Canada holds valuable bargaining chip in trade negotiations with Trump

From the Fraser Institute

On the eve of a possible trade war with the United States, Canadian policymakers have a valuable bargaining chip they can play in any negotiations—namely, Canada’s “supply management” system.

During his first day in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump said he may impose “25 per cent” tariffs on Canadian and Mexican exports into the United States on Feb. 1. In light of his resounding election win and Republican control of both houses of congress, Trump has a strong hand.

In response, Canadian policymakers—including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ontario Premier Doug Ford—have threatened retaliation. But any retaliation (tariffs imposed on the U.S., for example) would likely increase the cost of living for Canadians.

Thankfully, there’s another way. To improve our trade position with the U.S.—and simultaneously benefit Canadian consumers—policymakers could dismantle our outdated system of supply management, which restricts supply, controls imports and allows producers of milk, eggs and poultry to maintain higher prices for their products than would otherwise exist in a competitive market. Government dictates who can produce, what can be produced, when and how much. While some aspects of the system are provincial (such as certain marketing boards), the federal government controls many key components of supply management including import restrictions and national quotas.

How would this help Canada minimize the Trump threat?

In the U.S., farmers backed Trump by a three-to-one margin in the 2024 election, and given Trump’s overall views on trade, the new administration will likely target Canadian supply management in the near future. (Ironically, Trump has cried foul about Canadian tariffs, which underpin our supply management system.) Given the transactional nature of Trump’s leadership, Canadian negotiators could put supply management on the negotiating table as a bargaining chip to counter demands that would actually damage the Canadian economy, such as Trump’s tariffs. This would allow Trump to deliver increased access to the Canadian market for the farmers that overwhelmingly supported him in the election.

And crucially, this would also be good for Canadian consumers. According to a 2015 study, our supply management system costs the average Canadian household an estimated extra $300 to $444 annually, and higher prices hurt lower-income Canadians more than any other group. If we scrapped supply management, we’d see falling prices at the grocery store and increased choice due to dairy imports from the U.S.

Unfortunately, Parliament has been moving in the opposite direction. Bill C-282, which recently passed in the House of Commons and is now before the Senate, would entrench supply management by restricting the ability of Canadian trade negotiators to use increased market access as a tool in international trade negotiations. In other words, the bill—if passed—will rob Canadian negotiators of a key bargaining chip in negotiations with Trump. With a potential federal election looming, any party looking to strengthen Canada’s trade position and benefit consumers here at home should reject Bill C-282.

Trade negotiations in the second Trump era will be difficult so our policymakers in Ottawa and the provinces must avoid self-inflicted wounds. By dismantling Canada’s system of supply management, they could win concessions from Team Trump, possibly avert a destructive tit-for-tat tariff exchange, and reduce the cost of living for Canadians.

Alex Whalen

Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#AlexWhalen #CostOfLiving #FraserInstitute #JakeFuss CanadaSupplyManagement CanadaUSTradeNegotiations TrumpTariffs

Up Next

Why Canadian oil is so important to the United States

Don't Miss

BC high school scraps gender-neutral bathroom plan after parental outrage

Todayville

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

Poll: Majority says energy independence more important than fighting climate change

Business / 3 hours ago

Trump Reportedly Shuts Off Flow Of Taxpayer Dollars Into World Trade Organization

Energy / 5 hours ago

Energy, climate, and economics — A smarter path for Canada

Business

Trump Reportedly Shuts Off Flow Of Taxpayer Dollars Into World Trade Organization

Published on March 27, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Thomas English

The Trump administration has reportedly suspended financial contributions to the World Trade Organization (WTO) as of Thursday.

The decision comes as part of a broader shift by President Donald Trump to distance the U.S. from international institutions perceived to undermine American sovereignty or misallocate taxpayer dollars. U.S. funding for both 2024 and 2025 has been halted, amounting to roughly 11% of the WTO’s annual operating budget, with the organization’s total 2024 budget amounting to roughly $232 million, according to Reuters.

