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).
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.
Very impressed and appreciative of your determination to tie facts to economics theory and assertion. I could hear echoes on my mind as I read the piece.
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.
Whether it solves all our problems or not, it’s is a no-brainer to dissolve internal trade barriers. I think this would solve some of our problems. Increasing trade with ALL other nations will fix the rest. Let’s get politics out of business and business out of politics.
You are talking nonsense. Canada will be better off with no internal barriers to trade. Alberta should not stop sales or shipment of BC wine (that’s an example). No barriers, no jurisdictional taxes or costs. Canada is Canada.
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.
So your comment to someone who disagrees is that he is being rude? That is it?! He is rude. Wow.
I read your article, in Ottawa construction companies from Quebec are often seen, NOT the other way around. A few years ago people going into QC from NB to get liquor were stopped and fined because the cost in QC was much better but it was not allowed. Two very simple comments on barriers.
You spoke of no provinces as a solution. For what, a central government as unethical and corrupt as the current one?
Oil and gas, PET dealt a huge blow to Alberta and the Liberals have consistently carried on his tradition and will continue to do so. Removing barriers, and dare I say it, forcing QC to actually act Canadian and allow pipelines so that oil and gas can be used for international trade, not just US, would be highly beneficial. Eveniddle eastern countries are astounded by our lack of use of our resources.
Your comment of green energy, these are NOT green, educate yourself, look at the mining, the fossil fuel use to get the minerals extracted etc. You want good clean green energy, small foot print etc. Look at nuclear that is green.
You have no answers, you have bullet points. Some points are relevant most are not.
Comment #1 - Judy: "Blah blah blah. It is still a good direction for Canada." -
My response : "What a pointlessly rude response. There are no measurable barriers. There is no direction to go in because there is no benefit."
Your response: "So your comment to someone who disagrees is that he is being rude? That is it?! He is rude. Wow."
In just five sentences, you manage to ignore or misinterpret three of them, and I'll go out on a limb here that "Judy" is not a "he".
What I have argued - with considerable evidence - is that there are no trade barriers that could be removed that will cause growth.
And that is the point. Do I want growth? Yes. Are there barriers? No. Will getting rid of imaginary barriers lead to $200-billion in development. No.
The examples you give - of construction and booze - are not about growth. It means that customers will buy booze from one place not another, or one contractor, not another. That is not growth. That is not more economic activity.
You want to go on a partisan rant, when this has anything to do with partisanship, at all.
All you are doing is regurgitating 40 years of propaganda and how global forces affected Canada - oil prices, interest rates - while blaming it on the federal government, which has nothing to do with it.
You want to complain about Pierre Trudeau? In the 1970s, the Federal Government funded the R & D to get bitumen out of the oilsands. The plan was to build pipelines from Alberta East, which Alberta rejected.
The price of oil went to $30 a barrel in 1979 and early 80s because of the Iranian revolution, and the U.S federal reserve hiked interest rates to 20%. Canada (and the UK) had to follow suit to keep their currencies from being crushed. Absolutely zero to do with the actions of the elected federal government.
Then the price of oil crashed in the 80s. It also crashed in 2014. Nothing to do with the federal government. Nothing to do with any political party.
You want to talk about an unethical and corrupt federal government when the Alberta government is under investigation for corruption and the Premier of Saskatchewan has been charged and convicted?
I've spend 30+ years in public policy, I've lectured at the university level, spent five years as a legislator where I was a critic on finance and economic development. I consulted directly with countless small businesses and entrepreneurs about their needs and the impacts of government policy, and have helped businesses secure capital.
You are not making an argument. You are cutting and pasting talking points and sales pitches.
Dang, lost what I had written, starting over. Apology, my comment was to have been a response to what Mike Hamm had written, so tagged to the wrong comment!
