The House of Commons International Trade committee met to study internal trade barriers in Canada. Witnesses included Mark Mancini (law professor, Thompson Rivers University), Pascal Chan (Canadian Chamber of Commerce), Michael H. McCain (Maple Leaf Foods Inc.), Paul Daly (law professor, University of Ottawa), Rodrigue Gilbert (Canadian Construction Association), and Charles De Land (Canada West Foundation).
Mark Mancini argued that the Constitution divides economic authority between Parliament and provinces, creating unavoidable non-tariff barriers like different product standards and licensing regimes. He said the Supreme Court's "Comeau" decision narrowed judicial pathways to free trade, and that existing voluntary agreements like the Canadian Free Trade Agreement are incomplete. Mancini proposed a joint federal-provincial agency, created through matching legislation, that would mandate mutual recognition, develop harmonized standards, and systematically identify barriers, with provinces retaining the power to withdraw.
Pascal Chan said internal trade barriers cost Canada roughly $200 billion annually and that recent progress includes Bill C-5, the elimination of federal exemptions in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, and the Mutual Recognition Agreement on goods. He recommended the federal government consider attaching conditions to major transfers to provinces to require barrier removal, but stressed that provinces should stay at the table voluntarily. He noted that labour mobility, trucking, and financial services are priority sectors.
Michael H. McCain warned that some internal trade proposals would erode Canada's federal food safety system by deeming substandard provincial regulations as equivalent. He said Maple Leaf Foods faces no interprovincial barriers because it is federally regulated, but that a second-tier patchwork of provincial rules produces unsafe food. He urged that all food production be aligned solely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's federal standards, arguing this is the only path to unrestricted interprovincial food trade.
Paul Daly said Canada is not a single economic market and that the Constitution permits co-operation, not federal unilateralism, to achieve integration. He endorsed the joint agency proposal as a pragmatic solution that could require mutual recognition and develop harmonized standards. Daly argued that Parliament should take the first step by creating such an agency, with provinces joining later, and that binding authority is essential for effectiveness, disagreeing with those who prefer purely voluntary approaches.
Rodrigue Gilbert said construction faces daily barriers from a patchwork of building codes, licensing, health and safety rules, and transportation permits. He noted that Red Seal certification covers only 54 trades and excludes Quebec, and that moving equipment and workers across provinces is costly and complex. He recommended full harmonization of worker accreditation as a quick win, federal leadership on building codes and transportation, and a comprehensive review of the National Occupational Classification system.
Charles De Land said internal trade barriers impose the equivalent of a 9% tariff and that Canada could gain 7% in GDP by removing them. He welcomed the removal of federal exceptions to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and the Mutual Recognition Agreement on goods, but recommended bringing food and alcohol under that agreement. He called for an independent internal trade bureau to collect data and investigate barriers, and for a national trade infrastructure plan to better integrate corridors.
During the question period, members asked about the Comeau decision, federal spending power, and the Red Seal program. Several witnesses agreed that Canada does not have free trade internally. Mancini said the Comeau decision was incorrect and that litigation cannot solve the problem. Chan and Gilbert noted that momentum is strong but must be sustained. Daly and De Land supported the idea of a federal agency or bureau to bind provinces and track progress. There was no procedural debate, motions, or votes recorded in this meeting.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.