Economy
After 140-Odd Years, Can’t We Figure Rail Out Yet?

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
A typical train these days has over 100 cars. Each rail car, depending on the load, is at least one, and often several truckloads. A train needs two crew to operate it. Are you going to come up with 100 to 200 truck drivers to replace that one, individual train, as well as the trucks, trailers, and space on the highways in a moment’s notice, and then do that for the entire economy?
In all the fuss about the Canadian rail disruption, one thing jumped out at me. Here’s how the National Post reported it:
“Despite the economic impacts, the Canadian Industrial Relations Board ruled earlier this month that the railway workers are not an essential service.”
Every member of this board should be sacked. Immediately. Because if rail is not essential, nothing is.
Did none of them pay attention in grade school? Canada was built on the railway. British Columbia joined confederation as a result, and all the gaps in between were filled in in large part because there was rail.
Yet every few years, Canadians and the Canadian economy is held hostage by some sort of disruption involving rail, usually a labour one, but occasionally a protest movement or even the weather, as if this is our first year living in the great white north.
The playbook is worn out already. After several days of pain and homage being paid to the rights of the workers to strike (yet no one talks about the rights of companies to lock out workers), the federal government eventually takes action and things get back to normal.
In this case, the feds let the entire rail network of CN and CPKC shut down on Thursday, Aug. 22, before ordering binding arbitration. But as I write this the morning of Friday, Aug. 23, the Teamsters have served strike notice on CN about an hour ago. I’m not going to try to keep up with all the developments. Maybe by the time this is published, it will all be resolved. But it seemed like that resolution was yesterday, and it fell apart today, so who knows?
And frankly, I don’t care, and I don’t think you should, either. Perhaps the union members have a point in their issues. Maybe the rail companies do, too. Fundamentally, it doesn’t matter. Sort it out. Put on you big boy/girl shorts/panties. Make it work.
At no point, ever, in the history of this nation, has rail service not been essential. From farmers needing to ship their grain at harvest to cities needing chlorine for water treatment to pavers needing asphalt from the Lloydminster refinery before the fall paving season ends, rail is utterly critical to our existence as a nation.
And anyone who says we can just backfill with trucks is a fool. A typical train these days has over 100 cars. Each rail car, depending on the load, is at least one, and often several truckloads. A train needs two crew to operate it. Are you going to come up with 100 to 200 truck drivers to replace that one, individual train, as well as the trucks, trailers, and space on the highways in a moment’s notice, and then do that for the entire economy?
Let’s look back at the rail blockades of 2020 in support of the Wet’suwet’en opposition to the Coastal GasLink pipeline. Because the blockades were related to First Nations politics, the federal Liberal government was loathe to step in. In a nod to George Orwell’s Animal Farm, it proved that in the 21st century, “some animals are more equal than others.” In this case, some First Nations were more equal than others, and could block rail lines at will, dramatically impacting parts of the economy. Never mind that the pipeline that was so ardently opposed is now the salvation for other First Nations bands to go ahead with their own Cedar LNG facility, dramatically improving their economic prospects.
Did the government perhaps learn something from the 2020 blockades – that rail disruption can’t allow these things to go on forever, especially because it would now impact the entire economy? Maybe. But if so, maybe the federal minister should have acted before an actual stoppage took place.
And that’s the key thing. Rail is nothing new to Canada. It’s almost as old as the nation itself. And yet there’s always something causing grief. Sometimes rail performance is blamed on snow in the mountains, or cold, as if this is the first time there’s ever been cold, or snow, or both, in Canada. Except they made it work for over 140-odd years, why are we now unable to make things work? Why, after the same 140-odd years of operation, we still have labour strife over rest periods and operations? Hasn’t that been enough time to figure it out, both from the company and labour sides?
How many more decades, nay, centuries do we need to figure out how to run a railroad?
Brian Zinchuk is editor and owner of Pipeline Online, and occasional contributor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He can be reached at [email protected].
Business
Americans rallying behind Trump’s tariffs

