Free Trade

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

Beyond the trade war, Ford’s to-do list is long

Ontarians are also watching Ford closely to make sure he doesn’t take his eye off the ball when it comes to other critical issues. Pictured: Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Photo Credit: Doug Ford/X. 

After a cold and snow-filled election, Ontario Premier Doug Ford emerged as the victor, although he did not make the electoral gains he had hoped for. He was given the third mandate he desired to lead Ontarians through a difficult time marked by a trade war and a fracturing relationship with the United States. However, Ontarians are also watching him closely to make sure he doesn’t take his eye off the ball when it comes to other critical issues. 

Tariffs are not the only government policies set to harm Ontario consumers in the days, months, and years of this renewed majority government. Interprovincial trade, housing, alcohol policy, and broadband internet are all topics that are important to Ontarians and must be addressed. 

Canada’s premiers have long put interprovincial trade on the backburner, seeing it as something that was nice in theory but too difficult to achieve in practice. They wasted an enormous amount of time not making it a reality for the good of Canadian consumers and as an escape hatch in case of economic disaster like the one Canadians are now facing in a Canada-United States trade war. The lack of interprovincial free trade is costing consumers immensely, already by robbing our economy of more than $200 billion a year. Other premiers need to follow Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston’s lead immediately and introduce reciprocal domestic trade legislation. Ford has indicated he plans to do just that, but he should make it an early priority for his new government. 

In addition to interprovincial trade, Ford should set to work coordinating with the federal government to ensure Ontario diversifies its economy by building trade relationships with countries other than the United States. Consumers benefit when they have more economic choice, and this will allow for items to be exported and imported at a lower cost with much more stable and predictable partners. 

Ontarians feeling the financial pinch are more than likely also struggling to buy a home. The election was full of ideas and promises when it comes to housing, with the most prominent being rent control from Marit Stiles, the leader of Ontario’s NDP. Economists have long argued that rent control is actually very bad for low-income people looking for housing. However, even though Ford has peeled back this bad policy, the housing crisis persists. 

There is a housing crisis because there are not enough units to house people. And there are not enough units to house people because of outdated red-tape from the federal, provincial, and municipal governments. The Ford government is falling short of its own housing targets. Ford can take ownership of the slowdown experienced at the provincial level and work with his federal and municipal colleagues to make it easier and more attractive for builders to build. Ford has announced billions of dollars in new spending on housing and other projects, but this will turn out to be meaningless if developers are stuck in red tape. 

On the alcohol front, Ford has done more than any other premier in Ontario history to liberalize alcohol sales, but there is more to be done that will benefit both Ontario consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. The LCBO remains the only retail store that can sell spirits. Ontarians looking to buy whisky, vodka, or gin from their grocery or convenience stores are out of luck. Why liberalize alcohol and get stuck on this very simple detail? If wine can be sold in grocery stores, so too should vodka. The LCBO should be given less power, not niche areas of control. 

Ford should also promise not to build any more LCBO retail spaces, and indeed close retail stores that are no longer needed due to the amount of convenience and grocery stores surrounding it, and save the Ontario consumer money on retail rent and on running an inefficient operation. If you compare the LCBO’s operations to comparable private retailers in Alberta, it costs the LCBO approximately $1,000,000 more per store in operation costs. With 669 LCBO stores being inefficiently run in Ontario, that’s a lot of wasted money the government could otherwise spend on Ontarians’ core priorities, making the problem even worse simply doesn’t make financial sense. 

Finally, Ford has, under pressure, ripped up the contract Ontario had with Starlink. While perhaps understandable given the current trade dispute, the bad news is that Starlink was supposed to provide desperately needed high-speed internet access to 15,000 homes and businesses in rural and remote communities by June 2025. Now that this contract is cancelled, and assuming the relationship between the province and Elon Musk’s company is now strained, Ford must put significant effort into finding alternative companies to take on that project. It is outrageous that rural Ontarians do not have access to reliable internet when the economy and their lives rely on being online. Businesses in rural Ontario are also struggling to succeed in a modern economy without access to the internet, and the lifeline they thought was coming is now no longer an option. Businesses that are already in rural areas are struggling, and businesses who many want to start in rural areas will be scared away. This will only depress the local economy and isolate rural communities even further from the rest of the province.

Ford would do well to keep in mind that Ontario is a complex province with many problems to be addressed, even during a trade war and in its aftermath. Ontarians elected him to guide them through this turbulent time, but also to strengthen the economy, make their lives more consumer-friendly, and support the growth of businesses in the province. While much of the present focus is on the trade war, Ontarians still have many other pressing issues that need to be dealt with.

