Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

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

Published

7 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Zinchuk

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

It Took Trump To Get Canada Serious About Free Trade With Itself

Published on

From the  Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Trump’s protectionism has jolted Canada into finally beginning to tear down interprovincial trade barriers

The threat of Donald Trump’s tariffs and the potential collapse of North American free trade have prompted Canada to look inward. With international trade under pressure, the country is—at last—taking meaningful steps to improve trade within its borders.

Canada’s Constitution gives provinces control over many key economic levers. While Ottawa manages international trade, the provinces regulate licensing, certification and procurement rules. These fragmented regulations have long acted as internal trade barriers, forcing companies and professionals to navigate duplicate approval processes when operating across provincial lines.

These restrictions increase costs, delay projects and limit job opportunities for businesses and workers. For consumers, they mean higher prices and fewer choices. Economists estimate that these barriers hold back up to $200 billion of Canada’s economy annually, roughly eight per cent of the country’s GDP.

Ironically, it wasn’t until after Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement that it began to address domestic trade restrictions. In 1994, the first ministers signed the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT), committing to equal treatment of bidders on provincial and municipal contracts. Subsequent regional agreements, such as Alberta and British Columbia’s Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement in 2007, and the New West Partnership that followed, expanded cooperation to include broader credential recognition and enforceable dispute resolution.

In 2017, the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) replaced the AIT to streamline trade among provinces and territories. While more ambitious in scope, the CFTA’s effectiveness has been limited by a patchwork of exemptions and slow implementation.

Now, however, Trump’s protectionism has reignited momentum to fix the problem. In recent months, provincial and territorial labour market ministers met with their federal counterpart to strengthen the CFTA. Their goal: to remove longstanding barriers and unlock the full potential of Canada’s internal market.

According to a March 5 CFTA press release, five governments have agreed to eliminate 40 exemptions they previously claimed for themselves. A June 1 deadline has been set to produce an action plan for nationwide mutual recognition of professional credentials. Ministers are also working on the mutual recognition of consumer goods, excluding food, so that if a product is approved for sale in one province, it can be sold anywhere in Canada without added red tape.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has signalled that his province won’t wait for consensus. Ontario is dropping all its CFTA exemptions, allowing medical professionals to begin practising while awaiting registration with provincial regulators.

Ontario has partnered with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to implement mutual recognition of goods, services and registered workers. These provinces have also enabled direct-to-consumer alcohol sales, letting individuals purchase alcohol directly from producers for personal consumption.

A joint CFTA statement says other provinces intend to follow suit, except Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador.

These developments are long overdue. Confederation happened more than 150 years ago, and prohibition ended more than a century ago, yet Canadians still face barriers when trying to buy a bottle of wine from another province or find work across a provincial line.

Perhaps now, Canada will finally become the economic union it was always meant to be. Few would thank Donald Trump, but without his tariffs, this renewed urgency to break down internal trade barriers might never have emerged.

Lee Harding is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Low oil prices could have big consequences for Alberta’s finances

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Amid the tariff war, the price of West Texas Intermediate oil—a common benchmark—recently dropped below US$60 per barrel. Given every $1 drop in oil prices is an estimated $750 million hit to provincial revenues, if oil prices remain low for long, there could be big implications for Alberta’s budget.

The Smith government already projects a $5.2 billion budget deficit in 2025/26 with continued deficits over the following two years. This year’s deficit is based on oil prices averaging US$68.00 per barrel. While the budget does include a $4 billion “contingency” for unforeseen events, given the economic and fiscal impact of Trump’s tariffs, it could quickly be eaten up.

Budget deficits come with costs for Albertans, who will already pay a projected $600 each in provincial government debt interest in 2025/26. That’s money that could have gone towards health care and education, or even tax relief.

Unfortunately, this is all part of the resource revenue rollercoaster that’s are all too familiar to Albertans.

Resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is inherently volatile. In the last 10 years alone, it has been as high as $25.2 billion in 2022/23 and as low as $2.8 billion in 2015/16. The provincial government typically enjoys budget surpluses—and increases government spending—when oil prices and resource revenue is relatively high, but is thrown into deficits when resource revenues inevitably fall.

Fortunately, the Smith government can mitigate this volatility.

The key is limiting the level of resource revenue included in the budget to a set stable amount. Any resource revenue above that stable amount is automatically saved in a rainy-day fund to be withdrawn to maintain that stable amount in the budget during years of relatively low resource revenue. The logic is simple: save during the good times so you can weather the storm during bad times.

Indeed, if the Smith government had created a rainy-day account in 2023, for example, it could have already built up a sizeable fund to help stabilize the budget when resource revenue declines. While the Smith government has deposited some money in the Heritage Fund in recent years, it has not created a dedicated rainy-day account or introduced a similar mechanism to help stabilize provincial finances.

Limiting the amount of resource revenue in the budget, particularly during times of relatively high resource revenue, also tempers demand for higher spending, which is only fiscally sustainable with permanently high resource revenues. In other words, if the government creates a rainy-day account, spending would become more closely align with stable ongoing levels of revenue.

And it’s not too late. To end the boom-bust cycle and finally help stabilize provincial finances, the Smith government should create a rainy-day account.

Continue Reading

Trending

X