As to the other, I don't need to copy and paste thank you. You use the term Provincial trade barriers, I think a more apt term to be Barrier to Trade caused by provinces. Using the main Canadian resource and one you beat up on, oil. If premier's allowed the proper transmission of oil and gas so it could be used as a trading item Canada's revenues would soar. To say otherwise in simply incorrect. We are a resource based economy and the current WEF controlled Liberal party is doing its utmost to destroy that sector. This is a well known and well documented fact. It is one, as I mentioned, going back to PET and the NEP, which stripped Alberta of a lot of its rights.
I really do not care about your standing, what you have done, etc. Your comments relate to how you think and an ideology you wish to champion. Even your solution of a Marshall like plan. Who would pay for it? This is not the same, basically this would be Canadians being asked to pay more taxes to prop up another program to try to fix what they have not been able to even remotely address.
Then your response of corruption in Alberta and Saskatchewan, ignoring the rampant ethic, moral and fiscal scandals continually plaguing the Liberal federal government.
If trust is required, I trust more the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan than the federal government. To end, at least here, (you covered a great deal) I live in Ontario so my comments are not as a westerner. Just a very concerned citizen knowing that government spending does nothing, government programs do less. Some are needed, however a great number are not.
You don't have the first clue what you are talking about.
A trade barrier is an actual, technical term. If they existed, they could be measured. They can't be. There aren't any.
The Federal Liberal Government you're complaining about did something that the Conservatives you like did not: They built a pipeline.
This is all just conservative propaganda. The NEP didn't strip Alberta of rights. All you are doing is repeating stuff you've been told that is not supported by facts.
I am sorry: there is a lot of criticism here without a corresponding degree of clarity. I make typos (and try to edit them) but in an article of this much detail, they obscure the points you are trying to make.
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.
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).
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.
Very impressed and appreciative of your determination to tie facts to economics theory and assertion. I could hear echoes on my mind as I read the piece.
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.
Whether it solves all our problems or not, it’s is a no-brainer to dissolve internal trade barriers. I think this would solve some of our problems. Increasing trade with ALL other nations will fix the rest. Let’s get politics out of business and business out of politics.
There are no measurable internal trade barriers in Canada. There is nothing to dissolve. That's what the article is about.
https://flip.it/44Izkr
https://financialpost.com/news/economy/opening-interprovincial-trade-barriers-canada-top-priority
https://chamber.ca/wp-content/uploads/publications/documents/Chamber%20Site/Addressing%20Barriers%20to%20Interprovincial%20Trade.pdf
I think there are barriers: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/interprovincial-trade-barriers-4-ways-1.7453530
Those aren’t trade barriers. That’s called the cost of doing business in different jurisdictions.
Semantics
I’ve already seen explained the problem in the article above. The most protectionist provinces in Canada are also the richest.
These are all arguments that ignore reality when what Canadian businesses need is revenue and capital. This is not about growth, at all.
You are talking nonsense. Canada will be better off with no internal barriers to trade. Alberta should not stop sales or shipment of BC wine (that’s an example). No barriers, no jurisdictional taxes or costs. Canada is Canada.
https://flip.it/Dg99_6
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.
So your comment to someone who disagrees is that he is being rude? That is it?! He is rude. Wow.
I read your article, in Ottawa construction companies from Quebec are often seen, NOT the other way around. A few years ago people going into QC from NB to get liquor were stopped and fined because the cost in QC was much better but it was not allowed. Two very simple comments on barriers.
You spoke of no provinces as a solution. For what, a central government as unethical and corrupt as the current one?
Oil and gas, PET dealt a huge blow to Alberta and the Liberals have consistently carried on his tradition and will continue to do so. Removing barriers, and dare I say it, forcing QC to actually act Canadian and allow pipelines so that oil and gas can be used for international trade, not just US, would be highly beneficial. Eveniddle eastern countries are astounded by our lack of use of our resources.
Your comment of green energy, these are NOT green, educate yourself, look at the mining, the fossil fuel use to get the minerals extracted etc. You want good clean green energy, small foot print etc. Look at nuclear that is green.
You have no answers, you have bullet points. Some points are relevant most are not.
This was the exchange:
Comment #1 - Judy: "Blah blah blah. It is still a good direction for Canada." -
My response : "What a pointlessly rude response. There are no measurable barriers. There is no direction to go in because there is no benefit."
