International Trade Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[Charles De Land, Vice President, Research, Canada West Foundation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon. I represent the Canada West Foundation, and we are grateful for the opportunity to speak to this committee.

The Canada West Foundation is a non-partisan think tank whose vision is to advance western Canadian interests by working with governments, industry and partners to build a stronger, more united and prosperous region—one that powers Canada's future.

In this time of disrupted trade relationships and falling productivity, reducing Canada's internal trade barriers is more important than ever, but even without those challenges, Canadian internal free trade should be a national goal. A recent International Monetary Fund report, as you've heard, estimated that Canada could gain over $200 billion, or 7% in GDP, by fully removing barriers. This report estimates that regulation-related barriers impose the equivalent of a 9% tariff on Canadians.

Encouragingly, Canada is taking positive steps. While acknowledging those actions, it is important to remain focused on long-term implementation and expansion toward a fully free system. For example, Canada should speed up its plan to eliminate trade barriers for food and alcohol, and it should do the same for services, with instant recognition of valid credentials for people from other provinces.

We welcome the government's removal of all of its 53 federal exceptions to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, an action recommended by our past research. We also welcome the Canadian Mutual Recognition Agreement on goods, which critically moves away from a historical system of asking for permission to one of inclusion by default, in which those seeking an exception must put forth strong evidence for why they should be excluded. Inclusion and open markets should be the default.

More can be done. The CMRA excludes food and alcohol. While the memorandum of understanding on direct-to-consumer alcohol sales is supposed to be implemented by May 2026, we recommend bringing alcohol under CMRA for a more robust solution. Under the Safe Food for Canadians Act, interprovincial food trade must meet the same threshold as exports. While this has helped provide regulatory consistency, it has limited the ability of small and medium-sized enterprises to scale up, particularly in western Canada, as they do not have access to provincial markets the size of Ontario and Quebec. Bringing agri-food under the CMRA or a similar mechanism would mean that any product meeting provincial standards could be sold elsewhere in Canada, making food more available to and more affordable for Canadians.

Efficient trade is especially important in supply-managed agricultural sectors, given the high prices Canadians pay as a result. The Canadian government—unfortunately, in our view—appears to remain committed to supply management in dairy and poultry. However, given that a Canadian egg and chicken farmer in the west or elsewhere meets federal safety standards, they should be able to sell their products to their fellow Canadians, no matter where they live.

We support the initiative by the committee on internal trade to expand mutual recognition to services by the end of the year. A Canadian in good standing with their provincial body should be welcomed by any province, expanding employment opportunities and boosting productivity by getting the right person in the right job.

While the momentum is now strong, it needs to be sustained. The Canada West Foundation has previously called for an independent, federally funded internal trade bureau to collect data, update the public on progress and identify and investigate where regulations are more strict than they should be. This bureau would serve as a means to promote internal trade, much like the Competition Bureau does.

Finally, Canadian companies need to be able to effectively move their products and materials to those who wish to buy them, whether it's Saskatchewan farmers selling wheat to industrial bread producers in Ontario or a Nova Scotia tire maker selling to a Belgian driver. This means making smart and strategic investments in trade infrastructure.

Our research has previously recommended bringing the federal government and provinces together to develop a national trade infrastructure plan. Such a strategy could better define Canada's national trade corridors, establish clear criteria for potential projects of national significance and engage the private sector in identifying opportunities for co-operation.

Reducing Canada's internal trade barriers would result in a significant tax cut, boosting Canadian household incomes by thousands of dollars each year.

Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McKenzie, you have six minutes. Go ahead, please.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. De Land, I'm wondering if the Canada West Foundation and perhaps you yourself are feeling that everybody has finally come to the party that you all called back in 2019. A report tabled by the Canada West Foundation at that time identified five barriers, and you've touched on several of them today.

One that was identified back in 2019 was a lack of political will around this issue.

Do we finally have the effort under way now?

[Charles De Land]

It seems like there's good momentum, and I think this was echoed by some of the other folks. I think there's good momentum in effect, and there's been a lot of movement. That is encouraging, and we welcome it. The Canada West Foundation and I feel the need now is for implementation and follow-through to make sure this is all in place.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Specifically on that point, something called the Major Projects Office was created last year for the purpose of facilitating major projects.

