Skip to main content

For decades, Canadian governments have talked and talked about tearing down interprovincial barriers and turning Canada into a genuine free-trade area. They have repeatedly done nothing of the sort. Federal-provincial conferences have come and gone, with little improvement on the old Agreement on Internal Trade of 1995, which was itself only a partial dismantling of the trade walls between provinces.

The new Canadian Free Trade Agreement, agreed to on Friday, might be a big leap forward – eventually. No, it doesn't tear down all the barriers. But it at least catalogues its own defects.

The CFTA is based on the idea that interprovincial rules should be harmonized and trade should be free – except for exceptional exceptions. Those exceptions, which are legion, are documented in a "negative list." It reminds Ottawa and the provinces of the work to be done.

Story continues below advertisement

The listing of all the exceptions to free trade in a free-trade agreement is one of the reasons why the document is more than 300 pages long. The plan is to whittle down the exemptions over time. Supposedly, too, any new barriers will need to be approved by special negotiations, not the other way around.

It's awfully Canadian. It's not exactly a new broom sweeping away all internal trade barriers, harmonizing standards and recognizing professional credentials across provinces. Instead, the CFTA looks more like a process that has established a process to begin the process of processing all of the above. Yeah.

Much of the CFTA reveals daunting, unnecessary barriers – obstacles to trade in large, long-established industries such as energy, forestry, liquor and alcoholic beverages. Is it really so difficult to "harmonize standards" in cutting down trees? Does the CFTA really have to establish a committee to make "recommendations to enhance trade in beer, wine and spirits within Canada." Why is all of this so hard?

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies