets—did not happen by accident.

They were the result of sustained effort.

They were the product of deliberate choices in favour of competition.

The Competition Bureau is proud of the role we have played in support of that work, and we intend to keep playing that role.

Because regardless of the technology, the platform or the business model, our objective remains the same:

To ensure Canadians benefit from open markets, strong rivalry, meaningful choices and the innovation that competition delivers.

Thank you.