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

FORSETH -- Focus on the nine things I mentioned. That’s what will allow the Conservative Party to win the next election

IMAGE CREDIT:   Darryl Dyck, the Canadian Press. I thought I had already made up my mind who I would be ranking on my ballot, in the Conservative Party of BC leadership race; now I am not so sure.  That means that, at least for me, and perhaps many others, it’s a good thing voting hasn’t already taken place. There were initially only one or two of the candidates that I thought might be a little too right of centre for my liking, now it seems that list is growing. I consider myself more closely aligned with what used to be called a Progressive Conservative, regardless, I feel more than comfortable within the Conservative Party of BC.  Some, however, in messages to me on my political Facebook page, have been rather, shall we say, a bit mean-spirited in comments they’ve made about my ‘purity’ as a conservative. To tell you the truth, I really don’t care! Some leadership candidates, in comments made online, have also been raising the issue of who is a pure enough conservati...

WARD STAMER -- Those are REAL forestry numbers, not just made-up numbers

The following is a condensed version of remarks Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s made, regarding Forestry, in the BC Legislature, on Tuesday afternoon (02/24/2026)   Let’s talk a little bit, when we talk about Budget 2026, about the forest industry, which is near and dear to my heart. Forestry remains one of British Columbia’s foundational industries. It’s a pillar that built this province. Entire communities depend upon it. Interior towns, northern communities, Vancouver Island regions, the Kootenays, the Lower Mainland, with manufacturing facilities in Surrey and Maple Ridge, just to name a few — everywhere in BC is touched by forestry. One word that was not mentioned in Budget 2026 was forestry. That’s a shame, an incredible shame. It wasn’t an oversight – it was intentional. This government has driven forestry into the ground .... INTO THE GROUND! We can talk a little bit about some of the initiatives that this government has brought forth, to try to resurrect ...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more