Business
Trump’s steel tariffs will hit BC hard

From Resource Works
BC is a huge source of mettalurgical coal, which is used to make steel.
US President Donald Trump’s announcement of 25 percent tariffs on imported steel will send shockwaves through many industries but one of the hardest hit will be British Columbia’s coal industry. As the largest exporter of metallurgical coal in Canada, B.C. relies heavily on global steel production and these tariffs will reduce demand, destabilize prices and disrupt supply chains.
Unlike thermal coal used to generate electricity, over 95 percent of coal mined in British Columbia is metallurgical coal or coking coal. This coal is used to produce coke, a carbon rich fuel used to remove oxygen from iron ore in blast furnaces. Steel production is a big part of global industrial activity and B.C.’s coal industry exists because of that demand.
According to provincial data coal is B.C.’s most valuable mined commodity, generating billions of dollars in revenue each year. B.C. coal is exported mainly to Asian markets like Japan, China, South Korea and India but the US steel industry has been a customer too. A reduction in US steel production due to tariffs could disrupt global steel trade flows and reduce demand for metallurgical coal from B.C. miners.
Trump’s latest 25 percent tariffs on all steel imports is a repeat of what happened in 2018 when similar tariffs were introduced. At that time the tariffs increased costs for US manufacturers and led to retaliatory tariffs from Canada and other trade partners. The economic impact was big – Canadian steel and aluminum producers lost business and retaliatory tariffs were imposed on a range of American goods. The 2018 tariffs also didn’t revitalize US steel production which was 1 percent lower in 2024 than 2017 despite those protectionist measures.
This time the tariffs will hit even harder. Unlike 2018 when Canada and Mexico were eventually exempted after negotiations, this time Trump has said his tariffs will apply to “everybody”. That means the Canadian steel industry will once again be caught in the crossfire and with it the metallurgical coal industry that supplies it.
If Trump’s steel tariffs prevent U.S. manufacturers from importing steel due to higher costs, steel production will decline. That will mean lower global demand for metallurgical coal including B.C.’s high grade supply. B.C. coal miners are already facing challenges from environmental policies, competition from other jurisdictions and regulatory delays. A downturn in demand from steel producers could be the trigger for more mine closures or reductions in production.
Plus these tariffs could start another trade war. Canada retaliated in 2018 with tariffs on U.S. goods like orange juice and whiskey and similar measures may follow this time. The uncertainty will delay investment decisions in Canada’s mining sector especially for new projects or expansions that rely on stable steel demand.
The long term viability of metallurgical coal is already in question as the steel industry looks towards greener production methods like hydrogen based steelmaking. Sweden has already developed facilities that don’t require coking coal and while the transition to such technologies will take decades the latest trade disruptions could accelerate that shift.
Trump’s tariffs are meant to protect U.S. steel makers but history shows they often have the opposite effect, increasing costs for American manufacturers and economic instability for key trading partners. For B.C.’s coal industry the combination of declining steel demand, disrupted supply chains and potential trade retaliation puts the sector in a tough spot.
British Columbia’s coal industry is deeply connected to global steel production making it very exposed to Trump’s latest tariffs. The move will reduce demand for metallurgical coal, disrupt export markets and add more financial stress to the province’s miners. Given Trump’s track record on trade B.C. should prepare for economic uncertainty and look at diversification strategies to mitigate the impact of another round of U.S. protectionism.
Business
Federal government’s accounting change reduces transparency and accountability

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.
All Canadians should care about government transparency. In Ottawa, the federal government must provide timely and comprehensible reporting on federal finances so Canadians know whether the government is staying true to its promises. And yet, the Carney government’s new spending framework—which increases complexity and ambiguity in the federal budget—will actually reduce transparency and make it harder for Canadians to hold the government accountable.
The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: the operating budget and the capital budget. Spending on government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces (for health care, for example) and to people (e.g. Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will fall within the capital budget. Prime Minister Carney plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 while increasing spending within the capital budget (which will be funded by more borrowing).
According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” But in reality, it will muddy the waters and make it harder to evaluate the state of federal finances.
First off, the change will make it more difficult to recognize the actual size of the deficit. While the Carney government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29, this does not mean it plans to stop borrowing money. In fact, it will continue to borrow to finance increased capital spending, and as a result, after accounting for both operating and capital spending, will increase planned deficits over the next four years by a projected $93.4 billion compared to the Trudeau government’s last spending plan. You read that right—Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.
In addition to obscuring the amount of borrowing, splitting the budget allows the government to get creative with its accounting. Certain types of spending clearly fall into one category or another. For example, salaries for bureaucrats clearly represent day-to-day operations while funding for long-term infrastructure projects are clearly capital investments. But Carney’s definition of “capital spending” remains vague. Instead of limiting this spending category to direct investments in long-term assets such as roads, ports or military equipment, the government will also include in the capital budget new “incentives” that “support the formation of private sector capital (e.g. patents, plants, and technology) or which meaningfully raise private sector productivity.” In other words, corporate welfare.
Indeed, based on the government’s definition of capital spending, government subsidies to corporations—as long as they somehow relate to creating an asset—could potentially land in the same spending category as new infrastructure spending. Not only would this be inaccurate, but this broad definition means the government could potentially balance the operating budget simply by shifting spending over to the capital budget, as opposed to reducing spending. This would add to the debt but allow the government to maneuver under the guise of “responsible” budgeting.
Finally, rather than split federal spending into two budgets, to increase transparency the Carney government could give Canadians a better idea of how their tax dollars are spent by providing additional breakdowns of line items about operating and capital spending within the existing budget framework.
Clearly, Carney’s new spending framework, as laid out in the Liberal election platform, will only further complicate government finances and make it harder for Canadians to hold their government accountable.
Business
Carney poised to dethrone Trudeau as biggest spender in Canadian history