The Trump administration’s new tariffs are working:
The European Union will delay tariffs on U.S. exports into the trading bloc in response to the imposition of tariffs on European aluminum and steal, a measure announced in February by the White House as a part of an overhaul of the U.S. trade policies.
Instead of taking effect March 12, these tariffs will not apply until “mid-April”, according to a European official interviewed by The Hill.
This is not the first time the EU has responded this way to U.S. tariff measures. It happened already last time Trump was in office. One of the reasons why Brussels is so accommodative is that the European Parliament emphasized negotiations already back in February. Furthermore, as Forbes notes,
The U.S. economy is the largest in the world, and many countries rely on American consumers to buy their goods. By import tariffs, the U.S. can pressure trading partners into more favorable deals and protect domestic industries from unfair competition.
More on unfair competition in a moment. First, it is important to note that Trump did not start this trade skirmish. Please note what IndustryWeek reported back in 2018:
Trump points to U.S. auto exports to Europe, saying they are taxed at a higher rate than European exports to the United States. Here, facts do offer Trump some support: U.S. autos face duties of 10% while European cars are subject to dugies of only 2.5% in the United States.
They also noted some nuances, e.g., that the United States applies a higher tariff on light trucks, presumably to defend the most profitable vehicles rolling out of U.S. based manufacturing plants. Nevertheless, the story that most media outlets do not tell is that Europe has a history of putting tariffs on U.S. exports to a greater extent than tariffs are applied in the opposite direction.
Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Facts notwithstanding, this trade war has caught media attention and is reaching ridiculous proportions. According to CNBC,
Auto stocks are digesting President Donald Trump’s annoncement that he would place 25% tariffs on “all cars that are not made in the United Sates,” as well as certain automobile parts. … Shares of the “Detroit Three” all fell.
They also explain that GM took a particularly hard beating, and that Ferrari is going to use the tariffs as a reason to raise prices by ten percent. This sounds dramatic, but keep in mind that stocks fly up and down with impressive amplitude; what was lost yesterday can come back with a bonus tomorrow. As for Ferrari, a ten-percent price hike is basically meaningless since these cars are often sold in highly customized, individual negotiations before they are even produced.
Despite the media hype, these tariffs will not last the year. One reason is the retaliatory nature in President Trump’s tariffs, which—again—has already caught the attention of the Europeans and brought them to the negotiation table. We can debate whether or not his tactics are the best in order to create more fair trade terms between the United States and our trading partners, but there is no question that Trump’s methods have caught the attention of the powers that be (which include Mexico and Canada).
There is another reason why I do not see this tariffs tit-for-tat continuing for much longer. The European economy is in bad shape, especially compared to the U.S. economy. With European corporations already signaling increased direct investment in the U.S. economy, Europe is holding the short end of this stick.
But the bad news for the Europeans does not stop there. They are at an intrinsic disadvantage going into a tariffs-based trade war. The EU has a “tariff” of sorts that we do not have, namely the value-added tax, VAT. Shiphub.co has a succinct summary of how the VAT affects trade:
When importing (into the European Union), VAT should be taken into account. … VAT is calculated based on the customs value (the good’s value and transport costs … ) plus the due duty amount.
The term “duty” here, of course, refers to trade tariffs. This means that when tariffs go up, the VAT surcharge goes up as well. Aside from creating a tax-on-tax problem, this also means that the inflationary effect from U.S. imports is significantly stronger than it is on EU imports to the United States—even when tariffs are equal.
If the U.S. government wanted to, they could include the tax-on-tax effect of the VAT when assessing the effective EU tariffs on imports from the United States. This would quickly expand the tit-for-tat tariff war, with Europe at an escalating disadvantage.
For these reasons, I do not see how this “trade war” will continue beyond the summer, but even that is a pessimistic outlook.
Before I close this tariff topic and declare it a weekend, let me also mention that the use of tariffs in trade war is neither a new nor an unusual tactic. Check out this little brochure from the Directorate-General for Trade under the European Commission’:
Trade defence instruments, such as anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties, are ways of protecting European production against international trade distortions.
What they refer to as “defence instruments” are primarily tariffs on imports. In a separate report the Directorate lists no fewer than 63 trade-war cases where the EU imposes tariffs to punish a country for unfair trade tactics.
Trade what, and what countries, you wonder? Sweet corn from Thailand, fused alumina from China, biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, malleable tube fittings from China and Thailand, epoxy resins from China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand… and lots and lots of tableware from China.
Like most people, I would prefer a world without taxes and tariffs, and the closer we can get to zero on either of those, the better. But until we get there, we should take a deep breath in the face of the media hype and trust our president on this one.
Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Business
Trump Reportedly Shuts Off Flow Of Taxpayer Dollars Into World Trade Organization

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Thomas English
The Trump administration has reportedly suspended financial contributions to the World Trade Organization (WTO) as of Thursday.
The decision comes as part of a broader shift by President Donald Trump to distance the U.S. from international institutions perceived to undermine American sovereignty or misallocate taxpayer dollars. U.S. funding for both 2024 and 2025 has been halted, amounting to roughly 11% of the WTO’s annual operating budget, with the organization’s total 2024 budget amounting to roughly $232 million, according to Reuters.
“Why is it that China, for decades, and with a population much bigger than ours, is paying a tiny fraction of [dollars] to The World Health Organization, The United Nations and, worst of all, The World Trade Organization, where they are considered a so-called ‘developing country’ and are therefore given massive advantages over The United States, and everyone else?” Trump wrote in May 2020.
The president has long criticized the WTO for what he sees as judicial overreach and systemic bias against the U.S. in trade disputes. Trump previously paralyzed the organization’s top appeals body in 2019 by blocking judicial appointments, rendering the WTO’s core dispute resolution mechanism largely inoperative.
But a major sticking point continues to be China’s continued classification as a “developing country” at the WTO — a designation that entitles Beijing to a host of special trade and financial privileges. Despite being the world’s second-largest economy, China receives extended compliance timelines, reduced dues and billions in World Bank loans usually reserved for poorer nations.
The Wilson Center, an international affairs-oriented think tank, previously slammed the status as an outdated loophole benefitting an economic superpower at the expense of developed democracies. The Trump administration echoed this criticism behind closed doors during WTO budget meetings in early March, according to Reuters.
The U.S. is reportedly not withdrawing from the WTO outright, but the funding freeze is likely to trigger diplomatic and economic groaning. WTO rules allow for punitive measures against non-paying member states, though the body’s weakened legal apparatus may limit enforcement capacity.
Trump has already withdrawn from the World Health Organization, slashed funds to the United Nations and signaled a potential exit from other global bodies he deems “unfair” to U.S. interests.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Poilievre refuses to bash Trump via trick question, says it’s possible to work with him and be ‘firm’
-
COVID-192 days ago
17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his family’s liability claim
-
Community2 days ago
Support local healthcare while winning amazing prizes!
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta Institute urging Premier Smith to follow Saskatchewan and drop Industrial Carbon Tax
-
Business2 days ago
While “Team Canada” attacks Trump for election points, Premier Danielle Smith advocates for future trade relations
-
Alberta23 hours ago
Albertans have contributed $53.6 billion to the retirement of Canadians in other provinces
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Fool Me Once: The Cost of Carney–Trudeau Tax Games
-
Addictions1 day ago
Should fentanyl dealers face manslaughter charges for fatal overdoses?