Agree completely with your assessment of the way it is versus the hype. Of course those committed to the hype can’t or won’t see the forest for the trees, but that is to be expected. Thanks for your work.
Thanks Dougald. Always an interesting read. Perhaps you have some insights on this particular area of impediment to interprovincial trade? I'm in the building industry and have been frustrated for years with:
1. separate licensing by Provinces for professions like Engineers, Architects, healthcare professionals, teachers all while each profession has a national association. This hampers mobility for professionals by adding cost, discourages collaboration (which we need more of) and adds significant costs to projects with added complexity to procurement.
2. Provincial Building Codes - the NRC working with industry updates the National Building Codes every 5 years. This is then adopted by Provinces/Territories through Legislation and then Provinces draft their own codes based on the National code. Insanity!!
I've been on both the public & private sector side and the frustrations are shared by both.
These professions should follow the Construction Association's Red Seal Program that licences Journeyman to practice across the country. (Quebec has slightly added requirements for French) Codes, construction, various engineering and architecture knowledge requirements do not change by geography (I have an Architecture degree from the UofM).
This Provincial impediment is particularly egregious as all these professions/industries are experiencing worker shortages due to a demographic shift. This may/may not be the same regulatory nightmare for other industries? As far as motor vehicles are concerned, when a vehicle crosses provincial borders, there should not be more/less regulation. Road & vehicle safety doesn't change. Perhaps Provinces simply need to invest in more inspectors and work together more closely??
I do certainly share your views of neoclassical applied economics and follow Steve Keen as well. Economically, the building industry has also been assaulted by Private Equity financing which has allowed housing to become a commodity seeking higher profits above all else. This is also a global issue.
There are many challenges - economic and otherwise however, collaboration has always resulted in greater successes for everyone rather than competition - even in the building industry. Is it possible to over regulate governments or politicians? Not likely.
The issue is that these are all areas of provincial jurisdiction as set out in the constitution, and changing it would require a change to the constitution.
For example, as part of an international agreement to fight tax evasion and money laundering, the Federal Government required provinces to set up registries of beneficial owners of companies. At the federal level, it's public and searchable. Manitoba and most other provinces have refused to follow suit, passing a bill that was useless instead.
So, while there are national organizations, it's still always up to the provinces to pass legislation, which they may ignore, and that provincial governments themselves are supposed to look after the best interests of their residents, and part of the issue is that when you change the regulatory landscape, it changes the playing field in ways that have real economic impacts (positive and negative) for workers, families, business, communities, and the economy.
I spoke to someone who said that Manitoba benefits from regulating its own health care professionals, because national regulation means we would likely faces losses when we already have shortages.
The other is that there are lots of provinces and politicians who are ideologically opposed to better regulation, even if it leads to safer and better long-term outcomes, because cutting corners - even important ones - costs more. So there is pressure from interest groups to not to regulate or to deregulate, because they are legislating in their own interest, not that of the public.
The thing is, when I read non-academic reports pushing for trade, they tend to emphasize sound-bitey "dumb regulations" about different sized toilet seats instead of focusing on the problem areas where you would get the biggest bang for your buck, which would be harmonized standards in transport and finance (which I name because they are already operating across provincial borders all the time).
This was really insightful- thank you! I knew… pretty much none of this? (The trouble of distance I had figured out on my own but the rest was new!) This is well researched and well explained and… well not snappy or sound bitey so I guess that’s why we don’t hear this viewpoint umm… ever.
Appreciate your impressive insights here. Any thoughts on Mark Carney’s claim that the now-cancelled capital gains tax increases for the super wealthy would somehow impede innovation? Just a poorly written speech or is he going full trickledown? (Never go full trickledown)
I wrote another article about it. It won’t. It’s targeting speculation that has been driving housing and affordability crisis and tax avoidance by tech bros.
Dougald I believe important thing to recognize all Canadians will benefit from getting products moving between provinces. BC wines to Ontario and vice versa. I see a lot of Quebec, Ontario, and Maritime products I would gladly order online rather than go to Amazon. I don’t think I’m alone in that mindset.
