Monopolies generally drive prices up by restricting competition.
privatization
Normally, when a company faces losses and declining demand, it innovates and reduces costs.
The problem with the present system is that no one loses any money when tragedies strike.
The relative size of government in Canada is well beyond the “optimal” size for promoting productivity growth.
If Canadians ever needed proof that narrow politicking interferes with sensible consumer choice, they need look no further than the byzantine “reforms” on the sale of beer, wine and spirits proposed by Ontario, and one restrictive “reform” recently enacted in British Columbia.
Murray Smith, a former Alberta cabinet minister in the Ralph Klein government, the one that privatized government liquor stores and licence registries in 1993, once told me about a side benefit of such divestments (and I paraphrase): fewer distractions, which led to more focused government.
Its been two decades since the Alberta government exited the business of selling beer, wine and spirits to consumers.
Twenty years ago the Alberta government swiftly and boldly threw open Alberta's markets in beer, wine and spirits. The result has been a success story of intense competition, added convenience and thousands of new jobs.
Other provincial governments have never imitated the Alberta accomplishment. But that has much to do with local politics and mythmaking from vested interests, not facts.
The recent revelation from the Finance Ministrys probe into Crown corporations that found ever-more and ever-higher paid managers at ICBC has enraged British Columbians and especially consumers of auto insurance in this province.
It is of course entirely possible that ICBC, a government-owned monopoly, has too many managers and that theyre paid too much.