Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Economy

Next federal government should discard harmful energy policies—tariffs notwithstanding

Published

1 day ago

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Over the last decade, the Trudeau government missed countless opportunities to reduce Canada’s heavy reliance on the United States and instead introduced regulatory hurdles that hindered our energy sector and limited access to new markets

While the full extent of the damage from President Trump’s trade war remains unknowns, Canadians should understand that, with a federal election looming, shortsighted policies here at home have left Canada in a vulnerable position.

Oil and gas are Canada’s main exports and the U.S. is their primary destination. In 2023, nearly 97 per cent of Canada’s oil exports went to our southern neighbour, and the U.S. is our sole foreign market for our natural gas. This concentration of exports to a single destination has given the U.S. significant leverage. For example, Canada exports natural gas at discounted prices—up to 60 per cent lower than what American producers receive in U.S. markets. Similarly, our oil has been sold for less than what U.S. producers receive, with price differences exceeding 40 per cent in recent years. Selling our energy at discounted prices to the U.S. has cost Canadians tens of billions of dollars in lost revenues.

And yet, over the last decade, the Trudeau government missed countless opportunities to reduce Canada’s heavy reliance on the United States and instead introduced regulatory hurdles that hindered our energy sector and limited access to new markets. To unleash Canada’s oil and gas sector, the next government must reverse a whole set of harmful energy policies.

For example, the Northern Gateway pipeline designed to transport crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast. In 2016, one year after taking office, the Trudeau government cancelled this previously approved $7.9 billion project, which would have greatly expanded Canada’s access to Asian markets.

Then there’s the Energy East and Eastern Mainline pipelines from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the east coast. The Trudeau government effectively made the project economically unfeasible by introducing new regulatory hurdles, ultimately forcing the TransCanada energy company to withdraw from the project, which would have expanded access to European markets.

The record is equally bleak for liquified natural gas (LNG) export facilities, which could open access to overseas markets. Regulatory barriers and long approval timelines under the Trudeau government significantly hindered the development of the Énergie Saguenay LNG project in Quebec, the Repsol LNG plant in New Brunswick and the Pacific NorthWest LNG facility in B.C.

And when opportunity knocked to diversify our trading partners, the government failed to seize it. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, political leaders from Latvia, Ukraine, Germany, Greece and Poland turned to Canada seeking new LNG supply, but Trudeau insisted there was “no business case for LNG” and missed the chance to open new markets.

Finally, the Trudeau government’s Bill C-69 created massive uncertainty in project reviews and approvals by introducing vague assessment criteria including “gender implications” for major energy projects including pipelines and LNG export facilities. In fact, according to a recent report, which analyzed 25 major projects that entered the federal government’s review process between 2019 and 2023, almost every project submission remained stuck in the early stages (phase 1 or 2) of the four-phase process, underscoring the inefficiency of the review process.

Meanwhile, the Trudeau government’s Bill C-48 restricts Canadian exports to Asia by banning large oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast. And its targeted emissions cap, which requires only the oil and gas sector to cut greenhouse gases by 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030, is designed to curtail energy production, further limiting Canada’s ability to meet global energy demands.

During the upcoming election campaign, Canadians should demand to hear how (or if) each party will remove barriers that hinder the development of energy projects and streamline approvals to unlock Canada’s untapped potential. Tariffs or not, Canada can’t afford to keep undermining its key export sector with regulatory barriers.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, 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
2025 Federal Election / 3 hours ago

It’s on! Federal Election called for April 28

COVID-19 / 4 hours ago

10 Shocking Stories the Media Buried This Week

David Clinton / 5 hours ago

You’re Actually Voting for THEM? But why?

Agriculture

It’s time to end supply management

Published on March 23, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Ending Canada’s dairy supply management system would lower costs, boost exports, and create greater economic opportunities.

The Trump administration’s trade warfare is not all bad. Aside from spurring overdue interprovincial trade barrier elimination and the removal of obstacles to energy corridors, it has also spotlighted Canada’s dairy supply management system.

The existing marketing board structure is a major hindrance to Canada’s efforts to increase non-U.S. trade and improve its dismal productivity growth rate—crucial to reviving stagnant living standards. Ending it would lower consumer costs, make dairy farming more dynamic, innovative and export-oriented, and create opportunities for overseas trade deals.

Politicians sold supply management to Canadians to ensure affordable milk and dairy products for consumers without costing taxpayers anything—while avoiding unsightly dumping surplus milk or sudden price spikes. While the government has not paid dairy farmers directly, consumers have paid more at the supermarket than their U.S. neighbours for decades.

An October 2023 C.D. Howe Institute analysis showed that, over five years, the Canadian price for four litres of partly skimmed milk generally exceeded the U.S. price (converted to Canadian dollars) by more than a dollar, sometimes significantly more, and rarely less.

A 2014 study conducted by the University of Manitoba, published in 2015, found that lower-income households bore an extra burden of 2.3 per cent of their income above the estimated cost for free-market-determined dairy and poultry products (i.e., vs. non-supply management), amounting to $339 in 2014 dollars ($435 in current dollars). Higher-income households paid an additional 0.5 per cent of their income, or $554 annually in 2014 dollars ($712 today).

