Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Bad federal policy helps increase airfare in Canada

Published

3 days ago

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen

Canadian air travel can be summed up in a few words—poor service, high ticket prices and little choice. And as a federal election looms, Canadians should understand that bad federal policy is to blame.

According to the International Air Transport Association, Canada ranks 101st out of 116 countries for the cost of air travel. And customer complaints against Canadian airlines have grown more than sixfold between fiscal years 2018/19 and 2022/23.

Why are ticket prices so high?

For starters, taxes and fees (imposed by governments and airports) comprise a large portion (25 to 35 per cent) of airfare costs in Canada. For example, “airport improvement” fees average $32.20 per departing passenger at Canada’s largest airports compared to $6.47 in the United States and $16.38 in Australia. For air traffic control (ATC), airlines pay charges based on distance, geography and other factors, and these costs are passed to consumers. In one illustrative example, to fly a Boeing 777 in Canada, airlines must pay an estimated $802 in ATC fees compared to between $192 and $478 in the United States and $493 in Mexico (all figures in Canadian dollars).

Moreover, Canadians pay between $9.46 and $34.42 per ticket in “security” fees, more than Americans (C$7.65) and Australians (C$4.80). Canada’s “landing” fees—charged by the airports based on the weight of the plane—are among the highest in the world and 35 to 75 per cent higher than at U.S. airports.

Our high fees originate in part due to Canada’s flawed airport ownership structure. The federal government owns the land where Canada’s major airports are built, and leases it back to not-for-profit airport authorities that pay rent—up to 12 per cent of airport revenue—to Ottawa. The airports impose fees on passengers to recoup this revenue.

But while fees help increase costs for airfare in Canada, another culprit is the lack of competition among airlines. Crucially, the federal government prevents foreign airlines from operating domestic routes within Canada’s borders, which severely limits choice and competition. While the government allows a foreign airline such as Lufthansa to fly from Frankfurt to Toronto, it prevents Lufthansa from flying passengers from Toronto to another Canadian city. As a result, there’s little competitive pressure for Canadian airlines to lower their prices for air travel within Canada’s borders.

The European Union, in contrast, removed such restrictions for member-states. The result? More competition including from new low-cost carriers such as Ryanair, a 34 per cent decline in ticket prices, more cross-border routes, and greater flight frequencies. The entry of new low-cost carriers alone helped lower airfares by 20 per cent.

Given the sorry state of air travel in Canada, our new study identifies four ways the federal government can improve competitiveness and lower airfare.

First, the government should reduce taxes and fees to be more in line with other countries. Second, the government should negotiate deals with other countries including the United States to allow foreign airlines to operate within Canada in exchange for Canadian airlines operating in those countries, which would help both Canadian consumers and Canadian airlines. Indeed, according to a 2016 report from the federal government, restrictions on foreign airlines increase air travel costs for Canadians and have outlived their usefulness. The report recommended Canada work towards an “open common market for air services” with peer countries. The key is reciprocity—if U.S. airlines, for example, are allowed access to the Canadian domestic air travel market, Canadian airlines must also have access to the U.S. market.

Third, the federal government should follow in the footsteps of Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and sell its remaining interests in airport leases and allow for-profit organizations to own and operate airports in Canada.

Lastly, the government should reduce the regulatory burden on the airline industry while maintaining strong safety standards. On this front, Canada can emulate the successful deregulation effort undertaken in the United States in the late 1970s and 1980s when widespread reform helped produce more competition, more consumer choice, lower fares and safety improvements.

Canadians will likely head to polls sometime this spring. If the next federal government wants to help improve air travel service quality, increase consumer choice and lower airfares, it should reform Canada’s antiquated airline policies.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Alex Whalen

Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute
Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 11 hours ago

Leading proponent of Alberta Independence predicts provincial referendum in 2025

Economy / 11 hours ago

Latest dire predictions about Carney’s emissions cap

Brownstone Institute / 16 hours ago

Hysteria over Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Promise to Make Vaccines Safer

Business

Trump admin cuts funding of Australian universities that promote gender ideology

Published on March 22, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Many researchers appear to feel that they are entitled to American funding regardless of whether the research being funded is in the American or, indeed, even the public interest.

According to the Guardian, the U.S. government has cut off research funding at six Australian universities, including Monash University, Australian National University, the University of Melbourne, the University of Sydney, the University of South Wales, and the University of Western Australia. The reason? The Trump administration has informed researchers that the “temporary” funding pause was due to the new U.S. policy of avoiding “DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” 

These details emerged from a memo sent to one of the universities, which was viewed by the Guardian. It reads: 

Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing Administration priorities, focusing taxpayer dollars to advance a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending ‘wokeness’ and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and Making America Healthy Again. The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve. 

The funding pause comes while each project is vetted via a “comprehensive analysis” to ensure that the president’s executive orders – including those on gender ideology – are being complied with.  

“In the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” the memo stated.  

According to Universities Australia CEO Luke Sheehy, the funding pause indicates a “worrying trend” from the “biggest foreign partner we have” and that the U.S. “is looking like its becoming unreliable.” American funding for research projects amounted to over $400 million in 2024, which is “equivalent to around half the funding the federal [Australian] government provided in research grants via the Australian Research Council.” 

