Canadian business news — Canada’s Competition Summit put the country’s productivity problem front and centre, and the message from industry leaders was blunt: overregulation is strangling competition, startups can’t break through, and Ottawa needs to get out of the way.
By Maplestime Business Desk | Ottawa, Ontario | September 19, 2026
Sources: Competition Bureau Canada, Statistics Canada, BetaKit | Last updated: September 19, 2026
Key Takeaways
- Industry minister Mélanie Joly told Canada’s Competition Summit the government would be “hawkish” on competition
- A Statistics Canada report found federal regulatory burden rose 37 percent between 2006 and 2021 — while new business entries declined
- Competition Bureau commissioner Matthew Boswell: “Incumbents benefit when the rules are stacked against challengers”
- Bank of Canada’s Carolyn Rogers warned Canada commercializes too little of its own innovation — including AI
- Borrowell’s Andrew Graham called it a “time of anxiety” for Canadian tech founders
The 37 Percent Problem Behind Canada’s Productivity Problem
The afternoon session of the summit was supposed to celebrate competition. Instead, it became an airing of grievances about what government is doing wrong.
Bureau policy advisor Matthew Chiasson walked the room through a damning Statistics Canada report: between 2006 and 2021, the federal regulatory burden on Canadian businesses increased by 37 percent. Over that same period, the number of new businesses entering the market declined. A separate Bureau study found that “average rank stability” has increased — large companies are settling in as permanent incumbents, and startups simply aren’t disrupting them anymore.
That is the engine of Canada’s productivity problem in one slide: more rules, fewer challengers, same old winners.
“Hawkish” Words, Business as Usual?
Industry minister Mélanie Joly opened the event by telling attendees the government would be “hawkish” on competition. The line landed well and echoed through the day’s programming — a sign, many hoped, that Ottawa finally grasps how much competition matters.
But most of the afternoon was devoted to cataloguing government failure. Licensing hurdles. Ownership limits. Excessive fees. The barriers don’t just slow entrepreneurs down — they lock them out entirely.
Boswell: Incumbents Benefit When Rules Stack Against Challengers
Competition Bureau commissioner Matthew Boswell positioned startups as a critical piece of the economic puzzle, arguing they drive innovation and efficiency in the marketplace — when they can get in the door.
“Licensing hurdles, ownership limits, excessive fees: these barriers don’t just slow entrepreneurs down, they lock them out,” Boswell said. “And let’s be clear, incumbents benefit when the rules are stacked against challengers.”
Boswell told BetaKit after the summit that awareness of Canada’s competition problems is growing. He called the event’s 700-person virtual attendance part of a “great awakening,” and said it is “long past the time” to fix what’s wrong with the Canadian economy.
“We’ve got to get out of the way,” Boswell said. “We’re not anti-regulation but do it smart; think about competition.”
Related: Bell 911 Outage 2026 — Six Provinces Hit as Emergency Calls Failed Thursday Morning
Related: Trump Canada Iran 2026 — 5 Things Every Canadian Must Know About This Dangerous Comparison
Carolyn Rogers on Canada’s Productivity Problem and the AI Miss
Bank of Canada senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers — one of the original voices to sound the alarm on Canada’s weak productivity — explained how competition incentivizes the innovation that drives productivity. Then she pointed to the country’s most embarrassing example.
Despite Canadian Geoffrey Hinton winning a Nobel Prize for his work in artificial intelligence, most of the technology’s commercialization is happening in the United States. Canada invented the breakthrough. America cashed the cheque.
“We should be able to leverage our ingenuity and our innovation more,” Rogers said. “Do we need more investment? Do we need changes in regulation? The answer is probably all of the above.”
Rogers was clear that Canada’s economy faces structural challenges that aren’t simple to fix. But “not simple” is not the same as “impossible” — and the summit made clear the status quo is a choice, not an accident.
A “Time of Anxiety” for Canadian Tech Founders
On a panel about competition’s influence on entrepreneurship, Borrowell CEO Andrew Graham didn’t mince words: it’s a “time of anxiety” for the Canadian tech scene. While many in the room disliked the direction of US policy, Graham argued the United States remains a far friendlier environment for entrepreneurs — pointing to how much easier it is to experiment with new financial tools like stablecoins south of the border.
“It doesn’t feel like the easiest time to be an entrepreneur in Canada,” Graham said. “If you’re graduating from the University of Waterloo in computer science and you want to start a tech business, there’s a lot of compelling reasons to do that in California or Texas or New York versus Ontario.”
When Waterloo graduates keep choosing Texas over Ontario, that is not a talent problem. It’s a policy problem.
The Succession Tsunami Threatening Canadian Entrepreneurship
Rachel Wasserman, founder of Wasserman Business Law and a fellow at the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project, took a different tack. She warned about private equity rollup firms buying up businesses from aging owners rather than those businesses passing to new entrepreneurs — a phenomenon she called the “succession tsunami.”
“We are facing, and this is not hyperbole, the potential extinction of entrepreneurship in this country if we don’t find a solution to either make entrepreneurship easier and provide opportunities for entrepreneurship through acquisition,” Wasserman said.
Her prescription was government engagement rather than pure deregulation: she proposed that the government guarantee asset-backed loans for entrepreneurs, giving potential successors a tool typically available only to private equity players.
“Entrepreneurs invest more in our economy, they’re more productive, [while] asset managers are inherently extractive with overuse of debt and asset stripping,” Wasserman argued. “Pro-business policy and pro-capital policy are not the same.”
What Canada Must Do About the Productivity Problem
The summit ended where it started: with a growing consensus that Canada’s productivity problem is real, measurable, and fixable — but only if governments stop being the obstacle.
Smart regulation, not no regulation. Loan guarantees that let real entrepreneurs buy businesses instead of watching private equity strip them. Commercialization support so the next Geoffrey Hinton moment pays off in Canada instead of California. And a hard look at the 37 percent growth in regulatory burden that coincided with fewer startups entering the market.
Boswell’s closing line should be taped to the wall of every federal department: “We’ve got to get out of the way.”
Maplestime will provide updates from Canada’s competition and productivity debate as announcements are made.
Have a tip about Canada’s productivity problem? Email [email protected]
Have a correction? Email [email protected]
Is Ottawa serious about fixing Canada’s productivity problem — or is “hawkish on competition” just another line that dies in committee? Tell us in the comments. And share this with every Canadian watching the economy and wondering why we’re falling behind.
Enjoying Maplestime? Support independent Canadian journalism — no paywall, no corporate owners.