One of the pillars of the current system is production control, enforced by production quotas for every dairy farm. These quotas only gradually rise annually, despite abundant production capacity. As a result, millions of litres of milk are dumped in some years, according to a 2022 article by the Montreal Economic Institute.

Beyond production control, minimum price enforcement further entrenches inefficiency. Prices are set based on estimated production costs rather than market forces, keeping consumer costs high and limiting competition.

Import restrictions are the final pillar. They ensure foreign producers do not undercut domestic ones. Jaime Castaneda, executive vice-president of the U.S. National Milk Producers Federation, complained that the official 2.86 per cent non-tariffed Canadian import limit was not reached due to non-tariff barriers. Canadian tariffs of over 250 per cent apply to imports exceeding quotas from the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA, or USMCA).

Dairy import protection obstructs efforts to reach more trade deals. Defending this system forces Canada to extend protection to foreign partners’ favoured industries. Affected sectors include several where Canada is competitive, such as machinery and devices, chemicals and plastics, and pharmaceuticals and medical products. This impedes efforts to increase non-U.S. exports of goods and services. Diverse and growing overseas exports are essential to reducing vulnerability to hostile U.S. trade policy.

It may require paying dairy farmers several billion dollars to transition from supply management—though this cartel-determined “market” value is dubious, as the current inflation-adjusted book value is much lower—but the cost to consumers and the economy is greater. New Zealand successfully evolved from a similar import-protected dairy industry into a vast global exporter. Canada must transform to excel. The current system limits Canada’s freedom to find greener pastures.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Business

A Look at Canada’s Import Tariffs

Published on March 23, 2025

By

  By David Clinton

Speaking of foreign tariffs, Canada’s hands are not exactly clean

It’s one thing to oppose the various iterations of recently threatened U.S. tariffs: many of those carry the potential to inflict serious harm on Canada and Canadians and we’re right to be nervous. However, whether or not Canada’s many external-facing policies use the term tariff in their titles, we have more than a few protectionist trade barriers of our own. I thought it would be useful to list some of Canada’s more obvious protectionist policies.

Unfortunately, one thing these examples lack is context. It’s no secret that international trade is complicated. Some of the trade barriers I’m going to describe are policy responses to legitimate safety issues. And, even among those restrictions that were designed to protect local industries, I couldn’t usefully estimate whether there are enough of them to define our total trade ecosystem.Nevertheless, here’s what I did find.The Customs Tariff Act governs Canada’s import tariffs. All goods entering Canada from countries on the Most-Favored-Nation list that aren’t eligible for lower rates through trade agreements are subject to tariff charges as high as 17 percent. Here are some practical cases of imports from the U.S. that aren’t covered by the CUSMA trade agreement:

  • U.S. t-shirts using imported fabric could face an 18 percent tariff, adding $18,000 to a $100,000 shipment.
  • A $30,000 U.S.-assembled car with Asian parts incurs $1,830 in duties.
  • $50,000 of U.S. strawberries could face $4,250 in seasonal duties if applied.
  • $200,000 of steel wire from the U.S. could face $108,000 in extra anti-dumping duties.

Canada’s supply management system for dairy, poultry, and eggs is a notorious example of a policy that looks, walks, and quacks just like a duck an import tariff. Supply management is governed by a combination of federal and provincial laws, including the Export and Import Permits Act and the Farm Products Agencies Act. Regulations can hit over-quota imported cheese with rates as high as 245.5 percent and chicken can be taxed at 238 percent. And that’s assuming you somehow manage to score an import permit from Global Affairs Canada.The Canadian Food Inspection Agency enforces strict sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that often require layers of inspections or certification requirements that can significantly raise compliance costs. The differences between some of those requirements and an economic tariff are not always obvious.The Canada Border Services Agency collects an excise tax on imported liquor. For example, a U.S. exporter looking to ship 100 litres of 40 percent ABV whiskey to Canada will face a duty of $467.84 (100 × 0.4 × $11.696). That duty must be paid by the importer.In addition, various provincial liquor control boards apply fees and markup costs on imported alcohol, which effectively create price barriers for foreign products (when they’re even allowed on store shelves).Book Importation Regulations limit parallel imports of foreign editions in order to protect Canadian publishers. I assume this is why so many major international publishing companies maintain Canadian offices and, on paper at least (so to speak), publish special Canadian editions.The various Canadian Content (CanCon) rules governing broadcast media will also undermine the principle of free trade, even if those rules won’t necessarily increase import costs.Here are some examples of regulatory compliance rules that aren’t always just about safety:

  • Electrical product safety certification rules sometimes requires foreign electronics manufacturers to repeat testing despite already having UL certification, adding 3-6 months to market entry.
  • US medical device companies can face duplication of regulatory submissions and maintenance of separate quality systems due to Health Canada requirements.
  • Chemical manufacturers must submit detailed testing data specific to Canadian requirements in order to register their products.
  • Small US food producers must implement separate packaging lines for Canadian-bound products to satisfy nutrition labeling requirements.

This isn’t to say there’s necessarily anything morally wrong with any of those rules. And, as I noted, I’m not sure whether Canada’s overall trade profile is more restrictive than our international peers. But, when faced with foreign tariffs, it can’t be said that Canada’s hands are perfectly clean.

Subscribe to The Audit. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Continue Reading

Trending

X