There is virtually nothing stopping Canadians from buying from one another right now. The major issue is not trade barriers, it's distance.
People can and should buy Canadian, but it does not take any new free trade agreements to make that happen, and there is no way it is going to result in $200-billion in growth.
Ontario and BC can agree to stock wine from each other, but unless people are buying more of it, it's not growth. On the macro level, it is a wash.
Anybody can write and rant and give speeches but very few can defend their point of view in a debate. When you write you are merely defeating the strong men in your head. It means nothing if you are afraid to test your ideas in debate.
you say it is content free but you did not say a single word about the difference between writing ranting and preaching, and debating. Anyone can write rant and preach because the only opponent you face is the strawman in your head. Debating is much more rigorous because you have to challenge a legitimate person with a legitimate point of view. Do you understand this now? Unfortunately for you the Internet has made preaching far less useful to those of us actually seeking the truth.
Debates are usually more about oratory skills than getting points across. They are necessary and helpful but hardly comprehensive. I’ve seen more people ‘win’ debates with useless platitudes and snippy come backs than reasoned discussion.
I think there’s a place for both but I’d rather someone put together a well thought out rebuttal to this.
writing ranting and preaching is simply winning a debate against the strawman in your head. It means nothing. Debating is actually testing your ideas in the real world. Does it make sense now?
Debates aren’t any more a test than writing an article. A good debate can help illustrate a point but can just as easily get bogged down by lies and talking points just as badly as ranting in an article.
I have no problem with using debates to form an opinion but I am saying there is a place for writing articles as well and I see more sources here than most although I admit the articles do get long and sometimes sound like a rant.
You are also making an assumption that he hasn’t. I short internet search would show who he is and given his history he definitely has debated quite often and isn’t afraid to. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s done with that for now though.
You say he is not afraid to debate. I just read his article on Milton Friedman. it was laughably sophomoric. it is interesting to read though to watch the way he aggressively and confidently pretends he is debating with other experts even though he is carefully cherry picking those experts wildly out of context . his total confidence is on full display as he methodically defeats the experts who exist only as strawman in his head. This is a man totally afraid of real debate and for good reason.
I think you are missing the point. In a debate your opponent is free to say you are lying and present the reason for his assertion. When someone is writing on his own there is no one to correct him.
Wow you write a lot for a left-winger. Is there one central point that you're willing to debate or do you always hide behind pages and pages of rambling text?
I actually find that his articles are less rambling text and more explanation of his reasoning and giving quotations from sources. They may be overlong but I appreciate that he shows his work and it isn’t pointless rambling that I quite often see. It gives me context and allows me to decide whether I agree or not.
The numbers here simply don’t matter—internal free trade is a no brainer, something the American founders and economists that inspired them recognized 300 years ago, and it will absolutely have material benefits.
You say that a domestic economy cannot grow without investment, but allowing more goods to be sold across the country will increase the amount of possible investments and incentivize the turning of idle money into working money. There is a clear and obvious mechanism by which lifting trade barriers increases investment.
It is frankly absurd and insane to learn that Canada has such barriers in place today. Regardless of the final cost benefit, which can only be known through implementation, the barriers should be lifted.
The numbers that show there are NO barriers, because Canada already has internal free trade?
You’re saying that there will be material benefits from removing something that doesn’t exist.
These aren’t free trade agreements, because tariffs are already zero, and it’s not about growing the market with new Canadian companies, it’s about competition among existing companies for the same dollars.
Allowing more British Columbia wine to be sold in Ontario just displaces one product with another, which makes it a zero sum game.
You don’t have the first clue what you are talking about. You’re quoting economic fairy tales at me.
Look, if there are no barriers to trade, then obviously they can’t be lifted. I don’t think you are making a super good faith argument about “barriers to trade” not existing, though, because these are far broader than tariffs.
Assuming the economists that wrote about the $200 billion are correct about some barriers existing, then yes, the numbers don’t matter—removing the barriers (whether direct or indirect), streamlining regulation, etc, all of this will lead to economic growth. The correctness of the exact number is imo far besides the point. It is a good thing to do.
