From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew D. Mitchell

President Trump has made deregulation a priority and charged Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency with suggesting ways to cut red tape. Some progressives are cautiously supportive of deregulation. More should be.

From Jimmy Carter to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), progressives once saw the wisdom of cutting red tape — especially if that tape tied the hands of consumers and would-be competitors in order to privilege industry insiders.

After the election, Sen. John Fetterman’s (D-Pa.) former chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, encouraged Democrats to embrace “supply-side progressivism,” calling for “limited deregulation that advances liberal policy goals.” He pointed to successful Democratic candidates like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine), both of whom have raised the alarm about overregulation.

Vice President Kamala Harris recognized that the regulatory state sometimes hurts those whom it is supposed to help. In campaign proposals to address the housing crisis, she vowed to “take down barriers and cut red tape, including at the state and local levels.”

Cautious Democratic support for deregulation may surprise those who think only of the Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) approach. Warren once claimed that “deregulation” was “just a code word for ‘let the rich guys do whatever they want.’”

In reality, regulations often help the rich guys at the expense of consumers and fair competition. New Deal regulations, for example, forced prices up in more than 500 industries, causing consumers to pay more for necessities like food and clothing when a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. Economists have documented similar price-raising regulation in agricultural, finance and urban transportation. In other cases, regulations require customers to buy certain products such as health insurance. Licensing rules protect incumbent service providers in hundreds of occupations despite little evidence that they protect consumers from harm.

More subtly, regulations can protect industry insiders by limiting the quantity of available services. State certificate-of-need laws in health care, for example, limit dozens of medical services in two-thirds of states, raising prices, throttling access, and undermining the quality of care.

That’s one reason why Rhode Island’s Democratic governor wants to reform his state’s certificate-of-need laws.

If you don’t believe that regulations protect big businesses instead of their customers, take a closer look at how firms lobby. In 2012, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association lobbied to maintain a ban on incandescent light bulbs. Why? Because it raised the costs of smaller, rival firms that specialized in making the cheaper bulbs. Local car dealerships lobby to preserve state restrictions on direct car sales, which limit potential competitors that sell online.

In international comparisons, researchers find that heavier regulatory burdens depress productivity growth and contribute to income inequality.

In the U.S., the accumulation of regulations between 1980 and 2012 is estimated to have reduced income per person by about $13,000. Since low-income households tend to spend a greater share of their incomes on highly regulated products, they bear the heaviest burden.

Progressives can help break the symbiotic relationship between special interests and overregulation. Indeed, they’ve often been the first to identify the problem.

Writing a century ago in his book “The New Freedom,” President Woodrow Wilson warned that “regulatory capture” would grow as government itself grew: “If the government is to tell big businessmen how to run their business, then don’t you see that big businessmen have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don’t you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it?”

The capture Wilson warned of took root. By the early 1970s, progressive consumer advocates Mark Green and Ralph Nader were noting that “regulated industries are often in clear control of the regulatory process.” The problem was so acute that President Jimmy Carter tapped economist Alfred Kahn to do something about it.

In his research, Kahn meticulously showed that when “a [regulatory] commission is responsible for the performance of an industry, it is under never completely escapable pressure to protect the health of the companies it regulates.” As head of the Civil Aeronautics Board, Kahn moved to dismantle regulations that sustained anti-consumer airline cartels. Then he helped abolish the board altogether.

Liberals such as Nader and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) supported the move. Kennedy’s top committee lawyer, future Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, later noted that the only ones opposed to deregulation were regulators and industry executives.

Their reform efforts unleashed competitive forces in aviation that had previously been impossible, opening up airline routes, lowering fares and increasing options for consumers.

It’s an embarrassing truth for both Democrats and Republicans that none of Carter’s successors, including Ronald Reagan, have pushed back as much as he did against the regulatory state.

Trump faces an uphill battle. He’ll stand a better chance if progressives acknowledge once again that lower-income Americans stand to gain from deregulation.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Maureen McCall

With U.S. tariffs looming, Premiers push for border security, pipelines, and interprovincial trade reform

After more than eight years of federal policies that have challenged the oil and gas industry, imagining Canadian energy policy in a post-Trudeau era is no easy task.

However, recent meetings addressing the threat of United States tariffs may offer hope for revisiting energy policies through provincial collaboration.

The January 2025 Council of the Federation meetings, attended by all 13 provincial and territorial premiers, produced several key value propositions.

• After spending a week in Washington, D.C., meeting with Donald Trump and his administration, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith highlighted the provinces’ resource strengths.
• British Columbia can leverage germanium—a critical mineral essential in defence applications that China will no longer export to the U.S.
• Saskatchewan’s uranium supply offers an alternative to reliance on Kazakhstan and Russia.
• Canadian provinces can provide resources that align with U.S. energy goals.

Any provincial initiatives must also address U.S. priorities, including tighter border security and increased defence spending.

To meet U.S. energy security needs, Canada must remove policy barriers hindering development. Policies like the Clean Energy Regulations (CER), the emissions cap, and the net-zero vehicle mandate (starting January 2026) are significant challenges. Provinces must collaborate to amend or remove these policies, ensuring they do not survive the next federal election. Alberta and Saskatchewan have already opposed the CER, and the proposed emissions cap remains under review.

The federal government acknowledges that these policies must be re-evaluated to avoid obstructing shared energy goals, including:

• carbon pollution pricing
• methane regulations
• clean fuel standards
• carbon capture incentives
• emissions reduction funding
• clean growth programs
• best-in-class guidelines for new oil and gas projects under federal review.

The U.S.’s energy deficit—20 million barrels consumed daily versus 13 million produced—creates an opportunity for Canada. Achieving this requires dismantling interprovincial trade barriers and developing infrastructure projects from coast to coast. The Council meetings have initiated such collaboration, with ongoing bilateral discussions expected. Infrastructure projects like pipelines to the East and West coasts would enable Canada to supply the U.S. and other global markets, reducing reliance on hostile regimes.

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey stated: “I see energy as Canada’s queen in the game of chess. We don’t need to expose our queen this early. The opposition needs to know that the queen exists, but they don’t need to know what we’re going to do with the queen.”

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have rejected measures that would affect Canada’s energy exports to the U.S.

“When you look at the pipeline system, how oil is actually transported into the U.S. and back into Canada,” Moe said, “it would be very difficult, and I think impossible operationally to even consider.” Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew emphasized the importance of national unity, stating that energy decisions must not fracture the country. Ontario Premier Doug Ford warned that tariffs could cost Ontario 500,000 jobs, while P.E.I. Premier Dennis King noted that tariffs could cost 25 per cent of P.E.I.’s GDP and 14,000 jobs—a catastrophic loss for the province.

The Council meetings highlighted three key priorities:

• Demonstrate Canada’s commitment to border security and meet its two per cent GDP NATO target.
• Build oil and gas pipelines east and west to diversify markets and remove interprovincial trade barriers, enabling a stronger national economy.
• Secure provincial consent before imposing export tariffs or restrictions that could harm individual provinces.

This emerging consensus underscores that Canada’s energy future depends on proactive, constructive diplomacy with U.S. lawmakers, supported by a unified provincial front and practical energy policies that benefit both nations.

Maureen McCall is an energy business analyst and Fellow at the Frontier Center for Public Policy. She writes on energy issues for EnergyNow and the BOE Report. She has 20 years of experience as a business analyst for national and international energy companies in Canada.