Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FRASER INSTITUTE: Many barriers to competition in Canada result from government interference, and these barriers affect a sizable share of the Canadian economy


Consumers are best served by firms when the latter are exposed to the threat of competition. Absent the possibility of new firms threatening their incumbent status, established players have less incentive to cut costs and prices and improve services. The threat of entry by competitors disciplines firms in ways that serve consumer welfare but there are many barriers to competition in Canada resulting from government interference and these barriers affect a sizable share of the Canadian economy.



What constitutes barriers to competition?

There are some barriers that arise from the features of the goods produced or from external factors (for example, geography, distance, or technological limitations). However, there are many more barriers that are the results of government interference.

The federal government limits foreign investments in crucial sectors such as air transportation, telecommunications, and broadcasting. In telecommunications, all firms with more than a 10% market share cannot have more than 20% of the voting shares owned by non-Canadians. Similar rules apply to broadcasters and air carriers. In sectors like air transportation, there are additional prohibitions such as that preventing non-Canadian carriers from providing services between Canadian airports.

These restrictions on foreign activity in Canada are compounded by additional barriers to competition resulting from government monopolies.

For example, most provincial governments (including Canada’s two largest provinces, Quebec and Ontario) operate their own alcohol retail services that are shielded from private competition. As another example, Canada Post is a crown corporation with a monopoly on the domestic-letter market.

All these state monopolies, to which we can add other crucial sectors such as energy distribution and urban transit, are by definition shielded from competition. Finally, there are other sectors that are shielded from competition by legislation. For example, in many provinces, intercity bus companies are given monopolies on certain profitable routes.

Such barriers to competition affect a sizable share of the Canadian economy. By adding up the economic output all the sectors protected from competition by the aforementioned forms of barriers to entry, we find that close to a quarter of the Canadian economy is shielded from competition (22%). This is a low-bound estimate that includes only the most important government-imposed restrictions to competition.



There are, however, two forms of barriers to competition not included in this definition.

First, inter-provincial barriers to competition are not included. Numerous sectors of activity are protected from competition coming from other provinces.

In the case of alcohol, for example, there are important limitations upon moving liquor across provincial borders. This means that, for provinces like Alberta where there is no state monopoly on the retail sale of alcohol, there are additional entry barriers that protect incumbent firms from competition.




While many, including the Canadian Senate, deem these barriers to be economically burdensome, they are not easy to quantify and were excluded from our low-bound estimate.

Second, the impact of occupational licensing is not included. Most economists qualify occupational licensing as an important source of barriers to entry. However, statistical agencies calculate output on the basis of industrial sectors, not on the basis of professions. As members of the same profession can work in different economic sectors, it is difficult to add the effects of occupational licensing to our calculations above.

Nevertheless, we can produce a cautious high-bound estimate that circumvents these two issues. That high-bound estimate of all restrictions exceeds a third (35%) of the economy.

This is a sizable share of the Canadian economy that is protected from competition to some degree. In fact, Canada fares poorly amongst industrialized countries for its support of competition.

International surveys of government-erected barriers against competition produced by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that municipal, provincial, and federal governments in Canada impose some of the most significant barriers to competition in the world. For example, Canada comes in at 48th (out of 62) in the OECD’s foreign direct-investment restrictiveness index, slightly behind the Ukraine and just ahead of Mexico.

Canadian consumers would benefit greatly from the curtailing of these restrictions and provincial and federal governments in Canada should consider removing those barriers to competition and provide a framework that is more amicable to economic growth. 


AUTHORVincent Geloso

Visiting Professor, Bates College

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

GORDON F. D. WILSON: When The Trick Masquerades as The Treat

Thirty-seven years ago, Halloween 1987, I became the leader of the BC Liberal Party.   British Columbia was badly polarized. Social Credit held one side and the NDP the other. It had been twelve years, 1975, since Liberal MLAs Garde Gardom, Pat McGeer, and Alan Williams had walked away from their party to join Social Credit, one year after the lone Progressive Conservative MLA Hugh Curtis had abandoned his party to sit with Bill Bennett, the son and heir apparent to long-serving BC Premier, WAC Bennett.   An unwritten agreement by the biggest Canadian political shareholders, the federal Liberals and Conservatives, decided that if British Columbia was to remain a lucrative franchise from a revenue perspective, they couldn’t risk splitting the electoral vote and electing the real enemy, the NDP, so no resources would be used to finance either a Liberal or Conservative party provincially.   “There are two sides to every street,” I was told by a very prominent Canadian businessman who cont

FORSETH: You Have To Be A Bit Crazy

  Ward and his wife Carleen celebrating his win on election night.   In March of this year, I took on the role of Campaign Manager for BC Conservative candidate Ward Stamer.  It’s the third time I’ve had the opportunity as I took on the role for Peter Sharp in 2013, and for Dennis Giesbrecht in 2020. Now let me tell you, in the past, a BC Conservative campaign team generally consisted of myself, the candidate and one or two helpers – and very little in the way of a campaign budget. Thankfully, a benefit of having spent 30+ years in the broadcast media afforded me the ability to do ad copy and write candidate speeches, and prep both Dennis and Peter to deal with the media – it’s also something I have always enjoyed. That was part of my duties this time around as well, however having a team of a dozen and a half volunteers meant that for the first time we had people available to ID our supporters, put together and install campaign signs, distribute campaign literature, and help out at ou

Rustad will support policy for 'everyday' people, otherwise work to bring down NDP

  Conservative Party of B.C. John Rustad Tuesday (Oct. 29) said his party would support government policies that support "average, everyday working" persons in B.C., but also repeated earlier promises to bring down the B.C. NDP government under Premier David Eby. "If there are things that are moved forward that will improve lives for those people, we would be looking at support it," Rustad said. "But if he's going to carry forward with the destructive policies that he has, then yes, we are going to look at every opportunity possible to bring him down as soon as possible."  CLICK HERE for the full story

Labels

Show more