Originally published here

Carney must change feds’ approach in dealing with trade war

Canada is set to get a new prime minister at a moment when the stakes could not be higher: the nation is in the midst of an unprecedented trade conflict with its biggest trading partner.

To date, the federal Liberal government has lacked a sense of urgency in responding to the crisis. Mark Carney, Canada’s prime minister-designate, has a chance to change that by shifting the feds’ approach to energy projects and eliminating internal trade barriers.

U.S. President Donald Trump has been talking about imposing tariffs on Canada for the past three months. Unfortunately, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent months acting as if the tariff threat wasn’t real.

Trudeau only belatedly started taking actions to strengthen Canada’s border security as the clock ticked down the zero hour, in a desperate last-minute attempt to meet Trump’s demands.

Yet according to Trump, Trudeau failed to take enough action. Some punishing tariffs are already hammering Canada’s economy, while others are set to take effect early next month.

It’s long been evident that Trump’s decision to impose sweeping tariffs on Canada’s economy is not just about fentanyl crossing the border: less than one per cent of the fentanyl entering the United States comes through the northern border. 

His major goal is clearly to cripple Canada’s economy in an attempt to get companies to move their jobs and economic activity to the United States.

How should Canada respond?

There are at least two key areas where immediate action is needed: unleashing Canadian energy and tearing down Canada’s internal trade barriers.

Since the Liberals came to power in 2015, $670 billion worth of natural resource projects have either been cancelled or put on hold by the federal government.

The feds have blockaded projects like Energy EastNorthern Gateway, and Énergie Saguenay that would have sent tens of billions of dollars’ worth of Canadian oil and natural gas to Asia and Europe, and allowed eastern Canada to be powered by Canadian energy rather than importing oil from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia.

No less than 77 per cent of Canada’s exports go to the United States, including $150 billion per year in oil, natural gas, and petroleum products. Canada needs to diversify. Trump’s tariff threats should have led to a sense of urgency, with the federal government reversing course and greenlighting some of the 31 energy projects it has stymied since coming to power in 2015.

Sadly, no action has been taken on the energy front. Just talk that the Liberals might have to reconsider their position on pipelines.

Carney is a well-known climate hawk. He’s talked about the need for 80 per cent of Canada’s natural resources to stay in the ground to fight climate change. 

But the moment demands a different approach. Unleashing Canadian energy is the key to diversifying our economy. Carney should shift the feds’ approach and approve energy projects that have been blocked over the past decade. If he doesn’t, Canadians will look to elect a new government that will.

Then there’s internal trade. Canada does have domestic free trade, but with a major caveat. There are more than 400 carve-outs to Canada’s internal free trade deal. The impact of those carve-outs is dramatic.

Because of the provinces’ non-tariff barriers on each other’s goods, Canada has a de facto 21 per cent domestic tariff when provinces want to trade with each other, according to the International Monetary Fund.

That means it’s easier to trade with a couple dozen countries Canada has free trade agreements with than it is for provinces to trade with each other.

Studies have shown that ending interprovincial trade barriers should be a bigger boost to the national economy than the cost of the tariffs the Trump administration has imposed on Canada.

Canada’s internal trade minister, Anita Anand, says progress has been made on eliminating int.erprovincial trade barriers, but the proof will be in the pudding.

Carney should convene a meeting of Canada’s first ministers immediately and demand that all internal trade barriers be torn down within 30 days.

Canada can’t afford to wait a moment longer.

Make no mistake: the Trudeau government has been behind the curve in responding to the Trump administration’s tariffs threats since day one. Carney has a chance to take a new approach by changing the feds’ approach to energy projects and finally pushing for a comprehensive deal on internal free trade.

If he fails to get this done, or lets ideology get in the way, Canadians will quickly be searching for a new prime minister who will.

Originally published here

Tariffs on Imports From Canada and Mexico Are Still a Terrible Idea

During a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, President Donald Trump acknowledged that Americans don’t like high prices.

“We have to get the prices down,” Trump told reporters. “The prices of eggs and various other things. Eggs are a disaster.”

Part of his administration’s solution to the high price of eggs? More imports. As part of a $1 billion plan to combat the bird flu, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced this week that it would seek to expand imports of eggs, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The U.S. is a major global supplier of eggs, so reversing those supply chains is not easy (and eggs are perishable goods, which makes it more difficult), but the maneuver is evidence that at least some members of the Trump administration grasp that prices are the result of supply and demand. A sudden constraint on supply—in this case, the bird flu—has pushed prices higher, and finding alternative suppliers might help ease the pain.

Read the full text here

Houston charts path forward on interprovincial trade

Leaders across Canada have talked a good game about eliminating interprovincial trade barriers. Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is putting his money where his mouth is.

There can be no doubt about it: Interprovincial trade barriers are holding Canada’s economy back. The rules and regulations preventing the free flow of goods, services and workers across provincial borders is costing our economy more than $200 billion a year.

With U.S. President Donald Trump promising to bring in sweeping tariffs as soon as next week that would devastate the Canadian economy, it’s never been clearer that we need to trade more at home and boost economic activity within our borders.

Enter Houston.

At a campaign stop in support of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s re-election bid, Houston announced plans to table a bill called the Free Trade and Mobility Within Canada Act in the Nova Scotia Legislature.

The legislation would take a reciprocal approach to trade barriers: According to Houston, Nova Scotia will eliminate any barriers standing in the way of trade with another province so long as that other province responds in kind.

In other words, so long as any other province is willing to drop its trade barriers and allow Nova Scotia’s goods, services, and workers to flow freely across its borders, Nova Scotia will do the same.

Canada’s internal trade barriers now represent the equivalent of a 21% tariff. Eliminating those barriers is critical.

Houston’s new legislation could be a game changer for the Canadian economy. Once Nova Scotia passes this bill into law, the onus will be on other provinces to reciprocate: if they want more access to the Nova Scotia market, all they have to do is remove trade barriers of their own.

In the past, provinces have been reluctant to remove trade barriers for a number of reasons. One is that even if a province removes a trade barrier, there’s no guarantee that other provinces that benefit from the elimination of that barrier will respond in kind.

Houston’s legislation would require Nova Scotia to reciprocate action taken by any other province, offering a guarantee that a gesture of goodwill won’t go unmatched.

The proposed legislation could lead to a domino effect. Ontario, for example, might see the benefits of reciprocal trade with Nova Scotia and could choose to introduce similar legislation to facilitate more reciprocal trade with other provinces.

By having politicians commit to matching each other’s moves toward freer trade, they don’t have to take a leap of faith when they stand up to special interest groups and tear down trade barriers.

Houston’s move comes at a critical time. Trump is threatening to introduce punishing across-the-board tariffs as soon as next week. Canada needs to be doing everything possible to strengthen the domestic economy to head off the impact of those tariffs.

Exports represent more than one-third of Canada’s GDP and 77% of Canada’s exports go to the United States. It’s hard to overstate just how devastating U.S. tariffs would be on Canada’s economy.

That’s why strengthening internal trade, in concert with growing Canada’s exports to markets other than the United States, will be crucial in the months ahead.

But unlike trading with other countries, where complex bilateral agreements must be negotiated, internal trade barriers in Canada could be eliminated tomorrow. All that’s been missing is the will to make it happen.

Houston is showing that eliminating internal trade barriers can be done swiftly. With a single piece of legislation, Houston is laying the groundwork for eliminating Nova Scotia’s trade barriers with other provinces, so long as they do the same.

Provincial governments across the country should follow Houston’s lead, introduce reciprocal domestic trade legislation, and unleash the true potential of Canada’s domestic economy.

Interprovincial trade barriers are holding Canada back at a time when we can least afford it. Canada’s premiers should embrace Houston’s plan to fix it.

Originally published here

Congress set to neuter its authority to counter Trump tariffs

As Congress debates yet another Continuing Resolution to hastily fund the federal government for a few months, the House yesterday passed a resolution that mixes together several bills.

Tucked within these provisions was a legalistic quirk that would end Congress’ ability to end President Trump’s “State of Emergency” that has so far given him some legal latitude to impose swaths of new tariffs and duties that affect consumers.

The resolution passed by the House of Representatives contained four sections for consideration:

1.) Repeal of the IRS rule related to DeFi brokers and registration (also known as the broker role), affecting cryptocurrency platforms.

2.) Opening the state of limitations related to pandemic relief era as provided in the CARES Act.

3.) A Continuing Resolution to fund the government on a temporary basis

4.) Declaring the rest of the year as a single calendar day for the purposes of the National Emergencies Act

While each of these sections should elicit some debate or praise, the last section is purposefully written so as to freeze time on the Congressional calendar.

Why is this important?

The section reads: “Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.”

As reported by the New York Times, this is a procedural move that would neuter Congress’ ability to pass any vote or resolution to gain back their power to issue tariffs and other trade sanctions, because 15 calendar days will not pass (at least legally) for the remainder of the year:

House Democrats had planned to force a vote on resolutions to end the tariffs on Mexico and Canada, a move allowed under the National Emergencies Act, which provides a mechanism for Congress to terminate an emergency like the one Mr. Trump declared when he imposed the tariffs on Feb. 1.