You are unfortunately wrong that economic growth cannot occur in a closed system, such as a country. The world is a closed system, it grows all the same, and removing barriers to trade promotes that growth. Whether at the global or national level, economics is never zero sum.
Insulting your way through an argument is unbecoming and counterproductive to persuasion, by the way.
You also have to consider the new revenue generated from new business due to the adjustment. Countries thrived alone before globalization and they will again.
Great read. Full of research and understanding. I agree with you about asset prices are really inflated. No one asked where the extra money prompted by COVID would end up. Businesses needed to be saved and it had to be done. But nothing is done to reverse its course. The hyper concentration of wealth needs to be taxed. The rich did not get there on their own. It was built along with an education system that support its workers, infrastructure to move goods, health care for their workers, police and fire protection, etc. It would be fair if they would see it as an re-investment and operational costs to their business in a form of a tax.
Isn't 200 Billion the number Trump throws around that no one knows the origin of?
When the tariff talk got serious and interprovincial trade first hit the news I told a friend he's going to see a lot of talk about it. He asked how could there be that much savings? Shrug, I don't know but we'll be hearing a lot about it.
I could see some economies of scale if say Saskatchewan and Manitoba didn't each need to support every single government agency. This won't change in my lifetime but maybe they will continue to cooperate more.
Excellent explanation of why we don't want to be a petro state.
Anyone with access to a map should appreciate why we want to trade with people so close. After moving from Saskatchewan to south east Ontario it was so much more obvious there was so much more of America that is closer to me than most of Canada. I really consider my little world to be about a 6 hour drive from my house and that includes NYC, Boston, Philadelphia...This year we are making a point of taking our summer vacation in Ontario and Quebec but it would be really hard to ignore all the destinations just south of me.
Agree completely with your assessment of the way it is versus the hype. Of course those committed to the hype can’t or won’t see the forest for the trees, but that is to be expected. Thanks for your work.
Thanks Dougald. Always an interesting read. Perhaps you have some insights on this particular area of impediment to interprovincial trade? I'm in the building industry and have been frustrated for years with:
1. separate licensing by Provinces for professions like Engineers, Architects, healthcare professionals, teachers all while each profession has a national association. This hampers mobility for professionals by adding cost, discourages collaboration (which we need more of) and adds significant costs to projects with added complexity to procurement.
2. Provincial Building Codes - the NRC working with industry updates the National Building Codes every 5 years. This is then adopted by Provinces/Territories through Legislation and then Provinces draft their own codes based on the National code. Insanity!!
I've been on both the public & private sector side and the frustrations are shared by both.
These professions should follow the Construction Association's Red Seal Program that licences Journeyman to practice across the country. (Quebec has slightly added requirements for French) Codes, construction, various engineering and architecture knowledge requirements do not change by geography (I have an Architecture degree from the UofM).
This Provincial impediment is particularly egregious as all these professions/industries are experiencing worker shortages due to a demographic shift. This may/may not be the same regulatory nightmare for other industries? As far as motor vehicles are concerned, when a vehicle crosses provincial borders, there should not be more/less regulation. Road & vehicle safety doesn't change. Perhaps Provinces simply need to invest in more inspectors and work together more closely??
I do certainly share your views of neoclassical applied economics and follow Steve Keen as well. Economically, the building industry has also been assaulted by Private Equity financing which has allowed housing to become a commodity seeking higher profits above all else. This is also a global issue.
There are many challenges - economic and otherwise however, collaboration has always resulted in greater successes for everyone rather than competition - even in the building industry. Is it possible to over regulate governments or politicians? Not likely.
The issue is that these are all areas of provincial jurisdiction as set out in the constitution, and changing it would require a change to the constitution.
For example, as part of an international agreement to fight tax evasion and money laundering, the Federal Government required provinces to set up registries of beneficial owners of companies. At the federal level, it's public and searchable. Manitoba and most other provinces have refused to follow suit, passing a bill that was useless instead.
So, while there are national organizations, it's still always up to the provinces to pass legislation, which they may ignore, and that provincial governments themselves are supposed to look after the best interests of their residents, and part of the issue is that when you change the regulatory landscape, it changes the playing field in ways that have real economic impacts (positive and negative) for workers, families, business, communities, and the economy.
I spoke to someone who said that Manitoba benefits from regulating its own health care professionals, because national regulation means we would likely faces losses when we already have shortages.
The other is that there are lots of provinces and politicians who are ideologically opposed to better regulation, even if it leads to safer and better long-term outcomes, because cutting corners - even important ones - costs more. So there is pressure from interest groups to not to regulate or to deregulate, because they are legislating in their own interest, not that of the public.
The thing is, when I read non-academic reports pushing for trade, they tend to emphasize sound-bitey "dumb regulations" about different sized toilet seats instead of focusing on the problem areas where you would get the biggest bang for your buck, which would be harmonized standards in transport and finance (which I name because they are already operating across provincial borders all the time).
This was really insightful- thank you! I knew… pretty much none of this? (The trouble of distance I had figured out on my own but the rest was new!) This is well researched and well explained and… well not snappy or sound bitey so I guess that’s why we don’t hear this viewpoint umm… ever.
Thank you very much. I am a born contrarian.
Appreciate your impressive insights here. Any thoughts on Mark Carney’s claim that the now-cancelled capital gains tax increases for the super wealthy would somehow impede innovation? Just a poorly written speech or is he going full trickledown? (Never go full trickledown)
I wrote another article about it. It won’t. It’s targeting speculation that has been driving housing and affordability crisis and tax avoidance by tech bros.
Blah blah blah. It is still a good direction for Canada.
What a pointlessly rude response. There are no measurable barriers. There is no direction to go in because there is no benefit.
Dougald I believe important thing to recognize all Canadians will benefit from getting products moving between provinces. BC wines to Ontario and vice versa. I see a lot of Quebec, Ontario, and Maritime products I would gladly order online rather than go to Amazon. I don’t think I’m alone in that mindset.
There is virtually nothing stopping Canadians from buying from one another right now. The major issue is not trade barriers, it's distance.
People can and should buy Canadian, but it does not take any new free trade agreements to make that happen, and there is no way it is going to result in $200-billion in growth.
Ontario and BC can agree to stock wine from each other, but unless people are buying more of it, it's not growth. On the macro level, it is a wash.
Anybody can write and rant and give speeches but very few can defend their point of view in a debate. When you write you are merely defeating the strong men in your head. It means nothing if you are afraid to test your ideas in debate.
That’s a content-free statement.
you say it is content free but you did not say a single word about the difference between writing ranting and preaching, and debating. Anyone can write rant and preach because the only opponent you face is the strawman in your head. Debating is much more rigorous because you have to challenge a legitimate person with a legitimate point of view. Do you understand this now? Unfortunately for you the Internet has made preaching far less useful to those of us actually seeking the truth.
Debates are usually more about oratory skills than getting points across. They are necessary and helpful but hardly comprehensive. I’ve seen more people ‘win’ debates with useless platitudes and snippy come backs than reasoned discussion.
I think there’s a place for both but I’d rather someone put together a well thought out rebuttal to this.
writing ranting and preaching is simply winning a debate against the strawman in your head. It means nothing. Debating is actually testing your ideas in the real world. Does it make sense now?
Debates aren’t any more a test than writing an article. A good debate can help illustrate a point but can just as easily get bogged down by lies and talking points just as badly as ranting in an article.
I have no problem with using debates to form an opinion but I am saying there is a place for writing articles as well and I see more sources here than most although I admit the articles do get long and sometimes sound like a rant.
You are also making an assumption that he hasn’t. I short internet search would show who he is and given his history he definitely has debated quite often and isn’t afraid to. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s done with that for now though.
