Canada’s Competition Bureau is emphasizing its institutional independence and commitment to evidence-based enforcement as global economic and geopolitical uncertainty complicates competition policy debates. Anthony Durocher, acting senior deputy commissioner for mergers and monopolistic practices, said the Bureau operates at arm’s length from government and remains focused squarely on applying competition law, even as broader discussions around trade, industrial policy and national security intensify.
Canada’s Competition Bureau is emphasizing its institutional independence and commitment to evidence-based enforcement as global economic and geopolitical uncertainty complicates competition policy debates.Speaking in a personal capacity, Anthony Durocher, acting senior deputy commissioner for mergers and monopolistic practices, said the Bureau operates at arm’s length from government and remains focused squarely on applying competition law, even as broader discussions around trade, industrial policy and national security intensify.
“We are principled and evidence-based, and our focus remains solely on competition law,” Durocher said at a conference* in Washington. Decisions are grounded in gathering evidence and assessing whether legal tests are met, he added.
In an increasingly volatile environment, that approach is intended to provide businesses with a degree of stability and predictability, Durocher said.
“In an uncertain world, stability and predictability matter,” he said. “What we strive to do is to maintain the highest degree of predictability as people know what to expect and know that evidence, at the end of the day, is what matters most.”
— Merger activity remains steady —
Despite heightened geopolitical tensions, tariffs and shifting trade dynamics, merger activity in Canada has remained broadly stable over the past year, defying earlier expectations of a slowdown or a wave of distressed deals.
“What really stands out is how normal it has been,” Durocher said, noting that uncertainty around trade measures had led some to anticipate fewer transactions or more strategic consolidations driven by financial distress.
Those expectations have not materialized. Instead, both the volume and composition of notified mergers have remained relatively consistent, suggesting that firms are continuing to pursue transactions even amid a more volatile global backdrop.
That said, external pressures are increasingly shaping how deals are assessed, Durocher said. Tariffs and non-tariff barriers can affect barriers to entry, shift competitive dynamics and influence where firms choose to compete, he said.
They can also lead to displacement effects, where companies exit or enter markets in response to changing trade conditions, altering the intensity of competition in ways that must be reflected in merger analysis.
A key theme across recent reviews has been uncertainty, particularly in how companies approach investment, entry and expansion decisions. That uncertainty is increasingly visible in internal business documents reviewed by the Bureau, Durocher said.
— Clear divide between enforcement and broader policy —
While the Bureau maintains a strict enforcement lens, Canada’s broader institutional framework allows for political considerations in limited circumstances.
Competition legislation provides carveouts in the transportation and finance sectors, where ministers can make decisions based on broader public interest considerations, with competition being one factor among others.
Separately, issues such as sovereignty, national security and foreign ownership in critical sectors are addressed under the Investment Canada Act.
“That is distinct from competition law,” Durocher said, noting that the Bureau may provide advice in such cases but does not lead those reviews.
— Competition framed as driver of resilience —
Durocher also pushed back on suggestions that competition enforcement conflicts with goals such as economic resilience or international competitiveness.
Instead, competitive markets can strengthen supply chains and reduce vulnerability associated with concentrated suppliers, while also helping firms compete more effectively abroad, he said.
Canada’s past efforts to promote “national champions” illustrates the risks of conflating those objectives, he said. Policies such as the efficiencies defense, intended in part to enable firms to scale up and compete internationally, largely benefited domestic players without delivering the expected global gains.
As uncertainty continues to shape the global economy, the Bureau’s priority remains consistent enforcement grounded in evidence.
Durocher said the Bureau aims to provide predictability by grounding its decisions in evidence.
*American Bar Association Antitrust Spring Meeting 2026. Washington, DC. March 25-27, 2026.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.