“Why is it that China, for decades, and with a population much bigger than ours, is paying a tiny fraction of [dollars] to The World Health Organization, The United Nations and, worst of all, The World Trade Organization, where they are considered a so-called ‘developing country’ and are therefore given massive advantages over The United States, and everyone else?” Trump wrote in May 2020.

The president has long criticized the WTO for what he sees as judicial overreach and systemic bias against the U.S. in trade disputes. Trump previously paralyzed the organization’s top appeals body in 2019 by blocking judicial appointments, rendering the WTO’s core dispute resolution mechanism largely inoperative.

But a major sticking point continues to be China’s continued classification as a “developing country” at the WTO — a designation that entitles Beijing to a host of special trade and financial privileges. Despite being the world’s second-largest economy, China receives extended compliance timelines, reduced dues and billions in World Bank loans usually reserved for poorer nations.

The Wilson Center, an international affairs-oriented think tank, previously slammed the status as an outdated loophole benefitting an economic superpower at the expense of developed democracies. The Trump administration echoed this criticism behind closed doors during WTO budget meetings in early March, according to Reuters.

The U.S. is reportedly not withdrawing from the WTO outright, but the funding freeze is likely to trigger diplomatic and economic groaning. WTO rules allow for punitive measures against non-paying member states, though the body’s weakened legal apparatus may limit enforcement capacity.

Trump has already withdrawn from the World Health Organization, slashed funds to the United Nations and signaled a potential exit from other global bodies he deems “unfair” to U.S. interests.

Alberta

Albertans have contributed $53.6 billion to the retirement of Canadians in other provinces

Published on March 27, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Nathaniel Li

Albertans contributed $53.6 billion more to CPP then retirees in Alberta received from it from 1981 to 2022

Albertans’ net contribution to the Canada Pension Plan —meaning the amount Albertans paid into the program over and above what retirees in Alberta
received in CPP payments—was more than six times as much as any other province at $53.6 billion from 1981 to 2022, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Albertan workers have been helping to fund the retirement of Canadians from coast to coast for decades, and Canadians ought to know that without Alberta, the Canada Pension Plan would look much different,” said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Understanding Alberta’s Role in National Programs, Including the Canada Pension Plan.

From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 per cent (on average) of the total CPP premiums paid—Canada’s compulsory, government- operated retirement pension plan—while retirees in the province received only 10.0 per cent of the payments. Alberta’s net contribution over that period was $53.6 billion.

Crucially, only residents in two provinces—Alberta and British Columbia—paid more into the CPP than retirees in those provinces received in benefits, and Alberta’s contribution was six times greater than BC’s.

The reason Albertans have paid such an outsized contribution to federal and national programs, including the CPP, in recent years is because of the province’s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population.

As such, if Alberta withdrew from the CPP, Alberta workers could expect to receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower payroll tax) than other Canadians, while the payroll tax would likely have to increase for the rest of the country (excluding Quebec) to maintain the same benefits.

“Given current demographic projections, immigration patterns, and Alberta’s long history of leading the provinces in economic growth, Albertan workers will likely continue to pay more into it than Albertan retirees get back from it,” Hill said.

Understanding Alberta’s Role in National Programs, Including the Canada Pension Plan

Understanding Alberta’s role in national income transfers and other important programs is crucial to informing the broader debate around Alberta’s possible withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).
Due to Alberta’s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans contribute significantly more to federal revenues than they receive back in federal spending.
From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 percent (on average) of the total CPP premiums paid while retirees in the province received only 10.0 percent of the payments. Albertans net contribution was $53.6 billion over the period—approximately six times greater than British Columbia’s net contribution (the only other net contributor).
Given current demographic projections, immigration patterns, and Alberta’s long history of leading the provinces in economic growth and income levels, Alberta’s central role in funding national programs is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Due to Albertans’ disproportionate net contribution to the CPP, the current base CPP contribution rate would likely have to increase to remain sustainable if Alberta withdrew from the plan. Similarly, Alberta’s stand-alone rate would be lower than the current CPP rate.