By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to a recent report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Canada’s economy could see a nearly seven percent increase in real GDP, equivalent to $210 billion, by removing internal trade barriers between provinces and territories. These barriers act as a nine percent national tariff on average, with significantly higher rates in service sectors like healthcare and education. The report highlights that smaller provinces and northern territories are disproportionately affected by these costs, and that services, which constitute the majority of trade costs, were largely exempt from the recent agreement to drop trade barriers on goods. The IMF emphasizes that removing these barriers is a cost-effective way to boost productivity, strengthen economic resilience, and promote inclusive growth.
Read the original article here
Canada could gain nearly 7% in real GDP by removing internal trade barriers, says IMF, a potential economic boost that’s drawing attention to a long-standing issue: the complicated web of provincial regulations hindering free trade within the country. It’s almost mind-boggling to think that we could unlock such a significant amount of economic potential simply by making it easier for goods and services to flow between our own provinces. It feels like a common-sense solution, yet the reality is far more complex.
The core problem, as many see it, lies in the significant power held by each province. They have their own laws, standards, and priorities, which often clash. It’s like having ten different countries trying to negotiate a free trade agreement, each with its own interests to protect. This situation leads to a multitude of barriers, from differing product standards and licensing requirements to protectionist measures designed to shield local industries from competition. The provinces, in a sense, act like separate nations, each with its own regulations.
These internal trade barriers are not new; they’ve been a topic of discussion and debate for decades. The potential gains, as highlighted by the IMF, are substantial. It’s almost as if we’re shooting ourselves in the foot, limiting our economic growth by erecting these roadblocks. The fact that we’ve been talking about this for so long, and with such limited progress, is a bit disheartening.
The federal government has made some strides in removing its own barriers to trade. The real challenge now lies with the provinces. However, they are often hesitant to cede any control, for fear of losing their autonomy or upsetting local industries. They want to hold onto their power. Provinces like Ontario, in fact, have been known to add new trade barriers, such as “Buy Ontario” policies.
The complexity of the situation is also highlighted by the differences in regulations. Simple things, like road weight limits for trucks, vary by province, which impacts the transportation of goods. Then there are the varying certification requirements for goods, which can make it costly and time-consuming for businesses to sell their products across provincial borders. It’s not just about tariffs or duties; it’s about a tangled web of rules, regulations, and standards that create friction and impede trade.
Some of these barriers seem incredibly petty, while others serve to protect particular provincial interests. It can be something as simple as slightly different colors for safety vests or requiring goods to be labeled in both French and English. But then there is the Quebec language issue. This can become quite a major barrier due to the need for products and services to adhere to specific linguistic regulations and labeling requirements, sometimes significantly impacting market accessibility.
The role of the Supreme Court has also been questioned. Specifically, its interpretation of the constitutional clause meant to guarantee free trade between provinces. This interpretation has been seen by some as effectively nullifying the clause, making it harder to challenge provincial trade barriers. Rather than a clear constitutional framework for free trade, we’re left with a piecemeal approach, where issues are addressed one at a time at the provincial level.
Furthermore, there are concerns about the impact of removing these barriers. Some argue that it could benefit large companies at the expense of smaller, local businesses. Others worry about the potential for job losses in certain industries as competition increases. However, the potential gains in terms of increased economic activity and consumer choice are substantial.
The IMF’s recommendation is not without its critics. Some view the organization as aligned with the interests of the United States, pointing to a potential ulterior motive behind the call for internal trade liberalization. Moreover, there is a fundamental question of whether the players who benefited from the existing system of regulations will willingly embrace change and allow for fairer trade.
Addressing these issues is critical if Canada wants to maximize its economic potential. The challenge, however, lies in the politics. Removing internal trade barriers requires cooperation between the federal government and the provinces, a task made difficult by competing interests and a reluctance to give up provincial power. The key is to find a way to balance the benefits of free trade with the need to protect local industries and maintain provincial autonomy.