Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

A Look at Canada’s Import Tariffs

Published

5 minute read

  By David Clinton

Speaking of foreign tariffs, Canada’s hands are not exactly clean

It’s one thing to oppose the various iterations of recently threatened U.S. tariffs: many of those carry the potential to inflict serious harm on Canada and Canadians and we’re right to be nervous. However, whether or not Canada’s many external-facing policies use the term tariff in their titles, we have more than a few protectionist trade barriers of our own. I thought it would be useful to list some of Canada’s more obvious protectionist policies.

Unfortunately, one thing these examples lack is context. It’s no secret that international trade is complicated. Some of the trade barriers I’m going to describe are policy responses to legitimate safety issues. And, even among those restrictions that were designed to protect local industries, I couldn’t usefully estimate whether there are enough of them to define our total trade ecosystem.Nevertheless, here’s what I did find.The Customs Tariff Act governs Canada’s import tariffs. All goods entering Canada from countries on the Most-Favored-Nation list that aren’t eligible for lower rates through trade agreements are subject to tariff charges as high as 17 percent. Here are some practical cases of imports from the U.S. that aren’t covered by the CUSMA trade agreement:

  • U.S. t-shirts using imported fabric could face an 18 percent tariff, adding $18,000 to a $100,000 shipment.
  • A $30,000 U.S.-assembled car with Asian parts incurs $1,830 in duties.
  • $50,000 of U.S. strawberries could face $4,250 in seasonal duties if applied.
  • $200,000 of steel wire from the U.S. could face $108,000 in extra anti-dumping duties.

Canada’s supply management system for dairy, poultry, and eggs is a notorious example of a policy that looks, walks, and quacks just like a duck an import tariff. Supply management is governed by a combination of federal and provincial laws, including the Export and Import Permits Act and the Farm Products Agencies Act. Regulations can hit over-quota imported cheese with rates as high as 245.5 percent and chicken can be taxed at 238 percent. And that’s assuming you somehow manage to score an import permit from Global Affairs Canada.The Canadian Food Inspection Agency enforces strict sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that often require layers of inspections or certification requirements that can significantly raise compliance costs. The differences between some of those requirements and an economic tariff are not always obvious.The Canada Border Services Agency collects an excise tax on imported liquor. For example, a U.S. exporter looking to ship 100 litres of 40 percent ABV whiskey to Canada will face a duty of $467.84 (100 × 0.4 × $11.696). That duty must be paid by the importer.In addition, various provincial liquor control boards apply fees and markup costs on imported alcohol, which effectively create price barriers for foreign products (when they’re even allowed on store shelves).Book Importation Regulations limit parallel imports of foreign editions in order to protect Canadian publishers. I assume this is why so many major international publishing companies maintain Canadian offices and, on paper at least (so to speak), publish special Canadian editions.The various Canadian Content (CanCon) rules governing broadcast media will also undermine the principle of free trade, even if those rules won’t necessarily increase import costs.Here are some examples of regulatory compliance rules that aren’t always just about safety:

  • Electrical product safety certification rules sometimes requires foreign electronics manufacturers to repeat testing despite already having UL certification, adding 3-6 months to market entry.
  • US medical device companies can face duplication of regulatory submissions and maintenance of separate quality systems due to Health Canada requirements.
  • Chemical manufacturers must submit detailed testing data specific to Canadian requirements in order to register their products.
  • Small US food producers must implement separate packaging lines for Canadian-bound products to satisfy nutrition labeling requirements.

This isn’t to say there’s necessarily anything morally wrong with any of those rules. And, as I noted, I’m not sure whether Canada’s overall trade profile is more restrictive than our international peers. But, when faced with foreign tariffs, it can’t be said that Canada’s hands are perfectly clean.

Subscribe to The Audit. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Carney’s budget spares tax status of Canadian churches, pro-life groups after backlash

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Canadian pro-life charities and churches retain their tax-exempt status in the 2025-26 budget, a reversal attributed to public and political opposition to earlier proposals.

Canadian pro-life charities and churches will not lose their tax exemption under the Liberal Party’s newly presented fall budget despite earlier threats.

On November 4, Liberal Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne presented the Canadian federal budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 in the House of Commons that included no mention of stripping pro-life organizations and churches of their tax exemption.

“Campaign Life Coalition is breathing a sigh of relief that churches and pro-life organizations were not stripped of their charitable status in the (Mark) Carney Liberal budget released today,” Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) communications director Pete Baklinski said in a statement sent to LifeSiteNews.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, before last Christmas, a proposal by the all-party Finance Committee suggested legislation that could strip pro-life pregnancy centers and religious groups of their charitable status.

The legislation would amend the Income Tax Act and Income Tax. Section 429 of the proposed legislation recommends the government “no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.”

The bill, according to the finance department, would require “registered charities that provide services, advice, or information in respect of the prevention, preservation, or termination of pregnancy (i.e., destroying the unborn)” to disclose that they “do not provide specific services, including abortions or birth control.”

Similarly, Recommendation 430 aims to “amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.”

Canadians quickly responded to the recommendations, warning that it would mean the end of many pro-life organizations and the vital work that they do to help mothers in need.

Likewise, Conservative MPs and clergy alike condemned the suggestion to tax churches that provide essential services to Canadians.

“This is a victory for religious freedom and for the Canadian values of helping the vulnerable, offering a compassionate hand, and being present to those in crisis,” he declared.

“The Liberal government was right to listen to ordinary citizens and faith leaders and ultimately reject these outrageous recommendations,” Gunnarson continued. “Thanks be to God, Canada lives to see another day without a dark cloud of persecution hanging over religious and pro-life organizations.”

 

“This victory belongs to the concerned citizens across Canada who took the time to sign a petition or write a letter to their MP or the Finance Minister,” he said. “This proves that when enough people speak out, good things can happen.”

Currently, the budget is under Parliamentary review, as Liberals lack sufficient votes to pass the legislation. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has declared that his party will not support the budget. The Bloc Québécois have also pledged opposition and the New Democratic Party (NDP) is considering supporting the budget.

Continue Reading

Business

The Liberal budget is a massive FAILURE: Former Liberal Cabinet Member Dan McTeague

Published on

CAE Logo

Prime Minister Mark Carney tabled his government’s long-overdue budget yesterday and took the same approach as his predecessor – spend, spend, spend.

Canada’s deficit is now a staggering $78 BILLION. To make matters worse, Carney doubled down on the industrial carbon tax.

Dan McTeague explains in his latest video.

Continue Reading

Trending

X