Your response: "So your comment to someone who disagrees is that he is being rude? That is it?! He is rude. Wow."
In just five sentences, you manage to ignore or misinterpret three of them, and I'll go out on a limb here that "Judy" is not a "he".
What I have argued - with considerable evidence - is that there are no trade barriers that could be removed that will cause growth.
And that is the point. Do I want growth? Yes. Are there barriers? No. Will getting rid of imaginary barriers lead to $200-billion in development. No.
The examples you give - of construction and booze - are not about growth. It means that customers will buy booze from one place not another, or one contractor, not another. That is not growth. That is not more economic activity.
You want to go on a partisan rant, when this has anything to do with partisanship, at all.
All you are doing is regurgitating 40 years of propaganda and how global forces affected Canada - oil prices, interest rates - while blaming it on the federal government, which has nothing to do with it.
You want to complain about Pierre Trudeau? In the 1970s, the Federal Government funded the R & D to get bitumen out of the oilsands. The plan was to build pipelines from Alberta East, which Alberta rejected.
The price of oil went to $30 a barrel in 1979 and early 80s because of the Iranian revolution, and the U.S federal reserve hiked interest rates to 20%. Canada (and the UK) had to follow suit to keep their currencies from being crushed. Absolutely zero to do with the actions of the elected federal government.
Then the price of oil crashed in the 80s. It also crashed in 2014. Nothing to do with the federal government. Nothing to do with any political party.
You want to talk about an unethical and corrupt federal government when the Alberta government is under investigation for corruption and the Premier of Saskatchewan has been charged and convicted?
I've spend 30+ years in public policy, I've lectured at the university level, spent five years as a legislator where I was a critic on finance and economic development. I consulted directly with countless small businesses and entrepreneurs about their needs and the impacts of government policy, and have helped businesses secure capital.
You are not making an argument. You are cutting and pasting talking points and sales pitches.
Dang, lost what I had written, starting over. Apology, my comment was to have been a response to what Mike Hamm had written, so tagged to the wrong comment!
As to the other, I don't need to copy and paste thank you. You use the term Provincial trade barriers, I think a more apt term to be Barrier to Trade caused by provinces. Using the main Canadian resource and one you beat up on, oil. If premier's allowed the proper transmission of oil and gas so it could be used as a trading item Canada's revenues would soar. To say otherwise in simply incorrect. We are a resource based economy and the current WEF controlled Liberal party is doing its utmost to destroy that sector. This is a well known and well documented fact. It is one, as I mentioned, going back to PET and the NEP, which stripped Alberta of a lot of its rights.
I really do not care about your standing, what you have done, etc. Your comments relate to how you think and an ideology you wish to champion. Even your solution of a Marshall like plan. Who would pay for it? This is not the same, basically this would be Canadians being asked to pay more taxes to prop up another program to try to fix what they have not been able to even remotely address.
Then your response of corruption in Alberta and Saskatchewan, ignoring the rampant ethic, moral and fiscal scandals continually plaguing the Liberal federal government.
If trust is required, I trust more the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan than the federal government. To end, at least here, (you covered a great deal) I live in Ontario so my comments are not as a westerner. Just a very concerned citizen knowing that government spending does nothing, government programs do less. Some are needed, however a great number are not.
You don't have the first clue what you are talking about.
A trade barrier is an actual, technical term. If they existed, they could be measured. They can't be. There aren't any.
The Federal Liberal Government you're complaining about did something that the Conservatives you like did not: They built a pipeline.
This is all just conservative propaganda. The NEP didn't strip Alberta of rights. All you are doing is repeating stuff you've been told that is not supported by facts.
Probably right, but at least we won't have to live under PP's regime of fringe supporters.
Douglas you Canadian or an American wanna b?
I am sorry: there is a lot of criticism here without a corresponding degree of clarity. I make typos (and try to edit them) but in an article of this much detail, they obscure the points you are trying to make.
Nobody said improving interprovincial trade would make up for stepping away from as much trade with US as possible - but it's a start!
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!