Did the Law Society address the Competition Bureau concerns regarding regulating paralegals?

The Competition Bureau has published the letter it sent to the Paralegal Standing Committee (Ontario) regarding paralegal regulation by the Law Society of Upper Canada. http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02277.html

The January 25, 2005 letter was addressed to Mr. Paul Dray, Chair, Paralegal Committee, The Law Society of Upper Canada and copied to Mr. Gavin MacKenzie, The Law Society of Upper Canada, Treasurer and the Honourable Michael Bryan, Attorney General. It was modified on November 2nd, 2011.

At page 3:

"When one group of professionals is reliant upon another group of competing professionals for the ability to practice its profession and he scope of authorized activities, the Bureau is concerned that unfounded quality of service arguments may be used to artificially restrict access to the market in which the professionals compete."

"The Bureau encourages vigilance that any such standards and limitations, conditions and restrictions on scope of practice be supported by fact and not speculation and that they not become a barrier that will unnecessarily restraint the ability of paralegals to independently enter the market."

Having been heavily involved with the paralegal movement just prior to the introduction of Bill 14--Access to Justice Act, 2006 including having prepared a written and appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice Policy when the Bill was before the Legislature, I am of opinion that neither Mr. Gavin MacKenzie nor the Honourable Michael Bryant were addressing the concerns of paralegals with an open mind. I will elaborated on my concerns in another blog but it suffice for now to ask whether the conclusions of the Competition Bureau were properly addressed. They are:

"In closing, our goal at the Bureau is to ensure that all markets deliver the benefits of competition, including low costs, high quality, and a variety of choice to Canadian consumers and businesses."

I am of opinion that the door was shut to such people who had demonstrated over time that they could provide low costs and a high quality of service to people who could not afford the most expensive model.

And second: "If the Bureau can be of any assistance to the Committee in the development of the rules and regulations as they apply to paralegal regulation, I invite the Committee to contact Zia Proulx at (819) 994-4830"

Mr. Harry Kopyto appearing before a number of panels, three to be exact including the Blight panel who are questioning his good character base on what I have reasons to believe and verily believe that such panels were constituted on a biased of the Law Society leading investigator sought answer as to whether the Law Society had addressed the Competition Bureau to no avails. I have further rasons to believe and varily believe that it did not because if it did it would have addressed the fact that some of paralegals overtime had demonstrated that the could provided low costs and high quality service in areas that were restricted and that it was the intent of the Law Society to close the door on those excellent paralegals.