From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The Carney government will table its long-awaited first budget tooday. The vote on the budget is expected to be a confidence vote, so the stakes are high. Everyone is speculating about what’s to be in it. CBC, the Toronto Sun and Global News are all reading the tea leaves. And I hate to miss a tea party.

The budget is, naturally, going to have major implications for Canada’s economic indicators of debt, deficit, spending, governmental expansion/contraction, and so on. I’ll leave all that macroeconomics to my colleagues at Fraser Institute. But Prime Minister Carney has made some specific claims in my areas of specialty (environment, natural resources and regulation), and has made noises about Canada becoming an “energy superpower” and “building things” again. He’s also, in speeches leading up to the budget, re-affirmed that the Trudeau-era climate-change-centric, carbon-emission-control mindset is unchanged. The wording has changed, but the focus and predicates remain. Now though, rather than pounding on terms such as carbon, greenhouse and climate change, it’s all about Canadian policy being “responsible,” “sustainable,” “moral” and “equitable.”

Here’s what I’ll look for in the budget.

First, will the government dismantle or reform bills C-48, C-69 and the oil and gas emission cap—the three-pronged trident of death for major oil and gas development in Canada? Without this, it will be difficult to take any of his talk of energy superpower or natural resource trade renaissance seriously.

Second, will the government renounce or seriously reform the economically irrational, unattainable and crippling “net-zero 2050” anti-carbon agenda and shift Canada’s climate policy from emissions abatement to something potentially more attainable, such as adaptation and resilience building? Will it free Canada’s carbon natural resource economy to be the engine of Canadian prosperity and international competitiveness once again? Or keep Canada’s carbon (oil and gas) economy (and manufacturing economy) on a path toward extinction?

Third, will the government reset the tone of Canadian culture and defuse some of the adversarial relations with resource-rich provinces by acknowledging that Canada’s natural-resource economy has been, is now and must continue to be a cornerstone in Canada’s total economy? Or will it stick to the “net-zero” extinction process for carbon emissions, which will also be an extinction process for anything that requires substantial energy generation, and for the development of natural resources as the primary wealth engine of Canada? Will the government end the disdain for the role of Canada (and notably some of Canada’s western provinces) as a natural-resources export economy?

The budget will offer a window into the mind of Prime Minister Carney on the matter of natural resources in Canada’s economy and society. With global changes undermining the international carbon control regime and idee fixe, and with an understanding that Canada is on an economic precipice, there’s an opportunity here. Let’s hope Carney works to unshackle one of Canada’s greatest engines of economic progress—its energy and natural resource production, transformation, transportation, consumption and exportation.

Canadians could use the boost in quality of life that Canada’s natural resources could bring to current and future generations.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Mark Simon

The APEC Summit in Korea last week marked a pivotal moment for U.S. trade policy, delivering tangible wins for American interests. Solid deals were struck with South Korea, while the U.S. and China de-escalated their long-simmering trade war—a clear positive for President Trump. In the chaotic world of Donald Trump, such normalcy disappointed the news media and foreign policy pundits, who grumbled that the event lacked the drama of a disaster.

Yet, as Trump departed Busan, a deeper transformation unfolded, largely overlooked by observers. In just two days, President Trump orchestrated the most significant shift in U.S. trade strategy since China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The real triumph? Widespread acceptance by Asian trading partners of U.S. tariffs as a cornerstone of a reimagined American economic model. This acceptance dismantles nearly a century of unwavering belief in low tariffs as the unassailable path to global prosperity.

Trump’s tariff approach disrupts the post-World War II global trading system, particularly the U.S.-championed free-trade orthodoxy embraced by both parties for over 50 years. By wielding tariffs effectively, Trump challenges the free-market gospel enshrined in the WTO and echoed by World Economic Forum elites and corporate-sponsored Washington think tanks like AEI and CATO, which decry tariffs as heresy.

At APEC, there was no fiery backlash—only quiet nods to moderate tariffs as fixtures in the evolving economic order. Leaders from across the Asia-Pacific assessed the tariffs’ impacts and moved forward without spectacle, signaling a pragmatic pivot toward Trump’s view of international commerce.

Historically, tariff reductions in Asia stemmed from U.S. pressure to open markets. Mercantilist instincts run deep in most Asian governments—except in freewheeling Hong Kong and Singapore. These nations, built on exports inside protected markets, grasp how tariffs can revitalize U.S. manufacturing and bolster federal revenue. Unlike America’s one-sided openness to Asian imports, Trump’s reciprocity feels like overdue fairness.

As a former free-market purist who once decried tariffs, I initially missed their nuance in Trump’s arsenal. Tariffs impose costs, but the genius lies in offsetting them strategically. Trump’s aggressive deregulation, sweeping tax reforms, and drive for rock-bottom domestic energy prices mitigate burdens and generate a net economic surge—one that Asian leaders implicitly endorsed.

 This “internal free-market trio” forms the bedrock of the new U.S. paradigm: moderate tariffs generate revenue and incentivize factory repatriation; deregulation slashes red tape; tax cuts keep capital flowing competitively; and abundant, cheap energy undercuts foreign advantages.

Together, they magnetize global investment, upending a century of free-trade dogma. Energy dominance is key. Through promotion of domestic oil, gas, and renewables, Trump has driven U.S. energy costs 30–50% below those in Europe or much of Asia. For capital-intensive sectors like steel, semiconductors, and electric vehicles, this is structural superiority, not subsidy. Layer on the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—slashing the corporate rate to 21% and allowing immediate capital expensing—and the math tilts toward U.S. production.  Tariffs may raise import prices by 20–30%, but deregulation accelerates cost-cutting, while energy savings absorb part of the hit.

Critics claim tariffs ravaged the economy post-2018, but COVID-19, not tariffs, triggered the downturn. Trump’s initial round was a successful pilot, extended by Biden—yet without Trump’s deregulation and energy surge, the tariffs became un-offset weight. Blanket cost hikes under Biden stifled growth; Trump’s selective offsets ensure expansion.

America’s edge sharpens as rivals falter. Europe, shackled by leftist policies, environmental mandates, and the Ukraine quagmire, hemorrhages capital to the U.S. In North Asia—China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan—demographic headwinds make investments unappealing compared to North America’s burgeoning market. Aging populations and shrinking workforces amplify this disparity.

APEC underscored America as a vibrant, tariff-protected haven primed for onshoring. Amid Asia’s labor crunch, nations view the U.S. as an investment beacon, mirroring Japan’s model: a high-value exporter offloading low-end manufacturing while retaining competitiveness. Summit chatter revealed minimal tariff gripes. China voiced tepid concerns over escalations, but these seemed rhetorical—testing boundaries rather than igniting conflict.

To free-trade zealots, Trump’s heresy is demolishing sacred economic theory. Past protectionists erred by isolating tariffs without cost-lowering measures. Trump integrates them: selective duties paired with deregulation, technological leaps, and economic decentralization beyond urban centers.

In equilibrium, tariffs harvest revenue and reclaim jobs, capitalizing on America’s fiscal and regulatory advantages. Trump’s blueprint restores balance to free trade, honoring national sovereignty while exposing borderless markets’ perils. It proves moderated protectionism can ignite growth, spur innovation, and draw capital—heralding a bolder, self-reliant American century.

Mark Simon is former group director for Next Digital, parent company for Apple Daily, the leading pro-democracy newspaper in Hong Kong until it was forced to close in 2021.