Prime Minister Mark Carney's government is promising competition, but not necessarily competition if it comes with a political price.Eduardo Lima/The Canadian Press
John Turley-Ewart is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail, a regulatory compliance consultant and a Canadian banking historian.
It’s not going well. The depth of despair in Ottawa over tariffs and trade talks with the U.S. has inspired a sudden conviction that “competition” is the new “sustainability.”
Canada’s climate-change strategy is now a “climate-competitiveness strategy” according to Prime Minister Mark Carney.
On top of that, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne is apparently convinced “Competition drives better outcomes for consumers,” a sentiment echoed by Bank of Canada officials to give it greater effect. And Mélanie Joly, the country’s Innovation Minister, is promising “This government will be hawkish on competition.”
What Mr. Carney’s government is promising is competition, but not necessarily competition if it comes with a political price.
Carney rules out countertariffs against the U.S. as talks proceed in Washington
Canadians expected Mr. Carney to elbow his way into the Oval Office after his party won the April federal election and in short order score a winning trade deal with President Donald Trump. Mr. Carney anticipated a deal by July 21, then Aug. 1, then, well, nobody is sure any more.
As Canadians linger in trade-talk darkness, Canada continues to take a barrage of targeted tariffs on softwood lumber, steel and aluminum.
We apparently have so little leverage with the U.S. that Mr. Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, is at liberty to deliver pointed and public insults, recently saying to a meeting of Canadian leaders that second is good enough for Canada, the free-trade era is dead and that the U.S. does not want Canadian-made cars.
If Canadians thought Mr. Lutnick was blowing smoke, Stellantis put that to rest last week when it closed the door on producing the Jeep Compass at its Brampton, Ont., plant that employs 3,000 while simultaneously throwing a public-relations party celebrating its US$13-billion investment in America and the 5,000 jobs it will create there.
Opinion: Canada needs to start thinking about an auto sector without U.S. automakers
Lest it be forgotten, cultivating oligopolies rather than competition is more Canada’s economic forte. We have a banking oligopoly, an insurance oligopoly, a telecom oligopoly, an airline oligopoly, a retail-grocery oligopoly, big oil, big rail and a beer oligopoly too.
The polite Laurentian Elite term for this is “national champions” and they are very good at holding new entrants at bay. The 20 largest companies in Canada are on average about 110 years old and have long been seen by governments of various stripes as critical to Canadian national sovereignty, especially in times of trade wars with the U.S.
Thus, the sudden conversion in Ottawa to the merits of free markets and letting competition serve consumer interests, spur innovation and productivity, and help the economy grow out of its slow-growth dilemma suggests a desire to break from the economic status quo at a moment when protectionism is de rigueur in response to U.S. tariffs. Such change is welcome.
In fact, Carolyn Rogers, senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, urged a Bay Street crowd last week not to “hold your breath and hide under a table.” Investment is needed now to support Canadian growth and living standards. The right incentives are too.
Currently, as Bank of Montreal CEO Darryl White noted in meeting with business leaders last week, Canada is “absolutely not” competitive when it comes to its tax policies, and material reform is needed if investors are going to take a second look at this country.
Carney hints at easing corporate tax burden in budget
It would be a step forward if the federal government’s Nov. 4 budget took meaningful action to put Canadian businesses and investors on a better tax footing compared with the U.S. and other jurisdictions where we compete for investment dollars. Mr. Carney says he will.
What casts doubt on pledges from Mr. Carney and his government to be “hawkish” on competition is his odd response when asked if he will remove the 2019 ban on heavy oil tankers (carrying more than 12,500 metric tonnes of crude oil). The ban prevents big tankers from stopping, loading or unloading at ports on B.C.’s northern coast, where Alberta would like to build a pipeline to tidewater to access and better compete in Asian oil markets.
“It depends,” said Mr. Carney. “What this government is interested in is results, not objectives.”
The results are evident in Washington State and California. American large-capacity tankers already transit through or near these B.C. waterways, carrying Alaskan oil to ports in Washington State and California, which receives roughly 68 million barrels a year (based on 2024 data) from Alaska and millions more annually by tanker from other countries.
California, which cannot be accused of being slack on environmental risk management, has addressed the concerns large tankers pose. If permitted, Canada can figure it out as well.
Does Mr. Carney’s government want Canada to be globally competitive? It depends.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that California receives roughly 500,000 barrels of oil from Alaska each year. The state receives roughly 68 million barrels a year.