Regulations are choking Canada's economy

[CdnFox]

On 4/16/2026 at 1:17 PM, I am Groot said:

A good roundup of the main reason for Canada's deteriorating economic situation.

he World Bank’s Business Ready assessment of 101 countries captures the extent of the problem. On the regulatory framework metric—the rules businesses must actually navigate—Canada ranks 33rd, closer to China than to the United States, which ranks fifth. Drill into the OECD subset, and the picture worsens. As Alicia Planincic reported, Canada earns D grades in taxation, international trade, and business location, and fails outright on market competition with a score of just 49 out of 100.

On business location—the rules governing land acquisition, property transfers, and building permits—Canada ranks dead last among 25 OECD peers. The U.S. scored 94 out of 100. Canada scored 63.

The OECD Product Market Regulation indicators confirm a troubling trajectory. Canada’s standing has deteriorated from 10th in 1998 to 26th in 2023, with particularly poor rankings on administrative burden (32nd), licensing (36th), foreign investment openness (40th), and governance of state-owned enterprises (40th).

 

https://thehub.ca/2026/04/16/how-canadas-economy-is-choking-from-federal-regulations-7-graphs/

 

This certainly isn't the first time it's been brought up.  

And Embridge for example was quite direct, stating that they would not consider projects in canada under the current regulatory framework. 

PP campaigned when he became leader on the idea of getting rid of the beurocracy and 'gatekeepers'. 

The liberals have choked the life out of businesses federally with excessive regulation, and there's a few provinces who's gov'ts are almost as bad. 

If we actually got rid of the unnecessary regulation and inter provincial trade barriers canada would boom economically and would be vastly less dependent on international trade

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, suds said:

Net zero is a big picture but hardly the whole picture.

Net zero is response to the big picture aka AGW.

6 hours ago, suds said:

If we're going to accomplish net zero by 2050 or anywhere near to it, we're going to require a well run economy. And that should be rule #1. So what's your plan, or the Liberal's plan, besides shutting anything down associated with oil or gas? Please, somebody have a plan before we totally destroy this country.

I don't have much faith in a well run economy happening anytime soon myself.

There was a plan but it's effectively been abandoned and from where I'm sitting the AGW denialists have won. Now the plan is to unleash and drill baby burn our way to prosperity. The resistance just needs to be bulldozed off the path to prosperity is all.

Good luck.

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Net zero is response to the big picture aka AGW.

I don't have much faith in a well run economy happening anytime soon myself.

There was a plan but it's effectively been abandoned and from where I'm sitting the AGW denialists have won. Now the plan is to unleash and drill baby burn our way to prosperity. The resistance just needs to be bulldozed off the path to prosperity is all.

Good luck.

 

But it was you who won. You had 11 years to basically do whatever you wanted with global warming with a global warming friendly government in power. And you went with the carbon tax and that turned out to be a massive failure and it trashed the economy

That was your plan. And it failed

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If we actually got rid of the unnecessary regulation and inter provincial trade barriers canada would boom economically and would be vastly less dependent on international trade

First you have to define and settle  what everyone means by unnecessary regulations. 

Don't forget the primary regulators of the environment, land and natural resource use are the same ones responsible for trade barriers.

The feds have...fisheries? I wouldn't trust Ottawa to manage a fish-fry myself.

 

[CdnFox]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

First you have to define and settle  what everyone means by unnecessary regulations. 

 

Short but that's not hard if you're actually trying. The problem is people like you who are more interested in protecting their little faith times and taxing everyone the poorest of Canadians.

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Don't forget the primary regulators of the environment, land and natural resource use are the same ones responsible for trade barriers.

The primary regulators for those things are the federal government. They were not responsible for those trade barriers

And regardless it's what has to be done. 

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

The feds have...fisheries? I wouldn't trust Ottawa to manage a fish-fry myself.

Of course you would ,that's why you keep voting the people who pass the most red tape and regulation into office.  I mean, you trusted the carbon tax to solve global warming 😆😆😆😆

But the whole point is to remove them from the process by reducing regulation and their involvement.  If they do less their chances of screwing things up diminish.  So everyone's happy. 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

The primary regulators for those things are the federal government.

Research much?

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

They were not responsible for those trade barriers

You got that part right at least.

 

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But the whole point is to remove them from the process by reducing regulation and their involvement.

To reduce provincial involvement will mean taking over all aspects of regulating.

Ottawa will have to remove provinces from the process to do what you want.

Then its, you know, mandates... emergency powers...force IOW.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Research much?

So your claim is that the federal government does not set or influence Environmental Policy, land or natural resource use?

