Skip to main content

A recent commentary in Economy Lab contended that the cost of airfare for Canadian travellers would likely be improved by allowing foreign airlines to fly between Canadian cities.

TODD KOROL/REUTERS

Canada's lacklustre productivity growth has become a preoccupation of policy makers, and a prime suspect is the lack of competition faced by Canadian firms.

Many of Canada's productivity detectives increasingly suspect that because key sectors aren't disciplined by adequate competition, many businesses don't face the "creative destruction" that drives innovation.

The average Canadian worker produces roughly 20 per cent less than her or his U.S. counterpart.

Story continues below advertisement

We've heard it before: If we want to sustain our living standards, Canada must achieve better productivity growth. Various studies have concluded that our laggard growth owes to a failure to invest and innovate. But why? Wouldn't any rational firm seek productivity gains to increase profitability?

Reflecting on Canadian businesses' record retained earnings from 2003 to 2007, economist Don Drummond puzzled: "Why did corporations just sit on their profits over this period? Did they not realize that this was a golden opportunity to ramp up their productivity to better withstand global competition?"

As Mr. Drummond observed, we've largely checked off the list on his Economist's Manifesto for productivity growth with stable government finances, reductions in taxes on capital, predictable inflation and a sound banking system. So what gives? Canada's competitive landscape seems to be the looming, amorphous challenge with which policy makers have yet to fully grapple.

We now have a world-leading framework for competition law, and the Competition Bureau has ramped up its enforcement activities substantially in past years. However, regulatory barriers to competition remain, particularly for key network sectors, such as telecommunications and airlines, and under foreign investment restrictions.

In a report published Thursday by Canada 2020, we survey Canada's competitive landscape. As we conclude, the productivity agenda for Canada must shift from macroeconomic and fiscal reforms to the microeconomic foundations of innovation and particularly to competitive intensity as a driver of firm performance.

Many of the main policy levers to boost competition were identified in Red Wilson's landmark Competition Policy Review Panel. There has been some progress on implementing its recommendations – such as the 2009 amendments to modernize Canada's Competition Act and the federal government's liberalization of foreign ownership restrictions in telecommunications.

However, certain items remain. In particular, the Investment Canada Act places the burden on the foreign investor to prove "net benefit," and foreign airlines remain restricted from flying domestic routes. As argued in a recent commentary on Economy Lab, the cost of airfare for Canadian travellers would likely be improved by allowing foreign airlines to fly between Canadian cities. As well, Canada should improve the climate for foreign competition by reversing the onus on foreign investment review, placing the burden on the minister to demonstrate "net detriment."

Story continues below advertisement

Yet, recent debates have flared regarding "national champions," showing that not everyone is sold on competition as the necessary medicine.

Certain policy makers may still feel the lure of protecting "infant industries" from the full brunt of the market. The question is whether protecting certain firms from competition does more harm than good.

As Canadian public policy increasingly turns toward addressing our productivity shortfall, competition in our national economy must be a key issue.

(Canada 2020 will be exploring these issues in a free upcoming panel session on Wednesday, Jan. 30, at the Château Laurier Hotel in Ottawa.)

Grant Bishop is a law student at the University of Toronto and previously served as an economist at a major Canadian financial institution. He is the author of the Canada 2020 report.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies