Day: April 3, 2025

How Donald Trump Can Beat Europe’s Tech Regulations

If there is one bright spot in Trump’s trade threats, it is that the conversation on how to improve the global regulatory space for the average consumer has been recalibrated. 

President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade agenda is quickly proving unpopular with Americans, which might explain why the administration worked overtime to rebrand tariffs as “liberation” from foreign partners who treated the United States unfairly. As part of the narrative switch, Trump’s team has at least one clever weapon that could ultimately serve to defend and strengthen free trade and innovation between the US and its allies like the European Union.

By framing any punitive regulation or excessive fine issued by foreign countries against U.S. firms as a legal device that “restricts, prevents, or impedes international trade,” President Trump has made a fresh case for how digital regulation and international diplomacy should work in the twenty-first century.

This idea is more interesting and impactful than many people may realize.

As anyone who casually observes the stock market can tell you, the U.S. economy is now bound at the hip with the fate of its technology companies. At a conservative estimate of 9 percent of GDP, our nation’s powerhouse tech firms based in Silicon Valley, Austin, and New York City have become a daily presence in our lives. For better or for worse, President Trump has taken notice.

In a pair of presidential memoranda issued in February, Trump announced new measures to evaluate restrictive trade practices hamstringing U.S. tech firms abroad. Trump might not love or fully trust Big Tech. Still, he’s extended the umbrella of America-First to them anyway, vowing to fight “one-sided, anti-competitive policies and practices of foreign governments” that target the likes of Meta, Amazon, Google, Netflix, Apple, and others. 

While the idea of reciprocal tariffs should make any economist queasy, we should pay special attention to the details of the Trump administration’s policies. 

One memorandum mentions that, beginning in 2019, many trading nations enacted Digital Service Taxes (DST) that “foreign government officials openly admit are designed to plunder American companies.” The document also invokes the “extortive fines and taxes” that exist to “prop up failed foreign economies.”

Though the executive orders don’t mention the specific laws or fines by name, one can safely intuit the reference of several regulations enacted in the European Union, namely the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), as well as the so-called “link tax” efforts in Canada and Australia.

Regulators in Brussels have ratcheted up the enforcement of these regulations and haven’t let up now that President Trump has turned up the heat on trade.

In March, the European Commission declared three separate violations of the DMA against Apple, Meta, and Google, threatening as much as 10 percent of global revenue for each of the tech behemoths. The violations relate to various aspects of self-preferencing on platforms, advertising consent rules, and interoperability as mandated by European legislation.

What matters about Trump’s framing of these issues is that he views these regulatory actions as harmful not just to American innovators but to the global economy and consumers as a whole. The EU’s regulatory regime has morphed into a diplomatic issue. 

Rather than just Meta vs. the EU or Apple vs. Brussels, Trump has taken it upon himself to view it as a broader United States vs. European Union regulatory fight. As a strategy, it is having some impact.

EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told an audience in Washington that the commission was open to a “dialogue on big tech,” while playing down claims of discrimination against American companies. 

Just a few weeks later, during a review of the European Commission’s “Omnibus” package, regulators inserted several amendments to ease ESG and sustainability reporting requirements on global firms with operations in the EU.

Reversing years of the European rulemaking process will be next to impossible. Still, these subtle pivots are a glimmer of hope that the EU and the United States can work together again on tech and innovation. 

At home, U.S. firms still face a hostile climate in Washington. Trump comes to their defense against antagonism abroad, only to dispense with the “Good Cop” routine and continue litigation against companies like Amazon and Google for alleged antitrust violations. The FTC lawsuit against Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp over a decade ago will have its first court hearing next month. At the same time, a judge reviews remedies to force Google to sell off its popular Chrome browser. 

It is hardly consistent for Trump to fend off all foreign regulatory threats and tariffs against American tech while subjecting them to punitive lawfare in our own courts that will only harm consumers who like these products and services. At the same time, a trade war won’t help anyone.

If there is one bright spot in Trump’s cacophony of trade threats, it is that the conversation on how to improve the global regulatory space for the average consumer has been recalibrated. 

The ability to change the conversation has always been Trump’s most clever weapon, and it is providing a great opportunity to refine our tech and trade relationships for the better.

Originally published here

Carney should embrace harm reduction for smokers

Liberal Leader Mark Carney is out to prove he’s a centrist. By ending unpopular Trudeau-era policies like the capital gains tax hike and the consumer carbon tax, Carney is clearly making a play for the political middle. 

If Carney really wants Canadian consumers to believe he’s moved to the middle, it’s time for the Liberals to embrace evidenced-based policies. That includes pivoting away from the last government’s approach to nicotine pouches. 

Former health minister Mark Holland banned certain flavours of nicotine pouches and restricted the sale of pouches that are still allowed to be sold to being behind pharmacy counters. 

From a harm-reduction standpoint, these moves make zero sense. 

First, policy makers should want smokers to make the shift from smoking cigarettes to cessation products like nicotine pouches. If including more flavours encourages that transition, it simply doesn’t make sense to block it. 

Plus, Nicorette, which is yet another smoking cessation product,comes in gums, lozenges and sprays and offers a variety of flavours, including mint, fresh fruit, cool berry and mild spearmint.

Why allow Nicorette to come in all kinds of flavours but ban most of those flavours for pouches? The U.S. Federal Drug Administration sensibly took the opposite approach and approved 20 flavours of nicotine pouches.  

Second, under present rules, folks can still buy cigarettes at virtually every corner store and gas station, but they’ve got to go to a pharmacy to buy a product that actually helps smokers quit and significantly reduces harm for users. 

Why allow cigarettes to be sold at gas stations and corner stores but not nicotine pouches? 

It’s important to remember that it’s combusting tobacco, not nicotine, that is having such a damaging impact on Canadians’ health. If Canadian consumers want to be able to purchase products with nicotine instead of buying cigarettes, it simply doesn’t make sense to make it easier for consumers to access more harmful products than smoking cessation tools. 

Critics of nicotine pouches argue that pouches are a gateway to smoking. However, the evidence simply doesn’t bear that out. 

The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment found that pouches have very limited appeal (11-12%) to people who have never consumed tobacco products before, including minors. 

Among smokers, by contrast, or those who chew tobacco, interest in nicotine pouches  increases to 75%. 

This shouldn’t be a shocking statistic: most smokers spend decades trying to quit. Given that pouches offer a possible off-ramp that is far less risky for one’s health than smoking, it makes perfect sense that smokers would be highly interested in nicotine pouches. 

At the same time, the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment also found that nicotine pouches carry little risk and are just as risky as other forms of cessation tools, including nicotine patches, gums and sprays. According to that assessment, nicotine pouches are 99% less harmful than cigarettes.  

Pouches are less risky than smoking and the vast majority of those interested in nicotine pouches are those who presently smoke. These products should be made easier for folks to access, not harder. And yet that’s exactly the approach that the Trudeau government took under Holland as health minister. 

Then there’s the risk of the black market: If consumers are determined to access nicotine pouches to help them quit smoking, there’s every risk that scores of Canadians will turn to the black market. Contraband tobacco is a huge issue in Canada. Why encourage consumers to seek out the black market for smoking cessation products? The black market allows for zero government regulation, whereas the government could enact sensible regulations regarding nicotine pouches by treating them as smoking cessation tools. 

Carney wants Canadians to believe he’s a middle-ground, evidence-based politician bringing the Liberals back to the middle of the political spectrum. If that’s true, Carney should take a hard look at the previous Liberal government’s approach to nicotine pouches and prioritize smoking cessation by making these products easier — not harder — to access. 

Originally published here

Buy Malaysian: Lock-in local

“WHY shouldn’t I? It’s flavourful, suited for local taste buds and relatively cheaper,” says 28-year-old Noraina Salam, an engineer from Shah Alam, when asked if she prefers local coffee over an imported brand.

“While I will go for anything good, there are just some local brands I prioritise for things such as food, clothing and appliances. You know that chocolate wafer with the red wrapping? I like that one.

“If imported goods are getting expensive, then buy local,” says Noraina, who is among a growing number of Malaysian consumers appreciating local goods.

For consumers like Noraina, buying local is more than just a preference; it’s becoming a practical response to rising import costs and global economic uncertainty.

With the increasing likelihood of a global trade war driving up the cost of imported goods further – especially with US President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal tariff on every nation of the world” expected to be imposed on April 2 – many Malaysians, like Noraina, are re-evaluating their purchasing decisions. While Malaysia may not face direct tariffs, prices will be affected, and consumer groups are highlighting the opportunity for local industries to step up and meet demand.

Several consumer associations note that Malaysia already has competitive sectors, including food and electronics, both in price and quality.

“But buying Malaysian-made goods can strengthen local industries, create jobs, and cut reliance on imports, especially during global trade uncertainty,” says Tarmizi Anuwar, country associate for Malaysia at the Consumer Choice Centre.

Read the full text here

Kebijakan Kontrol Harga Penerbangan dan Persaingan Bebas di Indonesia

Indonesia merupakan salah satu negara dengan luas wilayah terluas di dunia. Tidak hanya itu, berbeda dengan negara-negara besar lainnya, seperti Rusia, Amerika Serikat, dan Brazil, Indonesia merupakan negara kepulauan yang terdiri dari belasan ribu pulau, yang tersebar di seluruh wilayah Nusantara.

Dengan kondisi geografis tersebut, ditambah kenyataan bahwa Indonesia memiliki jumlah populasi yang sangat besar (270 juta jiwa), hal ini memberi tantangan transportasi yang tidak mudah untuk bepergian dan berpindah tempat. Untuk itu, untuk perjalanan antar pulau, sarana transportasi udara menjadi satu-satunya sarana transportasi yang memadai.

Perjalanan transportasi selain melalui udara, seperti melalui laut misalnya, sangat memakan waktu yang lama. Untuk perjalanan dari ibukota Jakarta ke kota Medan di pulau Sumatra misalnya, bila menggunakan sarana transportasi laut, bisa memakan waktu hingga 3 hari. Sementara itu, dengan menggunakan pesawat hanya memakan waktu sebesar 2,5 jam.

Namun, dunia transportasi udara di Indonesia juga bukan tanpa permasalahan. Salah satu masalah besar terkait dengan penerbangan di Indonesia adalah biaya yang tinggi, khususnya apabila dibandingkan dengan perjalanan internasional dari Jakarta ke negara-negara tetangga.

Untuk perjalanan dari Jakarta ke Bali misalnya, harga tiketnya bisa sebesar 1,1 juta rupiah untuk sekali perjalanan, sementara dari Jakarta ke Singapura hanya sekitar 650 ribu rupiah. Padahal, kedua perjalanan tersebut memakan waktu yang sama, sekitar 1,5 jam (tirto.id, 4/10/2024).

Ada beberapa hal yang membuat hal tersebut terjadi. Salah satunya misalnya adalah harga avtur di Indonesia yang cenderung lebih mahal bila dibandingkan dengan negara-negara tetangganya. Selain itu, terdapat pula biaya-biaya tambahan lainnya yang harus dibayarkan kepada pemerintah, seperti pajak pertambahan nilai, iuran wajib asuransi jasa raharja, dan biaya lainnya (bbc.com, 17/7/2024).

Selain itu, hal lain yang memiliki pengaruh terhadap tingginya harga tersebut adalah kebijakan kontrol harga yang diadopsi oleh pemerintah, dalam bentuk tarif batas atas dan juga batas bawah. Dalam hal ini, kebijakan tersebut diterapkan terhadap tiket perjalanan domestik di Indonesia, tetapi tidak diterapkan di penerbangan internasional ke luar negeri.

Terkait dengan hal tersebut, tarif batas atas dipahami sebagai tarif maksimal yang bisa biaya dikenakan oleh maskapai penerbangan kepada konsumen, sementara tarif bawah adalah tarif minimum. Komponen untuk menentukan batas tarif tersebut terdiri dari banyak hal, seperti biaya gaji kru dan karyawan, biaya asuransi, bahan bakar, jasa navigasi penerbangan, biaya catering penerbangan, dan lain sebagainya (masyarakathukumudara.or.id, 8/6/2019).

Adanya penyesuaian harga tersebut tentunya akan memiliki dampak negatif dalam bentuk mengurangi kompetisi yang dapat menguntungkan konsumen. Lembaga riset Institute for Development of Economics and Finance (Indef) misalnya, menyatakan bahwa bila tarif batas tersebut dicabut, maka hal tersebut akan membawa penyesuaian harga yang lebih sesuai, dan akan mengembalikan pasar maskapai penerbangan di Indonesia agar semakin kompetitif (idntimes.com, 18/6/2019).

Hal ini bisa dilihat misalnya dari adanya grouping dan joint operation yang dilakukan oleh 7 maskapai terbesar di Indonesia (kompas.com, 21/12/2022). Hal ini sangat berbeda dengan penerbangan internasional di Indonesia yang lebih beragam dan mampu berkompetisi lebih bebas antar sesama maskapai penerbangan internasional, dan maka dari itu bisa menyediakan tiket dengan harga lebih murah dibandingkan dengan penerbangan domestik.

Salah satu CEO dari perusahaan penerbangan Air Asia yang beroperasi di Indonesia, Tony Fernandes, misalnya, juga menyampaikan bahwa regulasi harga tiket terhadap penerbangan domestik di Indonesia dapat membunuh bisnis. Ia mengatakan, kebijakan pemerintah yang sampai mengatur harga tarif tiket pesawat merupakan sesuatu yang berlebihan, dan sebaiknya setiap maskapai bisa menentukan harga tiket mereka masing-masing (cnnindonesia.com, 4/7/2019).

Air Asia Indonesia misalnya, juga menjelaskan bahwa, karena adanya kebijakan kontrol harga melalui tarif batas bawah dan batas atas yang diterapkan oleh Kementerian Perhubungan untuk penerbangan domestik, mereka tidak bisa menentukan harga yang sesuai dengan mekanisme pasar. Misalnya, untuk penerbangan internasional dari Jakarta ke Kuala Lumpur, Air Asia bisa menerapkan tarif 600 ribu rupiah, tetapi sewaktu-waktu maskapai tersebut bisa menurunkan harga hingga 100 — 200 ribu rupiah demi menarik penumpang. Hal ini yang tidak bisa dilakukan untuk penerbangan domestik (goodstats.id, 17/7/2024).

Sudah menjadi pengetahuan umum bahwa, kebijakan kontrol harga dalam hal apa pun, termasuk juga tentunya penerbangan, merupakan kebijakan yang kontra produktif. Adanya kontrol harga batas atas bisa memberi sinyal yang salah kepada produsen, bahwa demand dari tiket tersebut dianggap tidak sebanyak yang diperkirakan, yang menyebabkan terjadinya kelangkaan. Sebaliknya, adanya kontrol harga dalam bentuk batas bawah bisa menyebabkan oversupply, dan dalam kasus perusahaan jasa seperti penerbangan, hal ini juga akan merugikan konsumen karena seharusnya mereka bisa membeli tiket dengan harga yang lebih rendah (economicshelp.org, 17/3/2022).

Aspek lain yang sangat terkait dengan hal tersebut adalah, adanya kontrol tarif harga pesawat di Indonesia bukan hanya akan merugikan para konsumen maskapai penerbangan, tetapi juga berpotensi merugikan para pelaku usaha lokal yang tersebar di seluruh Indonesia. Adanya tarif penerbangan ke luar negeri yang lebih murah tentu memberi insentif lebih bagi para wisatawan Indonesia untuk menghabiskan waktu dan uangnya di luar negeri, dibandingkan dengan daerah wisata di dalam negeri.

Hal ini diakui oleh salah satu wisatawan asal Jakarta misalnya. Ia menyampaikan bahwa, pemerintah sering menyampaikan pentingnya untuk melestarikan wisata dalam negeri. Ia sendiri sebenarnya sangat berminat untuk berwisata dan berjalan-jalan di dalam negeri, tetapi adanya tiket yang mahal kerap mengurungkan niatnya melakukan hal tersebut. Akan lebih efisien bila uang liburannya digunakan untuk mengunjungi negara-negara tetangga seperti Singapura, Malaysia, dan Thailand karena harga tiket pesawat yang lebih murah (bbc.com, 17/7/2024).

Oleh karena itu, adanya kebijakan kontrol harga seperti harga batas bawah misalnya, juga berpotensi akan menimbulkan supply yang berlebihan yang berdampak pada pemborosan terhadap perusahaan penerbangan domestik yang beroperasi di Indonesia. Setiap maskapai penerbangan pasti mengeluarkan biaya operasional yang tidak kecil, seperti untuk bahan bakar misalnya. Dalam hal ini, maskapai tersebut harus tetap mengeluarkan biaya yang tinggi, dan juga waktu penerbangan yang lama, meskipun tidak mendapatkan potensi penumpang seperti para wisatawan secara maksimal.

Dalam pembuatan kebijakan regulasi misalnya, tidak jarang pihak yang diberikan perhatian oleh pemerintah adalah dari sisi pelaku usaha, terlebih lagi bila pelaku usaha tersebut merupakan pelaku usaha besar. Padahal peran dan suara konsumen sangat penting untuk didengar karena mereka juga menjadi pihak yang akan terkena dampak langsung dari kebijakan regulasi tersebut. Hal ini diakui oleh lembaga Badan Perlindungan Konsumen Nasional (BPKN) bahwa dalam penyusunan kebijakan seringkali hak-hak konsumen tidak diakomodasi (cnbcindonesia.com, 8/4/2019).

Sebagai penutup, kebijakan kontrol harga merupakan salah satu kebijakan ekonomi paling kontraproduktif yang kerap diambil oleh berbagai pemerintahan di seluruh dunia, termasuk juga di Indonesia. Bila kita ingin semakin melestarikan dan mengembangkan industri pariwisata dalam negeri, sudah seharusnya kebijakan kontrol harga atas tiket tersebut dicabut, agar terjadi persaingan bebas, dan harga tiket pesawat bisa semakin terjangkau bagi para konsumen dan turis domestik di Indonesia.

Originally published here

Digital Vendors Demand Equal Opportunity in E-Invoicing Policies

SMALL businesses nationwide are preparing for a major transition as Malaysia moves towards mandatory e-invoicing.

Beginning July 1, all taxpayers, including micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) – both brick-and-mortar and online – are required to implement e-invoicing.

While digital transformation is essential for economic progress, many micro-entrepreneurs and small traders face immediate challenges in adapting to the new system.

To ease the transition, the government has exempted physical businesses with annual sales below RM150,000 from e-invoicing requirements.

However, this exemption does not extend to online sellers regardless of their revenue size – a regulatory inconsistency that has sparked concern among industry groups and small business owners.

Towards this end, the Small and Medium Enterprises Association (SAMENTA) has urged the government to raise the exemption threshold to RM300,000, thus aligning it with the official definition of micro-enterprises.

Read the full text here

Tort reforms bringing benefits to average Floridians, consumer group’s report finds

Florida insurance premium costs are dropping, the number of civil lawsuits being filed is decreasing, “nuclear verdicts” are becoming less common and more insurers are entering the Sunshine State, a new study on the impact of tort reforms concluded.

The study from the advocacy group Consumer Choice Center found that the trends affecting Florida consumers in the wake of the enactment of House Bill 837 in 2023 and other reforms have been positive. HB 837 provided more transparency about medical damages during trials, barred plaintiffs who are more than 50% at fault for an injury from recovering damages, eliminated one-way attorney fees in insurance claims and redefined what constitutes “bad faith” by insurers in addressing claims.

The study, which was released this month, found that although there has been an increasing risk of severe weather such as hurricanes, inflation in building material costs and rising litigation costs in recent years, the state is currently enjoying a “a quantifiable reduction and stabilization” in property insurance rates.

Read the full text here

RFK Jr. Wants To Ban Food Dyes. Would That Really Improve Public Health?

In a recent closed-door meeting with the CEOs of several major food companies—including PepsiCo, General Mills, Smucker’s, Kraft Heinz, and Kellogg’s—Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. implored the industry to eliminate artificial food dyes from their products. The secretary “expressed the strong desire and urgent priority of the administration to remove” artificial coloring from the food supply, said Melissa Hockstad, president and CEO of the Consumer Brands Association, in a readout reported by Food Fix. 

In 2023, California became the first state in the country to ban Red 3 in foods, along with three other additives. A year later, the Golden State barred another six food dyesfrom being served in the state’s public school lunches.  

Kennedy and other supporters of these bans cite studies that suggest synthetic dyes can potentially be cancerous. Other reports have linked these additives to hyperactivity in some children.

But critics argue these studies don’t reflect real-world consumption levels. “The cancer-causing ‘links’ found in studies are based on dangerously high doses given to lab rats in amounts no human would ever consume, even if they ate a whole box of cereal or pack of hot dogs,” says Bill Wirtz, a senior policy analyst at the Consumer Choice Center. “Banning food dyes is a performative regulatory action. All dyes currently used by manufacturers do not pose a known health risk to consumers.”

Read the full text here

Consumer Choice Center says Floridians are reaping ‘tort reform’ benefits

Consumer advocacy group and think tank Consumer Choice Center says the benefits of 2023’s major tort law rewrite have started reaching everyday Floridians.

A policy primer published by the organization says HB 837 — a marquee bill of the 2023 Session — has proved “worthwhile,” citing “steady insurance rates, transparency in medical costs at trial, reduced litigation, and spurred innovation and competition.”

The legislation, backed by insurers and the business lobby, made sweeping changes to laws governing how lawsuits are filed and litigated in Florida. Backers long pointed to litigation costs as the primary driver for rising insurance premiums. Before the legislation was enacted, the Florida Chamber of Commerce said Floridians were paying a $5,000-per-year “tort tax,” by way of higher prices and premiums.

Read the full text here

Call To Exempt Small Online Businesses From E-invoicing Requirements 

The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) has called on the Government to review and amend Malaysia’s e-invoicing framework, urging authorities to exempt small online businesses earning RM150,000 or less annually.

Under current policy, small physical businesses with similar revenue thresholds are exempt, but online businesses are still required to comply with e-invoicing obligations. CCC argues that this disparity places unnecessary burdens on small digital entrepreneurs, potentially increasing costs for consumers and limiting market variety.

Malaysia Country Associate at CCC, Tarmizi Anuwar, said, “As a consumer association, we are deeply concerned that the current e-invoicing policy unfairly penalises small online sellers, many of whom are everyday Malaysians trying to earn an honest living. It is not reasonable that small physical shops are exempt, yet online businesses operating at the same scale are forced to bear additional compliance costs and administrative burdens.”

Read the full text here

Western Standard

As Canadians fight for the right to pay more for dairy products…

A trade war between Canada and the United States that keeps ratcheting up will only lead to more pain for everyday Canadians.

When President Donald Trump imposes tariffs on Canadian goods going into the United States, it makes those goods more expensive for Americans. And every time Canadian politicians decide to slap tariffs on American goods coming into Canada as a response, life becomes more unaffordable for Canadians.

That’s because tariffs are taxes imposed on domestic consumers. They are not, contrary to messaging coming out of the White House, taxes paid for by foreign countries.

Of course, Canadians want to see their leaders respond when Trump imposes tariffs on Canadian goods being sold to the United States. Trump’s tariffs are poised to cause Canada’s GDP to contract by between 2.5 and 3 per cent this year, which will surely cause a recession.

But hitting back with tariffs of our own only increases the pain being felt by Canadian consumers and will only deepen the recession Canadians are staring down this year.

Australia’s political leaders seem to have figured this out. Their government is choosing not to respond in kind to Trump’s tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium.

“Tariffs and escalating trade tensions are a form of economic self-harm and a recipe for slower growth and higher inflation,” said Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. “They are paid for by consumers. This is why Australia will not be imposing reciprocal tariffs on the United States.”

How, then, should Canada respond to Trump’s tariffs? Here are just two of many solutions: tearing down internal trade barriers and unleashing Canadian energy.

Many Canadians would be stunned to know that Canada has trade barriers between our provinces that are nearly as high as the tariffs Trump imposed on Canada earlier this month.

That’s right: because of roughly 400 carve-outs to Canada’s internal free trade deal, goods being traded from one province to another face the equivalent of a 21 per cent tariff on average.