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss
The Liberals won the federal election partly due to the perception that Prime Minister Mark Carney will move his government back to the political centre and be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. But in fact, according to Carney’s fiscal plan, he doesn’t think Justin Trudeau was spending and borrowing enough.
To recap, the Trudeau government recorded 10 consecutive budget deficits, racked up $1.1 trillion in debt, recorded the six highest spending years (per person, adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history from 2018 to 2023, and last fall projected large deficits (and $400 billion in additional debt) over the next four years including a $42.2 billion deficit this fiscal year.
By contrast, under Carney’s plan, this year’s deficit will increase to a projected $62.4 billion while the combined deficits over the subsequent three years will be $67.7 billion higher than under Trudeau’s plan.
Consequently, the federal debt, and debt interest costs, will rise sharply. Under Trudeau’s plan, federal debt interest would have reached a projected $66.3 billion in 2028/29 compared to $68.7 billion under the new Carney plan. That’s roughly equivalent to what the government will spend on employment insurance (EI), the Canada Child Benefit and $10-a-day daycare combined. More taxpayer dollars will be diverted away from programs and services and towards servicing the debt.
Clearly, Carney plans to be a bigger spender than Justin Trudeau—who was the biggest spender in Canadian history.
On the campaign trail, Carney was creative in attempting to sell this as a responsible fiscal plan. For example, he split operating and capital spending into two separate budgets. According to his plan’s projections, the Carney government will balance the operating budget—which includes bureaucrat salaries, cash transfers (e.g. health-care funding) and benefits (e.g. Old Age Security)—by 2028/29, while borrowing huge sums to substantially increase capital spending, defined by Carney as anything that builds an asset. This is sleight-of-hand budgeting. Tell the audience to look somewhere—in this case, the operating budget—so it ignores what’s happening in the capital budget.
It’s also far from certain Carney will actually balance the operating budget. He’s banking on finding a mysterious $28.0 billion in savings from “increased government productivity.” His plan to use artificial intelligence and amalgamate service delivery will not magically deliver these savings. He’s already said no to cutting the bureaucracy or reducing any cash transfers to the provinces or individuals. With such a large chunk of spending exempt from review, it’s very difficult to see how meaningful cost savings will materialize.
And there’s no plan to pay for Carney’s spending explosion. Due to rising deficits and debt, the bill will come due later and younger generations of Canadians will bear this burden through higher taxes and/or fewer services.
Finally, there’s an obvious parallel between Carney and Trudeau on the inventive language used to justify more spending. According to Carney, his plan is not increasing spending but rather “investing” in the economy. Thus his campaign slogan “Spend less, invest more.” This wording is eerily similar to the 2015 and 2019 Trudeau election platforms, which claimed all new spending measures were merely “investments” that would increase economic growth. Regardless of the phrasing, Carney’s spending increases will produce the same results as under Trudeau—federal finances will continue to deteriorate without any improvement in economic growth. Canadian living standards (measured by per-person GDP) are lower today than they were seven years ago despite a massive increase in federal “investment” during the Trudeau years. Yet Carney, not content to double down on this failed approach, plans to accelerate it.
The numbers don’t lie; Carney’s fiscal plan includes more spending and borrowing than Trudeau’s plan. This will be a fiscal and economic disaster with Canadians paying the price.
-
Alberta2 days ago
It’s On! Alberta Challenging Liberals Unconstitutional and Destructive Net-Zero Legislation
-
Business1 day ago
Canada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
The Last Of Us: Canada’s Chaos Election
-
Business1 day ago
Trump says he expects ‘great relationship’ with Carney, who ‘hated’ him less than Poilievre
-
Alberta1 day ago
‘Existing oil sands projects deliver some of the lowest-breakeven oil in North America’
-
Business1 day ago
Overregulation is choking Canadian businesses, says the MEI
-
Crime18 hours ago
Canada Blocked DEA Request to Investigate Massive Toronto Carfentanil Seizure for Terror Links
-
Business10 hours ago
Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create