That would have forced Republicans — many of whom are opposed to tariffs as a matter of principle — to go on the record on the issue at a time when Mr. Trump’s commitment to tariffs has spooked the financial markets and spiked concerns of reigniting inflation.

The national emergency law lays out a fast-track process for Congress to consider a resolution ending a presidential emergency, requiring committee consideration within 15 calendar days after one is introduced and a floor vote within three days after that.

By passing the resolution, the House Majority has effectively neutered its own authority to set trade policies and to hold the Executive Branch accountable, allowing it to keep the State of Emergency in place so President Trump can issue tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, the European Union, or any other country without much opposition.

Though the President has some authority to issue tariffs in an emergency situation, according to the National Emergencies Act, removing Congress’ ability to end or even reverse the State of Emergency for the rest of 2025 means Congress has abrogated its responsibility to even have a say on trade policies.

By allowing President Trump to prolong his State of Emergency, there will be no constitutional way for Congress to curb the excesses of the multi-theater trade wars being waged across the world, harming consumers who would otherwise profit from freer trade.

Tariffs are taxes on consumers, and trade wars only make consumers poorer, as Consumer Choice Center describes in detail on FreeTrade4Us.org.

Knowing this was a possibility, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul introduced a bill last year to reaffirm the ability of Congress – and Congress alone – to set trade policy and avoid costly tariffs that raise prices for consumers. He called it the “No Taxation Without Representation Act“.

“Our Constitution was designed to prevent any branch from overstepping its bounds. Unchecked executive actions enacting tariffs tax our citizens, threaten our economy, raise prices for everyday goods, and erode the system of checks and balances that our founders so carefully crafted,” wrote Sen. Paul.

If Congress neuters its ability to counter tariffs, then American consumers will have to continue to bear the brunt of protectionist policies that are currently making them worse off.

US and EU: Transatlantic cooperation has benefited consumers – don’t undermine it for short-term tactical gains

BRUSSELS, BE and WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), an international consumer advocacy group with staff members on both sides of the Atlantic, published a policy primer focused on elevating and advancing EU-US relations in an era of uncertainty.

In “A Consumer-Focused Alternative: Reshoring Atlanticism in the Age of Uncertainty,” the Consumer Choice Center  outlines key cooperation opportunities that would strengthen the European and American economies, enhance innovation potential, and benefit consumers.

“At this moment of upheaval, and as liberty-minded Europeans and Americans, we urge policymakers to adopt a long-term perspective and resist the temptation to undermine transatlantic cooperation for short-term tactical gains. We call on industry representatives, political leaders, and policy experts to move beyond inflammatory rhetoric, and anti-free trade measures; instead, foster constructive dialogue that strengthens our shared economic and security interests,” writes Consumer Choice Center.

Here are the CCC’s recommendations to boost potential opportunities for cooperation between the American and European economies: 

  1. Energy 
    1. Buy American, not Russian gas
    2. Streamline LNG terminals and energy import projects
    3. Increase collaboration on energy innovation and technology transfer 
  2. Minerals 
    1. Accelerate alignment under the US-EU critical minerals agreement
    2. Align on joint investment in mining and refining globally
    3. Extend mineral trade opportunities with Canada
  3. Green Deal 
    1. Review the scope of Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive – help European and American economies and consumers
  4. Defense
    1. Commit to further raises in defense spending
    2. Incorporate mutual private actors into national defense.
    3. Continue the format of the EU-US cyber-dialogue
  5. Digital 
    1. Make the most of cutting red tape for innovators – align goals 
    2. Ensure transatlantic independence from high-risk vendors
    3. Cooperate and complement, not compete and bicker on AI – align on regulatory standards 
    4. Coordinate digital development projects in the Global South
    5. Align on intellectual property  – unite to protect European and American innovators globally
  6. Agriculture
    1. Ensure mutual recognition of regulatory standards
    2. Analyze and evaluate subsidy schemes to avoid market distortions.
    3. Restart negotiations on a comprehensive trade agreement
    4. Extend red tape-cutting & simplification efforts to agriculture

The prospect of weakening transatlantic trust in politics, economics, and defense in favor of closer cooperation with illiberal, authoritarian regimes is deeply concerning—not only for policymakers and industry leaders but also for consumers and citizens in the EU and US.

Most importantly, such cooperation is needed more than ever in a world of great power struggle where China and Russia seek to rewrite the rules of the international game for their own gain,” concludes the Consumer Choice Center. 

The Consumer Choice Center believes that the US and the EU should strive to complement, not compete with each other, at the expense of our citizens, consumers, political and security ties, and the future.

READ THE PRIMER HERE


The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva, Lima, Brasilia, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

Trump relance la guerre commerciale : l’Europe doit-elle riposter ?

Face à l’offensive américaine, l’Europe doit-elle réagir immédiatement ou privilégier une stratégie plus subtile ?

Quelques semaines seulement après avoir prêté serment pour son second mandat à la Maison-Blanche, Donald Trump reprend là où il s’était arrêté. Aggravant la guerre commerciale avec les pays alliés, le président républicain a également porté son attention sur l’Europe.

Il a récemment suggéré, depuis la Floride, d’imposer des droits de douane de 25% sur les voitures, les semi-conducteurs et les produits pharmaceutiques.

Son approche est d’autant plus surprenante en ce qui concerne les produits pharmaceutiques. Bien que les Etats-Unis affichent un déficit commercial avec l’UE dans ce secteur, l’instauration de droits de douane ne ferait en réalité qu’augmenter le prix des médicaments pour les patients américains. En quoi cela serait-il bénéfique pour les consommateurs américains ?

En outre, M. Trump souhaite instaurer des droits de douane réciproques sur les produits européens afin de compenser l’impact de la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (TVA) appliquée dans l’UE. Une telle approche reviendrait à élargir considérablement la définition des barrières commerciales, avec des répercussions bien au-delà des relations entre les Etats-Unis et l’Europe.

Or, selon l’Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE), basée à Paris, plus de 170 pays appliquent aujourd’hui une TVA, en faisant une source de revenus essentielle pour les gouvernements du monde entier.

Le président a laissé les experts commerciaux dans l’incertitude quant aux détails précis de ses projets de tarifs réciproques, mais le chef de cabinet adjoint de la Maison-Blanche, Stephen Miller, a laissé entendre au cours du week-end qu’il pourrait envisager des mesures non tarifaires, telles que les TVA européennes et les taxes européennes sur les services numériques.

Par ailleurs, M. Trump continuera très probablement à brandir la menace de droits de douane sur l’acier et l’aluminium européens, comme il l’avait déjà fait lors de son premier mandat.

Pendant ce temps, à Bruxelles, la Commission européenne s’est engagée à prendre des mesures de rétorsion « immédiates » contre les droits de douane américains sur les produits de consommation et les biens manufacturés européens.

Bruxelles a également rappelé son attachement à un commerce fondé sur des règles, accusant Washington de saper ses engagements existants. Les Etats-Unis ont effectivement paralysé l’Organisation mondiale du commerce, ayant bloqué la nomination de juges à sa plus haute cour d’appel depuis le premier mandat de Trump.

Si l’engagement en faveur d’un ordre international fondé sur le commerce est une bonne chose à entendre au Berlaymont, il est également très positif d’entendre que, dans le cadre des concessions que l’UE prépare cette semaine même, il y a une ouverture sur la réduction des droits de douane de 10% imposés par l’UE sur les véhicules américains. Bien sûr, cela permettra à Donald Trump de croire que ses tactiques d’intimidation fonctionnent, mais cela fait également progresser les objectifs du libre-échange.

En tant qu’Européens, nous devons admettre que nous imposons également des barrières tarifaires et non tarifaires à nos alliés, bien que de manière plus subtile et plus détournée que Donald Trump. Nous subventionnons massivement nos agriculteurs, avons mis en place des normes alimentaires strictes et appliquons des droits de douane sur une large gamme de produits importés, y compris en provenance de pays que nous avons auparavant soutenus dans leur développement économique.

En 2018, l’UE a instauré des droits de douane sur le riz en provenance du Cambodge et du Myanmar, sous la pression des producteurs de riz de certains Etats membres, comme l’Italie, qui dénonçaient une concurrence accrue. Pourtant, ces deux pays asiatiques bénéficiaient de notre soutien économique pour stimuler leur développement, notamment en facilitant leurs exportations vers des marchés plus riches afin de créer des emplois pour leur population.

Ainsi, d’un côté, nous apportons une aide financière aux pays en développement, et de l’autre, nous imposons des taxes qui rendent ces mêmes produits plus chers pour nos consommateurs lorsqu’ils les achètent en supermarché.

Mais face aux menaces tarifaires de Donald Trump, la meilleure approche, dans l’immédiat, est de ne rien faire. Il n’est pas nécessaire de répéter la riposte tarifaire de Jean-Claude Juncker sur les blue-jeans, le bourbon et les motos Harley-Davidson – nous ne sommes pas censés gérer notre économie comme une cour de récréation.

Au contraire, nous devrions privilégier des négociations intelligentes, en rappelant aux Américains que le commerce est mutuellement bénéfique et que nos économies respectives échangent des biens essentiels dont nous avons tous besoin.

Originally published here

Bahaya Kebijakan Larangan Impor Pangan 2025

Kebijakan terkait pangan kerap menjadi topik yang penuh dengan pro dan kontra. Tidak bisa dipungkiri bahwa, kebijakan pangan merupakan hal yang sangat sensitif, dan memiliki dampak yang besar pada hampir seluruh lapisan masyarakat. Oleh karena itu, para politisi hampir pasti menjadikan kebijakan pangan fokus utama dalam platform kebijakan kampanye yang mereka lakukan untuk mendapatkan suara masyarakat.

Umumnya, platform kebijakan pangan yang kerap diadvokasi para politisi di Indonesia selalu memiliki corak nasionalisme dan kedaulatan pangan. Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, dalam rapat terbatas di Istana Negara, presiden Prabowo Subianto menyatakan bahwa Indonesia akan menghentikan impor pangan di tahun 2025 dengan capaian target sekitar tahun 2027 (bisnis.com, 30/12/2024).

Kebijakan pelarangan impor sendiri merupakan salah satu kebijakan yang kerap menimbulkan kontroversi, karena berpotensi besar akan membawa dampak negatif terhadap konsumen, seperti kenaikan harga dan dampak lainnya. Hal ini semakin krusial mengingat barang yang dikenakan merupakan produk pangan yang sangat esensial. Oleh karena itu, tidak sedikit pihak yang mengungkapkan kekhawatiran dari kebijakan penutupan impor pangan ini.

Pengajar dan peneliti Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) misalnya, mengatakan bahwa ada beberapa risiko yang akan terjadi dan harus diperhitungkan dari keputusan untuk menutup impor pangan. Aspek permintaan dan penawaran misalnya, akan berpotensi menjadi tidak seimbang (tempo.co, 10/1/2025).

Untuk bahan pangan seperti jagung misalnya, di tahun 2024 lalu sebesar 19,5 juta ton, sementara kebutuhan domestik di tahun ini diperkirakan berjumlah 21 juta ton. Demikian juga produksi garam domestik misalnya, yang tahun lalu hanya 2 juta ton, sementara proyeksi kebutuhan dalam negeri tahun 2025 mencapai 4,2 juta ton. Dengan demikian, kebijakan penutupan impor pangan juga akan membuat harga pangan mengalami inflasi, dan akan menambahkan beban masyarakat berpenghasilan rendah (tempo.co, 10/1/2025).

Selain itu, yang sangat penting untuk diperhatikan adalah kita akan bergantung pada produksi pangan lokal yang sangat rentan terhadap berbagai faktor, seperti bencana alam dan dampak perubahan iklim. Curah hujan di Indonesia yang tidak menentu akan menghasilkan kekeringan dan juga bisa menurunkan hasil panen (tempo.co, 10/1/2025).

Pada 2024 lalu misalnya, Indonesia sempat mengalami penurunan produksi beras, dari 31,10 juta ton di tahun 2023 misalnya, menjadi 30,62 juta ton di tahun 2024. Penurunan ini disebabkan karena ada faktor iklim, salah satunya adalah El Nino yang berkepanjangan. Apabila kita hanya mengandalkan produksi dalam negeri, maka kita akan bergantung pada kondisi iklim tersebut di Indonesia (cnnindonesia.com, 4/2/2025).

Dampak dari pelarangan impor pangan juga tidak hanya dirasakan oleh konsumen dalam negeri, tetapi juga oleh sektor industri. Bila industri pengolahan pangan tidak bisa menggunakan bahan pangan impor, seperti garam misalnya, maka biaya produksi akan semakin meningkat. Dengan demikian, bukan tidak mungkin akan terjadi pemutusan hubungan kerja (PHK) massal, dan daya saing Indonesia dengan negara tetangga seperti Thailand dan Vietnam menjadi semakin berkurang (tirto.id, 10/1/2025).

Untuk komoditas jagung misalnya, bukan hanya menjadi komoditas yang dikonsumsi oleh konsumen, tetapi juga digunakan oleh para peternak untuk pakan hewan-hewan ternak mereka khususnya ayam. Jika impor jagung ditutup, dan ketersediannya menajdi berkurang, maka harga pakan ternak tersebut akan menjadi meningkat, dan juga akan berpengaruh pada produk-produk turunannya, seperti telur dan daging ayam (tempo.co, 8/1/2025).

Kita sendiri juga bisa belajar dari pengalaman kegagalan kebijakan larangan impor pangan yang pernah dilakukan beberapa tahun lalu. Peneliti dari Center of Reform on Economics (CORE) Indonesia mengungkapkan bahwa, pada tahun 2016 lalu pemerintah Indonesia pernah melarang impor jagung (tirto.id, 10/1/2025). Akibatnya, jagung mengalami kelangkaan, dan setelah terjadi protes, pemerintah memutuskan kembali untuk membuka keran impor tanpa kuota di tahun 2019 (antaranews.com, 4/2/2019).