Ironically, the Guardian reported that earlier this month, “the Trump administration was accused of “blatant foreign interference” in Australia’s universities after researchers who receive US funding were sent a questionnaire asking to confirm they aligned with US government interests.” In short, many researchers appear to feel that they are entitled to American funding regardless of whether the research being funded is in the American or, indeed, even the public interest. Some of the research, particularly medical research, clearly qualifies. But the idea that it is “foreign interference” for funders to ask for details on how those funds are being used exposes the extent to which the U.S. taxpayer has been viewed as a cash cow by international institutions. 

The funding cuts aren’t just happening abroad. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has terminated over 500 research grants related to DEI and transgender ideology. Hundreds of National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants, worth over $350 million, have been canceled, including, according to Fox News, projects focusing on “multilevel and multidimensional structural racism,” “gender-affirming therapy in mice,” and “microaggressions.” Other transgender research projects were cancelled as well. 

The criticisms of these cuts, it must be noted, only flow in one direction. When Democrats appoint ideologically aligned personnel to essential posts and ensure that federal funding is directed towards their priorities, this is considered normal. Conversely, when Republicans do so, it is considered a violation of “norms.” In short, “norms” means that regardless of who holds office, progressive priorities continue unabated. The Trump administration appears to have had enough of this double standard.

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump order to close Education Department sparks congressional action, lawsuits

Published on March 22, 2025

By

Members of the Chicago Teachers Union in Springfield at the Illinois State Capitol       Catrina Petersen | The Center Square

From The Center Square

By 

Lawmakers, school advocates and teachers’ unions are taking swift action after President Donald Trump’s executive order to begin dismantling the Department of Education, one of his most controversial moves yet.

Opponents of Trump’s action responded with promises of legal retaliation. But supportive lawmakers may beat them to the chase, with U.S. Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Mike Rounds, R-S.D., each planning to introduce legislation to completely eliminate the department.

“I agree with President Trump that the Department of Education has failed its mission,” Cassidy said. “Since the Department can only be shut down with Congressional approval, I will support the President’s goals by submitting legislation to accomplish this as soon as possible.”

Rounds said he is already discussing legislation with Secretary of Education Linda McMahon “that would return education decisions to states and local school districts while maintaining important programs like special education and Title I.”

Trump already shrunk the department’s workforce to half its size last week. His executive order Thursday directs McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely,” as far as legally possible.

For now, that means the department  like enforcing Title IX and civil rights laws, funding special education and disability programs, and overseeing student loans and Pell grants, Trump said. On Friday, Trump said the Small Business Administration would take over the nation’s student loans.

But the ultimate goal is to redistribute these programs among other federal departments and agencies, which would require congressional approval.

School choice organizations are praising Trump’s plan to eventually eliminate the Education Department as a necessary development that will save taxpayers’ money and return power to states, local governments, and parents.

“These are the first steps towards reforming an American education system that should have always been a state and local proposition,” Parents Defending Education Vice President Sarah Parshall Perry said. “We are looking forward to continuing our mission to empower parents and students in educational environments that are once again value-neutral, and devoid of radical ideologies”

Supporters also point to how the department has spent $3 trillion taxpayer dollars since its creation by congressional legislation in 1979. Meanwhile, U.S. students rank 28 out of 37 member countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and standardized test scores have remained flat for decades.

ACE Scholarships, which provides aid to lower-income K-12 students, said in a statement that the Department of Education’s efforts have been “a wasteful distraction” and that the president’s “new approach” to education “puts children first by increasing choice and empowering parents instead of Washington bureaucrats.”

But public school advocacy organizations and teachers unions are already preparing lawsuits against what they say is an unconstitutional move.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.8 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers, had a simple message for Trump after the executive order: “See you in court.”

The New York-based United Federation of Teachers stated that “we are working with our partners to file lawsuits to stop this executive overreach.”

Democracy Forward, a legal services nonprofit, is also planning to join the fight.

“We will be filing litigation against this action and will use every legal tool to ensure that the rights of students, teachers, and families are fully protected,” President and CEO Skye Perryman stated. “Since Inauguration Day, the Trump-Vance administration has been taken to court more than 100 times, and we will do it again this time.”

Trump opponents argue that dismantling the department will cause property taxes to spike nationwide, strain public school resources and could cause struggling schools to close, expanding class sizes in the remaining schools.

“Beyond the obvious issue that the Education Department can’t be eliminated without an act of Congress, Trump’s order is yet another wild and illicit power grab,” Co-President of Public Citizen Lisa Gilbert said. “Attempting to destroy the cabinet agencies tasked with promoting and improving education isn’t just irresponsible, it is immoral, and will hurt the very fabric of our nation, as we keep generations of students from achieving their full potential.”

The Education department provides roughly 10% of funding for public education, with the vast majority of funding coming from state and local taxes.

The majority of Americans also appear opposed to ending the department, with a Marist poll in early March showing 63% of U.S. residents either oppose or strongly oppose getting rid of the U.S. Department of Education, while 37% of residents either strongly support or support abolishing the department.

Continue Reading

Trending

X