Before We Privatize Canada's Airports, Ask Who Will Pay

 

Prime Minister Mark Carney's government wants to bring private capital into the operation of Canada's four largest airports — Toronto Pearson, Montréal-Trudeau, Vancouver International and Calgary International. Ottawa frames this as a way to unlock billions in investment without selling the airports outright: the federal government would keep ownership of the land and assets while granting private investors long-term operating concessions.

That distinction matters to policymakers, but for the passenger at the check-in counter, a different question matters more: who eventually pays the investor?

Private capital is not charity. Pension funds and infrastructure investors who commit billions to Canadian airports will expect a return, and that money has to come from somewhere. Canada's aviation system already runs largely on the user-pay principle — the Competition Bureau reports that passenger fees alone accounted for 33 to 47 percent of revenue at the country's eight busiest airports in 2023, and that airline and passenger fees ultimately show up in the price of a ticket.

Airports are also unusual businesses: unlike a grocery store or a barber shop, they can't be shopped around. A traveller who needs a specific connection through Pearson can't simply fly out of Vancouver instead. That market power is exactly what other countries have struggled to keep in check after privatizing. Australia privatized its major airports decades ago, yet its competition regulator still monitors Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, and in March 2026 warned that the existing oversight framework is an inadequate constraint on airports' market power — with higher costs likely to flow through to passengers. Portugal privatized ANA, the operator of Lisbon and its other major airports, and its aviation regulator still reviews ANA's proposed charges before they take effect; this month it approved a new service-quality regime for 2027 after the operator and airport users failed to reach agreement on their own. London Heathrow, privately operated for decades, still has its charges set under economic regulation by Britain's Civil Aviation Authority. In each case, privatization didn't make regulation unnecessary — it made effective regulation essential.

So the question for Canada isn't whether private investors can run airports competently. Of course they can. The real questions are under what rules they'll run them, and who bears the financial risk.

An investment consortium that pays billions for a decades-long concession has to recover that money and earn a return, and airports have a limited menu of revenue sources: landing and terminal charges, airport improvement fees, parking, retail and restaurant leases, ground transportation, advertising, real estate — and passengers, directly or through the fees airlines pass on. Ottawa's upfront cheque is the wrong number to focus on; what matters is what happens over the 30, 40 or 50 years after it clears. Supporters have a fair point that private capital can finance terminals and technology faster and bring useful expertise, and Transport Canada argues it could accelerate expansion and improve the passenger experience. That's possible. But an investor's core incentive is to make the investment pay off, not to minimize the security line or the parking fee, and those goals align only sometimes. That gap is exactly why the regulatory framework is the whole ballgame — and why Canadians should be wary of adding a new layer of expected investor returns onto a system where they already fund infrastructure heavily through their own fees, unlike countries that subsidize aviation more directly.

Before Ottawa signs any long-term concession, Canadians deserve answers: What limits will apply to airport charges, and will they track inflation, actual investment, or service improvements? Will operators face penalties for slower baggage handling or degraded service? Will airlines have an independent way to challenge excessive fees? Will parking and ground-transportation pricing be monitored? And most importantly, if Ottawa pockets billions upfront, how much will Canadian travellers pay back over the life of the concession?

None of this means Canada should reject private capital in its airports. It means “the regulator will protect consumers” isn't good enough on its own — and Canada's own record gives reason for skepticism. After decades of competition oversight, three companies still control roughly 86 percent of Canada's wireless subscribers, and the largest banks hold more than 90 percent of deposit-taking assets; the Competition Bureau itself calls both sectors highly concentrated. Privatization abroad shows it can work, but only when strong price and service protections are built into the deal rather than left for regulators to repair afterward. Before unlocking the “value” of its airports for investors, Ottawa should say plainly how it intends to protect that value for the people who actually use them — and get the answer written into the contract before it's signed, not after.