Belum lagi, saat ini pemerintah telah melaksanakan program makan siang gratis untuk seluruh sekolah di Indonesia, yang juga merupakan salah satu janji program presiden saat kampanye tahun lalu. Program makan siang gratis di sekolah-sekolah tersebut tentu merupakan program yang membutuhkan sumber daya yang sangat besar, untuk bisa dinikmati oleh seluruh anak sekolah di Indonesia.

Dengan demikian, program makan siang gratis ini berpotensi besar akan berkontribusi pada kenaikan harga pangan di Indonesia. Bila impor pangan ditutup, maka ketersediaan pangan di pasar berpotensi akan semakin berkurang, dan harga pangan akan semakin melonjak naik (sindonews.com, 15/8/2024).

Sebagai penutup, ketersediaan pangan dengan harga yang terjangkau untuk masyarakat tentu harus menjadi fokus utama para pemangku kebijakan ketika merumuskan kebijakan terkait pangan. Jangan sampai, karena upaya untuk swasembada pangan, lantas masyarakat, khususnya yang berpenghasilan menengah ke bawah, dan juga para pekerja industri, yang terkena dampak negatif dari kebijakan tersebut.

Originally published here

DeepDive: Canada should get rid of supply management once and for all. Here’s a plan to do it

In the context of the Trump administration’s threat of tariffs on Canada and the possible renegotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Canada’s system of supply management for dairy, poultry, and eggs is under renewed scrutiny.

Trump’s pick for commerce secretary has argued that Canada treats American dairy farmers unfairly. The president himself has previously made similar claims.

They have a point. Canada’s system of supply management imposes tariffs on U.S. farmers for chicken, turkey, eggs, and dairy products, between 150 percent and 300 percent. If Donald Trump’s 25 percent tariff threat is a problem, so too is our supply management policy.

Yet in recent days, the Trudeau government has signaled that it won’t make any concessions on its system of quotas, price-setting mechanisms, and import tariffs.

This DeepDive discusses the persistent problems with the supply management system and presents a path forward. It is increasingly clear that this system not only serves Canadian consumers poorly but also harms Canada’s international trade interests. The time for change is now.

What is supply management?

Supply management is an agricultural policy framework for dairy, poultry, and eggs that dates back to the early 1970s. It operates through three main mechanisms: production quotas, import controls, and a cost-of-production formula.

The system dictates how much each farmer can produce through quotas. The concept behind controlling supply in this way is for supply to meet demand without leading to surpluses or shortages. Farmers must own or lease a quota to produce, which adds a layer of control over who can not only enter the market but also how much they can actually produce.

One of the mechanisms to control the flow of dairy into the Canadian market is import controls, which are tariffs on imported goods over a specific threshold. Under the current system of supply management, a limited amount of products from foreign markets can be imported at a lower tariff or zero tariff rate using a system of tariff rate quotas (TRQ). The thresholds vary by product to product and by the trade deal governing the relationship between the exporting country and Canada such as USMCA, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Regardless of the trade deal in question, the TRQ limits are small and ensure that the Canadian market for these products is almost entirely Canadian. The tariffs under supply management are as follows:

Dairy:

  • Tariffs on products like butter, milk, and cheese above the TRQ limits can be as high as 241 percent. While the rate varies, it is generally between 200 percent and slightly higher than 300 percent.

Turkey and chicken:

  • Tariffs on chicken imports above the TRQ can reach 289 percent, and on turkey imports, they are around 165 percent.

Egg and egg products:

  • For egg and egg product imports above the TRQ limit tariffs range between 150 percent and 164 percent.

The cost-of-production aspect of supply management ensures that prices are fixed to cover the farmer’s cost of production and what is considered a “reasonable” profit margin.

Read the full text here

The time to tear down internal trade barriers is now

Canadians and Americans are holding their breath as they wait to learn if they will have to deal with 25 per cent tariffs on the goods they buy every day.

In response to the threat of tariffs, Canadian premiers have stepped up with their own ideas about how to respond to Donald Trump’s tariff threats, from Danielle Smith’s insistence that a more diplomatic approach is necessary, to Doug Ford’s approach of threatening to cut off various sources of American trade in Ontario.

There has been much talk about a Team Canada approach with regards to tariffs. But how can there even be a Team Canada when the provinces can’t agree to trade freely with one another?

This tariff debacle should be the sobering wake up call to all provincial premiers that international trade partners should not be seen as unwavering allies, and that diversifying trade is essential to maintaining economic prosperity.

