Privatizing airports – for who?
Carney’s Liberals are pondering privatizing airports. What would that do for us? Notice the slickness of Finance Minister François‑Philippe Champagne saying “it’s about modernizing how Canada views its public assets.” If private ownership is viewed through a neoliberal eye as modernizing, maybe. That’s not a given.
Champagne and Carney talk persuasively about “making sure that Canadians get the full value of these federal assets” but it’s smoke and mirrors because once something is sold, it’s sold. Some money goes into a few pockets and the asset no longer belongs to Canadians. It can be sold to forces outside our borders and controlled for corporate profit, not for the benefit of its users.
How is this equivalent to modernization?
Nicholas 13:17 on 2026-05-08 Permalink
The argument is that private owners are more likely to invest in upgrades, which is empirically true worldwide, as governments tend to skimp, as who wants to invest money in airports when it could go to health care? And it’s also empirically true that private ownership leads to more flights and more passengers. In particular, upgrades that increase revenue: things that bring in more flights, more passengers, more restaurants, more lounges, better transfers. Sometimes this is more utilitarian infrastructure like more gates, sometimes it is things that make the experience nicer so people spend more money or prefer connecting here. But they tend to be more ruthlessly focused on ROI than governments, who might care more about a golf course. That’s all modernization.
The trade-off is fees tend to go up a fair bit, as the extra revenue from the sources above is often not enough, and they aren’t constrained. You could also argue that flights are bad, and we should be building a fast train to Montreal, but we may not even end up doing that, building it to Laval instead.
As for finances, the pockets that the money goes into is the Treasury, which can help bring down the debt, which is high. I’ve also seen people suggesting Canadian pension funds could buy the airports, as they already own some airports overseas, which alleviates the private concern for some, though I think that’s too cute by half, just look at the REM. And if you’re worried about a future sale, you can ban foreign ownership, something Canada loves doing, including in aviation. You would get less money for it though. You can also regulate fees if you want, among other things.
I don’t have many opinions on whether this is a good idea or not; I’m just answering the question on how it leads to modernization.
PatrickC 13:52 on 2026-05-08 Permalink
Changi airport, considered the best in the world, is owned by the government of Singapore. It’s a question of political will.
Tim S. 14:15 on 2026-05-08 Permalink
“The argument is that private owners are more likely to invest in upgrades, which is empirically true worldwide,”
A few years ago I asked a colleague in the UK for his thoughts on the railway privatizations there. He said “Well, the trains don’t run on time anymore, but you can get a nice cappuccino.”
Upgrades that bring in revenue are not necessarily upgrades that fulfill the actual purpose of the thing in question.
bob 14:26 on 2026-05-08 Permalink
Privatization is a mechanism for people close to the government to suck the juice out of a public asset, and leave us with the skins. A pure form of legislated corruption. Fees go up, service erodes, because they are only interested in profit.
Canada does not ban foreign ownership at all. They sold the wheat board to Saudis and Americans. The Canadian Pacific is merged with a US company and run out of Kansas. The largest shareholder in the Canadian National is Bill Gates. Air Canada’s largest shareholder is Black Rock. And even when a company is partly, even mostly, owned by nominally “Canadian” entities, it is effectively owned by some collection of equity funds, asset management funds, trusts, etc. run by global neoliberals who are as loyal to Canada as the Westons and Irvings.
jeather 15:48 on 2026-05-08 Permalink
Elbows up!
Tim 16:15 on 2026-05-08 Permalink
@bob, you hit the nail on the head. The entire country has been sold right out from underneath us. The only national beer left is Moosehead. You bought a Molson, Labatt or Sleeman product: that money is going to the US, Belgium/Brazil or Japan respectively.
R T 17:03 on 2026-05-08 Permalink
I’m extremely ambivalent about airport privatizion, but UK railway privatisation was very successful in increasing ridership, especially during off-peak periods through cheaper tickets; the train operating companies did not control the tracks or the major stations, and the attempt to privatise the tracks was undone quickly, so most concerns about investment level are due to the government. (The trains themselves got a lot nicer!)
“Canada does not ban foreign ownership at all.” is simply a false statement as a matter of fact. Foreigners aren’t even allowed to acquire controlling stakes in bookshops. (When it was still considered a bookshop, Amazon had no physical presence Canada, hiring Canada Post to do all their logistics as a workaround.) Foreigners can’t control Canadian airlines. Canada does allow foreign ownership of coffee shops, but required that Tim Hortons maintain a separate, Canadian-controlled board, lest cruellers be unduly Brazilian influenced. BlackRock does not have any of its own money invested in Air Canada; the BlackRock funds that have shares in Air Canada are owned by the fund holders, many if not most of whom are Canadian. (Moreover, the largest shareholder in Air Canada is RBC, again on behalf of its fund holders, almost all of whom are Canadian.) Oh, and CPKC? Headquartered in and run out of Calgary, not Kansas.
Joey 17:28 on 2026-05-08 Permalink
There’s a reason the Liberal Party of Canada grabbed a bunch of erstwhile Conservative Party voters the instant Carney replaced Trudeau as party leader.
Kate 13:52 on 2026-05-09 Permalink
Nicholas, on rereading you, this stood out: “Private ownership leads to more flights and more passengers. In particular, upgrades that increase revenue: things that bring in more flights, more passengers, more restaurants, more lounges, better transfers.”
I hate to be the party pooper for tourism and its attending commerce, but we really need to be reducing flights. Isn’t a major reason for spending billions on Alto, the fast train, to cut down the number of flights between Toronto and Montreal?
Yes, the prospect of persuading people to travel less has the concomitant risk of reducing the open‑mindedness that comes from experiencing other cultures directly, but we can find ways of replacing that kind of pragmatic education if we need to. We don’t need to be making air travel nicer and more popular.