There's a fascinating cultural history of accepting cartels/oligopoly in Canada. I've heard it described as an "Us Against the Vast North" attitude that prevailed as the British settled Canada.
Also, I believe Canada's merger laws are very different from the USA's. We (in Canada) didn't check whether a merger is better for customers, the standard was to check whether it was good for shareholders. I believe this is changing with a modification to merger laws in the last year or two. It's slow, but change is coming.
Mergers have been challenged based upon free market competition for decades, and likely longer. Many mergers go forward with government imposed conditions.
Canada has something called the "Efficiencies Defence" for Mergers. My understanding is that it is used to push through harmful (to consumers) mergers by showing that the shareholders of the merging organizations benefit more than consumers are harmed. Therefore, the merger must go through. Truly twisted.
What are the facts? The most important fact is that only a very small number of deals, of limited consequence to the Canadian economy, have gone ahead because of the defence.
...
Indeed, since 2009, the bureau has, we believe, cited the defence only four times (including one transaction that did not proceed in any event) as the reason for its decision not to challenge a merger. In context, roughly 3,000 transactions were reviewed in that same period.
On August 1, 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in Secure v Commissioner of Competition,[1] upholding the Competition Tribunal’s order requiring Secure Energy Inc. to divest 29 facilities to remedy the anti-competitive effects in 136 markets in western Canada arising from its July 2021 acquisition of Tervita Corporation.[2] It provides important guidance on the standard to be met to establish an efficiencies defense under the Competition Act.
--
Whatever website or platform you read this on, viewed this on, understand that a simple clause in an act must be interpreted by courts, and taken into consideration with all other aspects of a body of legislation. It also must be taken into account with all other case law.
While there are works to amend this act, as you can see from the links above this clause has very little real world impact.
My thoughts on this is that it is another way to gain outrage clicks, and another way to frame a democracy as failing.
Also, I believe Canada's merger laws are very different from the USA's. We (in Canada) didn't check whether a merger is better for customers, the standard was to check whether it was good for shareholders. I believe this is changing with a modification to merger laws in the last year or two. It's slow, but change is coming.