Canadians are rightly indignant at the tariffs the U.S. administration has imposed on Canada. But Canadians should also be angry at our provincial governments, which have created a system of internal trade barriers that, prior to the current trade war, made it easier to trade with the U.S. than within Canada.

That must change.

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is leading the way on this file and has pledged to remove Nova Scotia’s barriers to trade with any other province that will reciprocate. And the federal government has sent signals that the provinces appear willing to move quickly to tear down internal trade barriers given the circumstances.

Canada’s provinces must agree to tear down all internal trade barriers as quickly as possible. The boon this would be for the national economy would virtually offset the impact of the Trump tariffs.

The federal government must also stop shooting the Canadian economy in the foot by blockading crucial energy projects that represent the key to diversifying our international trade.

Since the Liberals came to power in 2015, they have blocked more than $670 billion worth of energy projects that would have sent western Canadian oil, natural gas, and petroleum products to eastern Canada, Europe, and Asia. 

Canada should be an energy superpower, but for the past decade the feds have stood in the way.

It’s time to get energy projects built and allow our energy to power the world. Right now, most of our energy exports go to the United States. With better pipeline infrastructure, Canada can diversify and send more oil and natural gas to Europe and Asia, two regions desperate to get more clean and ethical Canadian energy.

Under the Trudeau government, countries from Europe and Asia begged the feds to develop more Canadian energy and export it to the world. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau told them there was no business case.

That sentiment was wrong then and it’s even more wrong now. It’s time to build pipelines and sell Canadian energy to the rest of the world. Pronto.

Canada should respond to U.S. tariffs by making our economy more self-reliant and by exporting more of our key products to new markets.

The Trump tariff threat will be present for the next four years. Slapping more taxes on Canadians isn’t a long-term solution. Diversifying our economy is.

Originally published here

Other provinces should follow Alberta on charter schools

It’s high time for Alberta’s charter school revolution to come to the rest of Canada.

Parents in every province deserve choice and value for their money when it comes to educating the next generation.

It’s simply not fair to try to force parents to keep their kids in failing government-run schools.

It’s also unfair to ask taxpayers to continue to dump billions of additional taxpayer dollars into a system that is broken.

Charter schools, to be clear, are not private schools. They exist within the public school system, but they offer parents more specialization, have a proven track record of better test scores, and keep unions out of the classroom.

Just take a quick look at the sorry state of education in the province of Ontario to understand why it’s time to shake up the system.

Over the past 20 years, Ontario teenagers’ test scores have fallen by 35 points in math and 12 points in reading.

What does that mean? Experts consider a 20-point drop in performance to be equivalent to a whole year’s worth of learning. In other words, today’s 15-year-olds are nearly two years behind their 2003 counterparts in math and more than half a year behind in reading.

Is this decline due to a lack of government investment in education? Hardly. Back in 2022, the year before the study period began, Ontario spent $14.3 billion on education. Last year, that number climbed to $37.6 billion.

That’s a 163% increase — more than double the rate of inflation. And during that time, enrolment remained largely flat, with an unprecedented number of parents choosing to remove their kids from the government-run school system.

Union leaders keep saying that falling test scores are due to a shortfall in funding. But that’s complete nonsense.

If all it took to fix the state of government-run education in Canada today was more government spending, the issue would have been addressed a long time ago.

It’s time for provincial governments to think big. Parents don’t want their kids to be trapped in failing government-run schools. That’s why, for example, student enrolment in independent schools in Canada’s largest province has soared by 40% over the past 20 years, despite no government assistance toward paying tuition.

It’s time for the rest of Canada to adopt the Alberta model.

Back in the late 1990s, the Ralph Klein government saw that Alberta’s government-run schools were falling short and decided to shake up the system.

The government decided to establish the first charter schools in Canada.

Alberta’s charter schools exist within the public system. They don’t charge tuition because they get funding from the provincial government. But, crucially, these schools have far more autonomy when it comes to how they approach teaching. And teachers don’t have to belong to unions.

Charter schools are a huge innovation in another way. They cater to the unique needs of students. Many specialize in areas like educating kids with special needs or offer additional focus and motivation for kids who excel in the arts or sports.

