Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Mobility pricing must be fair and equitable for all April 12, 2018
    As Metro Vancouver’s population has grown, so have its traffic congestion problems. Whether it’s a long wait to cross a bridge or get on a bus, everyone can relate to the additional time and stress caused by a transportation system under strain. Mobility pricing is seen as a solution to Metro Vancouver’s transportation challenges with […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Budget 2018: The Most Disappointing Budget Ever March 14, 2018
    Premier Pallister’s Trump-esque statement that budget 2018 was going to be the “best budget ever” has fallen a bit flat. Instead of a bold plan to deal with climate change, poverty and our crumbling infrastructure, we are presented with two alarmist scenarios to justify further tax cuts and a lack of decisive action: the recent […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 2018 Federal Budget Analysis February 14, 2018
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis Some baby steps for dad and big steps forward for women, by Kate McInturff (CCPA) An ambition constrained budget, by David Macdonald (CCPA) Five things […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CED in Manitoba - The Video January 29, 2018
    Community Economic Development in Manitoba - nudging capitalism out of the way?
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • With regional management BC’s iconic forest industry can benefit British Columbians rather than multinational corporations January 17, 2018
    Forests are one of the iconic symbols of British Columbia, and successive governments and companies operating here have largely focussed on the cheap, commodity lumber business that benefits industry. Former provincial forestry minister Bob Williams, who has been involved with the industry for five decades, proposes regional management of this valuable natural resource to benefit […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

A Court Challenges Program for Corporate Canada

Brian Lee Crowley used to run the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. Through the new Macdonald-Laurier Institute, he is now (to paraphrase ZZ Top) not only bad, but also nationwide.

So far, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute has released two papers. I missed the first one in March. The second paper, released on Monday, is entitled Citizen of One, Citizen of the Whole.

It is about “provincial trade barriers.” The cover is a full-page photo of Crowley’s co-author Robert Knox, heralded as a “voice for Canadians’ economic freedom.”

The Barriers

The paper’s first section notes, “Our Founders did not expect to build a sense of nationhood on gaudy rhetoric” (page 6). But that does not stop the authors from building their paper on it: “cooperating economically binds citizens together in fellowship that transcends materialism” (page 7).

After a couple pages of gaudy rhetoric, the paper spends one page identifying alleged provincial trade barriers. As the authors acknowledge, it is a federal statute (not a provincial barrier) that prohibits importing wine from another province. Quebec’s ban on yellow margarine and the difference between Alberta and BC hay-stacking rules have been removed.

Citizen of One presents just three current inter-provincial differences: cream container sizes, Ontario accounting standards, and bus brake regulations. The authors offset this lack of significant examples by repeatedly asserting that there are too many barriers to count: “so immense that no one has ever come close to cataloguing them all” (page 9), “so numerous and varied that no one has managed even to list them all” (page 10) and “no one can count them all” (page 12).

The Cost

For the cost of these unnamed barriers, the authors pick a number out of the air: half a percent of GDP or $8 billion, a figure dutifully and uncritically repeated by The Toronto Sun and National Post. They then relapse into gaudy rhetoric about “the dynamic effects of greater economic freedom” (page 12).

Footnote 18 (page 10) states, “John Whalley of the University of Western Ontario did two studies, in 1983 and 1995, suggesting it was comparatively small, between one-tenth and one-fifth of a percentage point of GDP. In 1984 the famous ‘Macdonald Commission’ suggested a much higher number, around 1.5 percent of GDP.”

I have no idea what the authors are referring to. First, the Macdonald Commission reported in 1985 not 1984. Second, Whalley’s first estimate was prepared for the Macdonald Commission. Third, the estimate was one-twentieth of one percent (0.05%) of GDP. Fourth, most of the barriers examined back then have since been removed.

The Proposal

In response to this nonexistent problem, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute wants the federal government to legislate an “Economic Charter of Rights” to enable legal challenges of alleged provincial barriers (page 21). Of course, as the authors acknowledge, Canada’s Constitution already places interprovincial trade under federal jurisdiction. The courts already can and do strike down genuine provincial trade barriers, which likely explains why the authors found so few examples.

The more substantial and pernicious proposal is to establish a federal “Economic Freedom Commission” to initiate and finance such legal challenges (page 22). However silly it may be that different provinces mandate different sized cream containers, it would be even sillier for the federal government to take provincial governments to court over the size of cream containers.

The greater risk is that a new bureaucracy devoted to challenging provincial barriers may not be satisfied focussing on trivial matters like cream containers. Business interests would probably use the “Economic Freedom Commission” to challenge public-interest regulations that are stronger in some provinces than others and can thus be characterized as “interprovincial barriers.” Under this regime, provincial officials would be even more reluctant to set standards above those in other provinces.

The Citizen of One proposal is comparable to the Court Challenges Program, which financed legal cases on equality rights. The federal Conservatives de-funded that program. Now a conservative think-tank is advocating federal funding of a court challenges program for corporate Canada. Not surprisingly, a group of corporate lawyers and business lobbyists has already signed on in support of this scheme.

Enjoy and share:

Write a comment





Related articles