Kid. I'm well aware you're not particularly well versed politics and there's no particular shame in that. But even you must be aware of this stage in your life at the federal government does in factplay a primary role in all of those things.

[eyeball]

Just now, CdnFox said:

So your claim is that the federal government does not set or influence Environmental Policy

Nope.

Just now, CdnFox said:

Kid. I'm well aware you're not particularly well versed politics and there's no particular shame in that. But even you must be aware of this stage in your life at the federal government does in factplay a primary role in all of those things.

Nope, they play a significant role but its the Provinces that call most of the shots.

Like I asked, research much?

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope.

Well you're wrong, they do. That was the sound of your credibility flushing down the toilet

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope, they play a significant role but its the Provinces that call most of the shots.

All suddenly you believe the federal government is involved at all. Amazing reversal of opinion there in 3 seconds  

But you're still wrong. Whether a pipeline gets built for example is 100% federal government. Mines another issues, fisheries and salmon farms, the feds have a major say in all of it

You telling me the federal fisheries don't play a Majority role in fish management?

Thought you said you worked in the industry. Rather surprising to see you be so wrong

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well you're wrong, they do. That was the sound of your credibility flushing down the toilet

Naw, that's just you projecting.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

All suddenly you believe the federal government is involved at all. Amazing reversal of opinion there in 3 seconds

No reversal whatsoever. Like I said the primary regulators of the environment, land and natural resource use are the same ones responsible for trade barriers.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

But you're still wrong.

Sorry kiddo but you are.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Whether a pipeline gets built for example is 100% federal government. Mines another issues, fisheries and salmon farms, the feds have a major say in all of it

Not as much as provinces.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You telling me the federal fisheries don't play a Majority role in fish management?

For marine fisheries sure but they really really suck at it. Aquaculture is mostly provincial. You won't get anywhere with the feds without provincial permission. And you won't get anywhere with either of them until you have First Nations support.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Thought you said you worked in the industry. Rather surprising to see you be so wrong

I had to go through 13 departments, ministries and boards spanning 5 levels of government to get my aquaculture lease.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Naw, that's just you projecting.

That's what you say when you know I'm right and you can't refute it. I accept your surrender  

 

Quote

No reversal whatsoever. Like I said the primary regulators of the environment, land and natural resource use are the same ones responsible for trade barriers.

They are the primaries in those particular circumstances. And you're trying to say they aren't and they are the same time. You've officially become Schrodinger's twat  

Quote

Sorry kiddo but you are.

Nope.

Quote

Not as much as provinces.

More than the provinces

Quote

For marine fisheries sure but they really really suck at it. Aquaculture is mostly provincial. You won't get anywhere with the feds without provincial permission. And you won't get anywhere with either of them until you have First Nations support.

Of course they suck at it, they're liberals

Quote

I had to go through 13 departments, ministries and boards spanning 5 levels of government to get my aquaculture lease.

Yeah but that's just because you got lost in a government building  

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And you're trying to say they aren't and they are the same time.

No, I'm simply correcting you by pointing out they are the primary regulators of the environment, land and natural resource use. And don't forget provincial trade barriers.

You can't stand being corrected however so you have act like a dink instead.

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

More than the provinces

Nope, not the things I mentioned. Sorry kiddo.

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah but that's just because you got lost in a government building

I had to find my way in 5 government buildings actually. A couple of times on occasion.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, I'm simply correcting you by pointing out they are the primary regulators of the environment, land and natural resource use. And don't forget provincial trade barriers.

And you're wrong, and you keep flipping back and forth

The primary responsibility for the development of most of what we talked about is federal. They are the primary regulators of the environment. Everything is subservant to them. They pass a lot and anybody operating in any of the provinces must obey that law regardless of what elder laws the province has. If they say a pipeline is going to be built then it's built regardless of what the province says

You're wrong, you realize you're wrong, you feel it makes you look stupid so you're trying to find a way to be both right and wrong at the same time and you're just not.

There's much carney could have done about the inter provincial trade barriers and honestly he just didn't want to.

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And you're wrong

You didn't check Trivago did you?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

You didn't check Trivago did you?

Isn't that a mouthwash?  For GODS sake don't tell me you're drinking mouthwash again..... 

[eyeball]

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Isn't that a mouthwash?  For GODS sake don't tell me you're drinking mouthwash again..... 

Nope. I figured you were just beaking off as usual about things you haven't got a clue about.

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

Nope. I figured you were just beaking off as usual about things you haven't got a clue about.

Ahhh so you HAVE been drinking again