What do the results from Alberta look like?

Students at Alberta’s charter schools outperform those in government-run schools by a full letter grade on standardized testing.

And, as a cherry on top, charter schools in Alberta cost 32% less per enrolled child.

That means better results and savings for taxpayers.

The success of Alberta’s charter schools can be assessed in another way: What does enrolment demand look like? Do parents want to send their kids there?

The answer is that parents are looking to send their kids to charter schools in droves. For every Alberta student in a charter school, two are on the waiting list.

Charter schools have been a smashing success in Alberta — demand is high, test scores are strong, costs are down and parents are happy.

Introducing charter schools in other provinces, like Ontario, should be a no-brainer.

If there was ever a time for more choices in education, it’s now. It’s high time Canada’s provincial politicians make it happen.

Originally published here

Further liberalizing alcohol sales could help Ontario

With the trade war between Canada and the United States ratcheting up by the hour, Canadian governments are about to be awash in red ink.

Provincial governments in particular will face a world of financial hurt, with the feds taking in any tariff revenue and provinces preparing to spend billions to help impacted industries and workers.

Ontario will likely be hit the hardest of any province, with job losses, a recession and big deficits likely on the horizon.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government needs to be doing everything it can to secure the province’s financial position.

That’s why it’s crucial to make reforms to the way Ontario approaches the sale of alcohol. If the Ford government were to do away with Liquor Control Board of Ontario retail stores, while still maintaining the LCBO as the province’s wholesaler, Ontario taxpayers could save billions.

Consider these facts.

First, Ontario is losing out on over $100 million a year by not allowing private retailers to sell spirits. It makes zero sense for the provincial government to be perfectly comfortable with private retailers selling beer and wine but not spirits.

Second, Ontario wastes $1 million per new LCBO store built when compared to simply allowing a private retailer to fill the void. It’s clear that there’s an appetite out there in the private sector to build new locations where they could sell beer, wine, and spirits at no cost to taxpayers. Why are Ontario taxpayers paying to build new stores when private industry is willing to do so for free?

Third, Ontario could save over $500 million a year if the province stopped operating LCBO locations and allowed the private sector to sell all forms of alcohol, as is the case in Alberta. That’s not to mention the huge windfall the province would get from selling present LCBO locations to private retailers.

In this case, the province could still have the LCBO as the province’s wholesaler, responsible for providing alcohol to private stores in the same way that it provides beer and wine to grocery stores right now and all forms of alcohol to restaurants.

It’s through its role as the province’s wholesaler that the LCBO makes its money, not through running retail locations.

Importantly, keeping the LCBO as the province’s wholesaler means Ford would still have the ability to take American alcohol off the shelves in Ontario should the present trade dispute linger on.

That bargaining chip, which Ford and other premiers have used in the early days of Canada’s present trade conflict with the United States, would still be fully available to the provincial government.

LCBO retail locations were created nearly a century ago to deal with the sale of alcohol after more than a decade of prohibition. Government-run liquor stores were designed for the 1920s, not the 2020s. The rationale for the LCBO retail operations in the 1920s was morality. What’s the reason for its existence today, other than limiting consumer choice and allowing for more government control?

Ford said repeatedly during the provincial election campaign that just wrapped up that he was prepared to spend tens of billions of dollars to deal with the threat of American tariffs. Now, that tariff threat has very much become a reality.

When Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy releases his next budget this spring, it will presumably include all kinds of new spending, which Ford ran on during this year’s provincial election campaign.

But the government was already in a deficit position before the trade conflict and the province is clearly short on cash.

Instead of running massive deficits and passing tens of billions of dollars of additional debt onto future generations, Ford and Bethlenfalvy should be looking for ways to find efficiencies and get the province in a better fiscal position.

In that context, generating savings by ending the LCBO monopoly — while still keeping it as the province’s wholesaler — makes all kinds of sense. After all, it was Ford who introduced more consumer choice for Ontarians by allowing beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores and corner stores. Why shouldn’t he be the very same premier to take the next logical step, both for the sake of consumer choice and for the province’s bottom line?

Originally published here

en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org