From the Fraser Institute

By Lawrence L. Schembri and Andrew Spence

Canada’s weak productivity performance is directly related to the lack of competition across many concentrated industries. The high cost of financial services is a key contributor to our lagging living standards because services, such as payments, are essential input to the rest of our economy.

It’s well known that Canada’s banks are expensive and the services that they provide are outdated, especially compared to the banking systems of the United Kingdom and Australia that have better balanced the objectives of stability, competition and efficiency.

Canada’s banks are increasingly being called out by senior federal officials for not embracing new technology that would lower costs and improve productivity and living standards. Peter Rutledge, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and senior officials at the Bank of Canada, notably Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers and Deputy Governor Nicolas Vincent, have called for measures to increase competition in the banking system to promote innovation, efficiency and lower prices for financial services.

The recent federal budget proposed several new measures to increase competition in the Canadian banking sector, which are long overdue. As a marker of how uncompetitive the market for financial services has become, the budget proposed direct interventions to reduce and even eliminate some bank service fees. In addition, the budget outlined a requirement to improve price and fee transparency for many transactions so consumers can make informed choices.

In an effort to reduce barriers to new entrants and to growth by smaller banks, the budget also proposed to ease the requirement that small banks include more public ownership in their capital structure.

At long last, the federal government signalled a commitment to (finally) introduce open banking by enacting the long-delayed Consumer Driven Banking Act. Open banking gives consumers full control over who they want to provide them with their financial services needs efficiently and safely. Consumers can then move beyond banks, utilizing technology to access cheaper and more efficient alternative financial service providers.

Open banking has been up and running in many countries around the world to great success. Canada lags far behind the U.K., Australia and Brazil where the presence of open banking has introduced lower prices, better service quality and faster transactions. It has also brought financing to small and medium-sized business who are often shut out of bank lending.

Realizing open banking and its gains requires a new payment mechanism called real time rail. This payment system delivers low-cost and immediate access to nonbank as well as bank financial service providers. Real time rail has been in the works in Canada for over a decade, but progress has been glacial and lags far behind the world’s leaders.

Despite the budget’s welcome backing for open banking, Canada should address the legislative mandates of its most important regulators, requiring them to weigh equally the twin objectives of financial system stability as well as competition and efficiency.

To better balance these objectives, Canada needs to reform its institutional framework to enhance the resilience of the overall banking system so it can absorb an individual bank failure at acceptable cost. This would encourage bank regulators to move away from a rigid “fear of failure” cultural mindset that suppresses competition and efficiency and has held back innovation and progress.

Canada should also reduce the compliance burden imposed on banks by the many and varied regulators to reduce barriers to entry and expansion by domestic and foreign banks. These agencies, including the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation plus several others, act in largely uncoordinated manner and their duplicative effort greatly increases compliance and reporting costs. While Canada’s large banks are able, because of their market power, to pass those costs through to their customers via higher prices and fees, they also benefit because the heavy compliance burden represents a significant barrier to entry that shelters them from competition.

More fundamental reforms are needed, beyond the measures included in the federal budget, to strengthen the institutional framework and change the regulatory mindset. Such reforms would meaningfully increase competition, efficiency and innovation in the Canadian banking system, simultaneously improving the quality and lowering the cost of financial services, and thus raising productivity and the living standards of Canadians.

Lawrence L. Schembri

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Andrew Spence

From the Fraser Institute

By Niels Veldhuis

The federal and Alberta governments recently released their much-anticipated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining what it will take to build a pipeline from Alberta, through British Columbia, to tidewater to get more of our oil to markets beyond the United States.

This was great news, according to most in the media: “Ottawa-Alberta deal clears hurdles for West Coast pipeline,” was the top headline on the Globe and Mail’s website, “Carney inks new energy deal with Alberta, paving way to new pipeline” according to the National Post.

And the reaction from the political class? Well, former federal environment minister Steven Guilbeault resigned from Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, perhaps positively indicating that this agreement might actually produce a new pipeline. Jason Kenney, a former Alberta premier and Harper government cabinet minister, congratulated Prime Minister Carney and Premier Smith on an “historic agreement.” Even Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi called the MOU “a positive step for our energy future.”

Finally, as Prime Minister Carney promised, Canada might build critical infrastructure “at a speed and scale not seen in generations.”

Given this seemingly great news, I eagerly read the six-page Memorandum of Understanding. Then I read it again and again. Each time, my enthusiasm and understanding diminished rapidly. By the fourth reading, the only objective conclusion I could reach was not that a pipeline would finally be built, but rather that only governments could write an MOU that no Canadian could understand.

The MOU is utterly incoherent. Go ahead, read it for yourself online. It’s only six pages. Here are a few examples.

The agreement states that, “Canada and Alberta agree that the approval, commencement and continued construction of the bitumen pipeline is a prerequisite to the Pathways project.” Then on the next line, “Canada and Alberta agree that the Pathways Project is also a prerequisite to the approval, commencement and continued construction of the bitumen pipeline.”

Two things, of course, cannot logically be prerequisites for each other.

But worry not, under the MOU, Alberta and Ottawa will appoint an “Implementation Committee” to deliver “outcomes” (this is from a federal government that just created the “Major Project Office” to get major projects approved and constructed) including “Determining the means by which Alberta can submit its pipeline application to the Major Projects Office on or before July 1, 2026.”

What does “Determining the means” even mean?

What’s worse is that under the MOU, the application for this pipeline project must be “ready to submit to the Major Projects Office on or before July 1, 2026.” Then it could be another two years (or until 2028) before Ottawa approves the pipeline project. But the MOU states the Pathways Project is to be built in stages, starting in 2027. And that takes us back to the circular reasoning of the prerequisites noted above.

Other conditions needed to move forward include:

The private sector must construct and finance the pipeline. Serious question: which private-sector firm would take this risk? And does the Alberta government plan to indemnify the company against these risks?

Indigenous Peoples must co-own the pipeline project.

Alberta must collaborate with B.C. to ensure British Columbians get a cut or “share substantial economic and financial benefits of the proposed pipeline” in MOU speak.

None of this, of course, addresses the major issue in our country—that is, investors lack clarity on timelines and certainty about project approvals. The Carney government established the Major Project Office to fast-track project approvals and provide greater certainty. Of the 11 project “winners” the federal government has already picked, most either already had approvals or are already at an advanced stage in the process. And one of the most important nation-building projects—a pipeline to get our oil to tidewater—hasn’t even been referred to the Major Project Office.

What message does all this send to the investment community? Have we made it easier to get projects approved? No. Have we made things clearer? No. Business investment in Canada has fallen off a cliff and is down 25 per cent per worker since 2014. We’ve seen a massive outflow of capital from the country, more than $388 billion since 2014.

To change this, Canada needs clear rules and certain timelines for project approvals. Not an opaque Memorandum of Understanding.

Niels Veldhuis

President, Fraser Institute