My sense is that Canada’s largest companies have a larger share of regulated industries (banking, transportation, and telecoms) than many other countries. If so, they may have too much influence over regulators simply because of their size and importance.
Your instinct is well-founded, and the pattern is unusually pronounced in Canada. This is squarely the territory of your regulatory-capture interest — and Canada is arguably one of the cleanest case studies of it in the OECD. 📄Demo Knowledge
Is the premise true? Largely, yes.
Canada’s corporate landscape is distinctive in two reinforcing ways, and the OECD’s 2025 survey documents the second half of it: the economy below the top tier is dominated by very small firms — businesses with fewer than 100 employees account for 47% of employment vs. 35% in the US — while the top tier is a set of national champions in a handful of sectors (OECD Economic Surveys: Canada 2025). Those sectors are precisely the ones you named:
- Banking: Big Five banks hold roughly 80–90% of domestic banking assets — among the highest concentration in the G7.
- Telecom: Rogers, Bell and Telus control ~87–90% of the wireless market, a structure Ottawa deliberately built through spectrum and foreign-investment policy, then spent nearly two decades failing to disrupt (Parliament Audit).
- Air transport: effectively a duopoly (Air Canada / WestJet), now under formal review by the Competition Bureau and Competition Tribunal.
- Rail: a two-firm transcontinental duopoly (CN/CP) with federal regulation as a backstop.
- Groceries: three grocers (Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys/Empire) around 60%+ of the market — less formally “regulated,” but subject to ad-hoc political oversight since the 2021–23 pricing controversies (Competition Bureau market study).
So yes: unlike the US or Germany, where the largest companies are spread across tech, manufacturing, pharma, and retail with many of those outside regulated perimeters, Canada’s very largest firms are concentrated in sectors where the state is a permanent counterparty.
Does that translate into capture risk? The mechanisms are real and identifiable:
- The state is a co-author of the market structure. Ottawa built the telecom oligopoly and protects banking from foreign takeover (in 2024’s bank-merger debate, national champions were explicitly defended as policy). When the regulator and the incumbent owe their positions to the same policy framework, the regulator’s incentive is to preserve it. That’s “deep capture” — capture of the policy layer, not just the enforcement layer.
- Revolving doors are documented. The CRTC is the canonical example — a former telecom lobbyist (Ian Scott) served as chair while ruling on the very markets his former industry inhabited, and CRTC’s 2024 posture toward the Big 3 on wholesale fibre access was criticized from all directions.
- Concentration of stakes means concentration of lobbying. Five banks, three telecoms, two airlines: a regulator’s entire regulated universe fits in one boardroom. Compare the US FCC, which faces a continuously churning set of challengers. In Canada the same executives appear before the same regulators for decades — the “repeat player” advantage that capture literature identifies as decisive.
- Too big to discipline. When a firm is systemically important (banks, airlines, rails), enforcement that would materially damage it is self-defeating for the regulator — a structural asymmetry that operates without any corruption at all.
- Consultation asymmetry. Small firms — the 47%-of-employment sector — have almost no capacity to participate in regulatory consultations, so the regulatory record is written by the large incumbents’ submissions.
The honest caveats to your thesis:
- Formal capture is hard to prove in any single case, and Canadian regulators periodically bite — the Competition Bureau’s aggressive posture on grocers and on the Rogers–Shaw merger shows the enforcement arm can act against national champions.
- The bigger Canadian problem may be legislative capture (the Competition Act itself was long weak — the 2022–24 amendments exist partly because of this critique) rather than agency capture.
- Concentration and regulation aren’t fully independent variables: sectors like banking and telecom were made concentrated by policy, so the direction of causation runs partly from capture to concentration, not just the reverse.
Bottom line: Yes — Canada combines an unusually concentrated top tier, unusually concentrated within regulated sectors, with an unusually fragmented small-business base. That asymmetry means the regulated giants have both the means and the standing to dominate their regulators, and the mechanisms (policy co-authorship, revolving doors, repeat-player lobbying, systemic importance) are all visible in the Canadian record. The country is a genuine outlier in this respect — more so than the US, where concentration exists but is less sectorally tied to formal regulation.
Sources