One obvious place to start is looking within our own house, and breaking down the trade barriers that preposterously continue to exist between Canadian provinces.

The refrain has long been that eliminating interprovincial trade barriers is an insurmountable task.

Section 121 of the Constitution states “all Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.” This is clear language, and should mean that we are a unified nation — one country, with one market.

However, despite this clear language in the Constitution, trade barriers continue to be high.

Former Canadian Chamber of Commerce president Perrin Beatty has stated there are many different levels of barriers to tackle, including mobility barriers and commercial barriers, some of which have existed since confederation.

According to a recent post on X by former policy advisor to Québec’s Minister of Finance Jean Philippe Fournier, even though the political will existed at a certain point in Quebec (notably, the province that is most closed off to interprovincial trade), the minister was stopped from dropping barriers by the realization that each province was creating regulations in silos without taking into consideration the actions of other provinces.

These rules ended up creating niche interest groups of companies who adapted to these regulations and would lobby the government not to standardize with other provinces so they could stay in business.

And despite text in Section 121 that reads clearly, the Supreme Court of Canada’s restrictive interpretation of it has taken out all its teeth. Section 121 was considered in the Supreme Court case of R. v. Comeau, which involved a man who bought some beer for personal consumption in Quebec and brought it over the border to his home in New Brunswick. He was caught and handed a $300 ticket, and took his case all the way to the Supreme Court with the help of the legal charity the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

While Gerard Comeau had success at the lower court, the Supreme Court found Section 121 does not allow absolute free trade across provinces.

Provinces can adopt laws and regulations that restrict trade if they show the overall aim is for another purpose, like “public health.” This has allowed provinces to impose all kinds of trade restrictions under the guise of some other purpose.

This was an unfortunate result that should be seen as inconsistent with the plain reading of the constitution, but could easily be addressed through political action.

Provinces could choose to enact freer trade, which would unite us as a country during this time of deep economic uncertainty. The political will to tackle interprovincial trade appears to be getting stronger. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre recently released a video questioning why it’s easier to trade with other countries than within Canada itself.

Reports also show the federal government and the premiers are finally having conversations about the positive effects of breaking down these barriers.

Team Canada and “Buy Canadian” are not complete until buying Canadian means having free trade to do exactly that within the borders of our own country.

Originally published here

Trump’s Tariff Standoff Hurts Consumers

Washington, D.C. – Over the weekend, President Trump announced 25% tariffs to be applied to goods coming from both Canada and Mexico beginning February 4th. Similar tariffs would be applied to Chinese imports at just 10%. Already, things are changing. Mexico’s president Claudia Sheinbaum just announced that after a conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump and concessions on border enforcement, tariffs are on hold for another month.

Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director at the Consumer Choice Center, reacted to the news of a pause on US-Mexico tariffs by saying,

“We’re glad that the pause button is being hit here, but the uncertainty of whether prices will jump 25% tomorrow or next month is enough to leave consumers frustrated and confused. Economic uncertainty limits the economic potential for everyone involved in this trade dispute.”

Trump posted on social media that he spoke Monday morning with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and would “be speaking to him again at 3:00 P.M.” While Mexico is standing down on a trade war with the U.S., Canada remains uncertain. 

“The problem here is that Trump boosters are telling themselves that “tariffs work” when what we’re seeing is more akin to foreign policy negotiation between neighbors, not economics. Maybe the threat of tariffs work for President Trump’s agenda, but if tariffs are actually implemented, consumers will see exactly what they do, which is explode the prices for everyday goods,” said Ossowski.

READ in THE HILL: CCC’s Elizabeth Hicks and Sabine El-Chidiac on how the tariffs will harm both American and Canadian consumers

The North American trading bloc is uniquely positioned to thrive in the years ahead. The deeply integrated supply chains between the U.S. and Canada have long helped keep consumer prices down, particularly in the automotive sector. In 2022 alone, Canada exported $12.9 billion in motor vehicle parts and accessories, with an overwhelming $11.4 billion of that destined for the U.S.

Tariffs on Canada could still happen as soon as Tuesday, meaning an immediate impact on US and Canadian consumers if retaliation is carried out. 

In Michigan, Canadian automotive trade accounts for 13% of the state’s gross product. With Canada supplying $132 billion worth of oil and petroleum to the U.S. annually, there’s little chance the Trump administration could replace that supply with domestic production quickly enough to prevent a spike at the pump.

“If this afternoon phone call between Trump and Trudeau doesn’t go well, and they tend not to see eye to eye on much, Americans could see gas prices beyond the $4.00 mark before Valentine’s Day. We don’t think the livelihoods of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and everyday consumers should be on the bargaining table,” concluded Ossowski.


The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

en_USEN

Follow us

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

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

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