You say he is not afraid to debate. I just read his article on Milton Friedman. it was laughably sophomoric. it is interesting to read though to watch the way he aggressively and confidently pretends he is debating with other experts even though he is carefully cherry picking those experts wildly out of context . his total confidence is on full display as he methodically defeats the experts who exist only as strawman in his head. This is a man totally afraid of real debate and for good reason.
I think you are missing the point. In a debate your opponent is free to say you are lying and present the reason for his assertion. When someone is writing on his own there is no one to correct him.
Wow you write a lot for a left-winger. Is there one central point that you're willing to debate or do you always hide behind pages and pages of rambling text?
I actually find that his articles are less rambling text and more explanation of his reasoning and giving quotations from sources. They may be overlong but I appreciate that he shows his work and it isn’t pointless rambling that I quite often see. It gives me context and allows me to decide whether I agree or not.
The numbers here simply don’t matter—internal free trade is a no brainer, something the American founders and economists that inspired them recognized 300 years ago, and it will absolutely have material benefits.
You say that a domestic economy cannot grow without investment, but allowing more goods to be sold across the country will increase the amount of possible investments and incentivize the turning of idle money into working money. There is a clear and obvious mechanism by which lifting trade barriers increases investment.
It is frankly absurd and insane to learn that Canada has such barriers in place today. Regardless of the final cost benefit, which can only be known through implementation, the barriers should be lifted.
The numbers don’t matter?
The numbers that show there are NO barriers, because Canada already has internal free trade?
You’re saying that there will be material benefits from removing something that doesn’t exist.
These aren’t free trade agreements, because tariffs are already zero, and it’s not about growing the market with new Canadian companies, it’s about competition among existing companies for the same dollars.
Allowing more British Columbia wine to be sold in Ontario just displaces one product with another, which makes it a zero sum game.
You don’t have the first clue what you are talking about. You’re quoting economic fairy tales at me.
Look, if there are no barriers to trade, then obviously they can’t be lifted. I don’t think you are making a super good faith argument about “barriers to trade” not existing, though, because these are far broader than tariffs.
Assuming the economists that wrote about the $200 billion are correct about some barriers existing, then yes, the numbers don’t matter—removing the barriers (whether direct or indirect), streamlining regulation, etc, all of this will lead to economic growth. The correctness of the exact number is imo far besides the point. It is a good thing to do.
You are unfortunately wrong that economic growth cannot occur in a closed system, such as a country. The world is a closed system, it grows all the same, and removing barriers to trade promotes that growth. Whether at the global or national level, economics is never zero sum.
Insulting your way through an argument is unbecoming and counterproductive to persuasion, by the way.
You also have to consider the new revenue generated from new business due to the adjustment. Countries thrived alone before globalization and they will again.
Great read. Full of research and understanding. I agree with you about asset prices are really inflated. No one asked where the extra money prompted by COVID would end up. Businesses needed to be saved and it had to be done. But nothing is done to reverse its course. The hyper concentration of wealth needs to be taxed. The rich did not get there on their own. It was built along with an education system that support its workers, infrastructure to move goods, health care for their workers, police and fire protection, etc. It would be fair if they would see it as an re-investment and operational costs to their business in a form of a tax.
Isn't 200 Billion the number Trump throws around that no one knows the origin of?
When the tariff talk got serious and interprovincial trade first hit the news I told a friend he's going to see a lot of talk about it. He asked how could there be that much savings? Shrug, I don't know but we'll be hearing a lot about it.
I could see some economies of scale if say Saskatchewan and Manitoba didn't each need to support every single government agency. This won't change in my lifetime but maybe they will continue to cooperate more.
Excellent explanation of why we don't want to be a petro state.
Anyone with access to a map should appreciate why we want to trade with people so close. After moving from Saskatchewan to south east Ontario it was so much more obvious there was so much more of America that is closer to me than most of Canada. I really consider my little world to be about a 6 hour drive from my house and that includes NYC, Boston, Philadelphia...This year we are making a point of taking our summer vacation in Ontario and Quebec but it would be really hard to ignore all the destinations just south of me.
PP WET DREAM!