From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

From telecom ownership limits to convoluted regulations, these hidden obstacles drive up prices, choke innovation, and shield domestic industries from global competition. Canada ranks among the worst offenders. If Ottawa is serious about free trade, it’s time to tackle the red tape, not just the tariffs.

Governments claim to support free trade, but use hidden rules to shut out foreign competition

Tariffs levied by governments on imports are a well-known impediment to trade. They raise costs for consumers and businesses alike. But tariffs are no longer the main obstacle to the elusive goal of “free and fair trade.” A more significant—and often overlooked—threat comes from non-tariff barriers: the behind-the-scenes rules, subsidies and restrictions that quietly block competition from foreign exporters.

These barriers can take many forms, including import licences, quotas, discriminatory regulations and state subsidies. The result is often higher prices, limited product choices and reduced innovation, since foreign competitors are effectively shut out of the market before they can enter.

This hidden protectionism harms both consumers and Canadian firms that rely on imported goods or global supply chains.

To understand the global scope of these barriers, a recent analysis by the Tholos Foundation sheds light on their prevalence and impact. Its 2023 Non-Tariff Barriers Index Report examined the policies, laws and trade practices of 88 countries, representing 96 per cent of the world’s population and GDP.

The results are surprising: the United States, with some of the lowest official tariffs, ranked 65th on non-tariff barriers. Canada, by contrast, ranked fourth.

These barriers are often formalized and tracked under the term “non-tariff measures” by international organizations such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Trade Organization.

UNCTAD notes that while some serve legitimate non-trade objectives like public health or environmental protection, they still raise trade costs through procedural hurdles that can disproportionately affect small exporters or developing nations.

Other barriers include embargoes, import deposits, subsidies to favoured companies, state procurement preferences, technical standards designed to exclude foreign goods, restrictions on foreign investment, discriminatory taxes and forced technology transfers.

Many of these are detailed in a study by the Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.

Sanctions and politically motivated trade restrictions also fall under this umbrella, complicating efforts to build reliable global trade networks.

Among the most opaque forms of trade distortion is currency manipulation. Countries like Japan have historically used ultra-low interest rates to stimulate growth, which also weakens their currencies.

Others may unintentionally devalue their currency through excessive, debt-financed spending. Regardless of motive, the effect is often the same: foreign goods become more expensive, and domestic exports become artificially competitive.

Canada is no stranger to non-tariff barriers. Labelling laws, technical standards and foreign ownership restrictions, particularly in telecommunications and digital media, are clear examples. Longstanding rules prevent foreign companies from owning Canadian telecom providers, limiting competition in an industry where Canadians already pay among the highest cellphone bills in the world. Similar restrictions on investment in broadcasting and interactive digital media also curtail innovation and investment.

Other nations use these barriers just as liberally. The U.S. has expanded its use of the “national security” exemption to justify restrictions in nearly any industry it sees as threatened. The European Union employs a wide range of non-tariff measures that affect sectors from agriculture to digital services. So while China is frequently criticized for abusing trade rules, it is far from the only offender.

If governments are serious about pursuing freer, fairer global trade, they must confront these less visible but more potent barriers. Tariffs may be declining, but protectionism is alive and well, just hidden behind layers of red tape.

For Canada to remain competitive and protect consumers, we must look beyond tariffs and scrutinize the subtler ways the federal government is restricting trade.

Ian Madsen is a senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Lee Harding

Canada’s housing affordability crisis is no mystery. It’s the result of deliberate planning decisions that limit suburban growth and inflate home prices

If it feels like housing is getting more unaffordable, it’s because it is.

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy and Chapman University’s Center for Demographics and Policy have released the 2025 edition of the Demographia International Housing Affordability report, authored by Wendell Cox. It confirms what many homebuyers already suspect: affordability is in decline.

The report examines 95 major housing markets across eight countries, using data from the third quarter of 2024. Now in its 21st year, the study reveals a troubling trend: affordability continues to erode, especially in jurisdictions with strict land-use regulations.

Generally, the cost of living is highest where municipal governments impose the greatest restrictions on suburban growth. These “urban containment
strategies”—including greenbelts, zoning rules and growth boundaries—are often introduced to curb urban sprawl and promote sustainability. But by limiting the land available for development, they drive up the cost of land and, by extension, housing.

The effects are especially stark in places like the United Kingdom, California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Zealand, Australia and much of Canada—jurisdictions where these growth-limiting policies dominate urban planning.

Joel Kotkin, director of the Chapman University centre and a long-time California resident, calls the consequences “feudalizing.” In the feudal system, peasants owed their fortunes, including housing, to the graces of their overlords.

“[T]he primary victims are young people, minorities and immigrants,” Kotkin writes in the report. “Restrictive housing policies may be packaged as
progressive, but in social terms their impact could better be characterized as regressive.”

The same pattern applies to Canada. Even after the economic disruption of the COVID-19 lockdowns, housing affordability remained critically strained. In fact, most major Canadian markets saw a slight worsening.

Demographia measures affordability using the “median multiple”—the ratio of median house price to median household income. This ratio shows how many years of income are needed to buy a home, offering a simple comparison across regions. Around 1990, a home typically cost three times the  average income—a ratio still considered affordable. Anything above that lands on a scale of unaffordability, with scores of nine or more deemed “impossibly unaffordable.”

Canada’s national median multiple is 5.4, placing it in the “severely unaffordable” category. That’s worse than the United States at 4.8 (“seriously unaffordable”), and slightly better than the United Kingdom’s 5.6. Canada also trails Ireland at 5.1 and Singapore at 4.2. New Zealand stands at 7.7, Australia at 9.7 and Hong Kong at an extreme 14.4.

Among Canadian cities, only Edmonton, at 3.7, lands in the “moderately unaffordable” range, ranking fifth-best globally. Calgary sits at 4.8, followed by Ottawa-Gatineau (5.0), Montreal (5.8), Toronto (8.4) and Vancouver (11.8), which ranks as the fourth-least affordable city in the world. This marks a sharp change for Toronto, where affordability remained relatively stable with a median multiple below four from 1971 to 2004.

Though designed to increase sustainability, these planning models have significantly reduced land availability and driven home prices out of reach for
many. As urbanist Jane Jacobs once said, “If planning helps people, they ought to be better off as a result, not worse off.” The data makes it clear—they aren’t.

Yet despite growing evidence, federal and provincial leaders continue to sidestep the core issue.

“In Canada, policy makers are scrambling to ‘magic wand’ more housing,” writes Frontier Centre president David Leis in the report. “But they continue to mostly ignore the main reason for our dysfunctional, costly housing markets—suburban land use restrictions.”

New planning concepts such as the “15-minute city” may make matters worse. This approach aims to create communities where residents can access work, shops and services within a short walk or bike ride. While appealing in theory, it can further restrict development and intensify affordability pressures.

Another key factor—not addressed in the report—is the role of dual-income households. In competitive markets, housing prices are driven not just by what people earn, but by what they can borrow. As more households rely on two fulltime incomes to qualify for mortgages, the market adjusts accordingly, pushing prices higher. This places added pressure on families, especially as governments expand daycare programs and increase taxes to support them, effectively requiring both parents to work just to keep up.

There is, however, a sliver of optimism. The shift toward remote work may ease pressure in high-cost urban centres as more Canadians choose to live in areas with lower housing costs.

Whether governments address the root causes or not, people are already making choices that reflect affordability realities. Increasingly, the heart of a major city is no longer the preferred destination for middle-class Canadians. For many, housing affordability isn’t just an economic issue: it’s about opportunity, stability and the ability to build a future.

Lee Harding is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.