Do you have a view as to its effectiveness to date?

[Charles De Land]

It's still ramping up, from what I understand. I don't have a deep knowledge of exactly how it's working. It's doing its business, as far as I understand. We're hopeful that it will do what it aims to do in terms of getting faster approvals for major projects. That's where I'll leave it for now.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. De Land, my riding is in Calgary, Alberta, and my riding, all of the province of Alberta and, indeed, the western provinces make Canada a global energy producer and exporter, particularly of crude oil.

Do you have a view on the prospects for an additional export pipeline to the west coast of Canada?

[Charles De Land]

I know that talks are under way and there's a memorandum of understanding, obviously, between Alberta and the federal government. I feel that as long as we can reduce the barriers and the private sector can do its work and have clarity on the regulations for a very long, multidecade period of time, I see no reason why Canada shouldn't be able to take its place in the world.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Do you share my view that if the regulatory framework were simply hospitable to the prospect of an additional export pipeline, private industry would step in and take it from there?

[Charles De Land]

Yes, that's generally my view.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Would a requirement for the hospitality to the concept of an additional export pipeline include the removal of the oil tanker moratorium that presently prohibits loading and unloading of tankers of the scale necessary for international shipments, on the northern B.C. coast specifically?

[Charles De Land]

That is something the Canada West Foundation has called for. I think there's a way to do that to protect the environment and allow for deepwater shipping.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Is that a complex issue from your perspective, or one that's within our grasp right now with the expertise we currently have as a nation in shipping, the high standards employed in our industry and, frankly, the general interest, given that I've yet to meet a Canadian who doesn't care about the environment? I'm talking specifically about our west coast environment in this case.

[Charles De Land]

I agree. It's universally shared by Canadians, and I see that it is possible, with our strong technical folks, to overcome this.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate those comments.

Mr. Daly, on the question around an agency, I wonder about its possible depth. Could it be the agency that collects that data and provides a knowledge base for provinces as a resource, to identify and eliminate barriers and make recommendations but also provide the information and the data required to make sound decisions?

[Paul Daly]

Absolutely. I think it's much more important that this agency have the power to bind—that is essential—and that there be mutual recognition, so that if there is an electrician who is changing a light bulb in Saskatchewan, they can go to Ontario to change a light bulb, and if Ontario turns them back, they can get a remedy from this agency. That is critical.

If it has to be harmonized standards, I want to observe that Mr. McCain spoke about mutual recognition, but there are two mechanisms for ensuring free trade. It's not just mutual recognition; harmonization is also a possibility. You don't necessarily have to have a race to the bottom across all of these areas. Information, knowledge and expertise are absolutely crucial and should be shared not just with the provinces but also with the public. These are important matters of public debate.

Absolutely, what you should have is an agency with expertise that is publicly available and accessible. That is absolutely fundamentally important, along with that power to bind.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

We've noted here—and it's been discussed this morning with the previous panel as well—the constitutional realities of our country, areas of jurisdiction and responsibility between provinces and the federal government.

For an agency to have the ability to impose a binding result, that would require, I presume, something almost like an international agreement, where parties voluntarily sign on. It is, to a degree, a ceding of jurisdiction to put it in the hands of that agency.

Is that what would be required in Canada? Is it an agreement that binds the provinces?

[Paul Daly]

I'd certainly have to say that if you want something that binds the provinces, they will have to sign up. It's also important to note that, depending on how you structure the agency, you can have significant provincial involvement in the operation of that agency. You could set it up so that any time the agency proposes something binding in terms of mutual recognition or harmonization, there would have to be a majority or even a supermajority, if you like, of provinces that go along.

It is not a situation where you're going to set up an agency and the provinces will disappear into the ether. They are the foundation, and they would remain foundational through the work of this agency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lavoie, go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

No, it's Mr. Naqvi's turn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Oh, it's Mr. Naqvi. Terrific. Thank you.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to all the panellists for being here. I really appreciate it.

Professor Daly, I'll start with you. You teach at the University of Ottawa, my alma mater. I had the honour of teaching there as well, so it's good to see some important local expertise here.

I was looking at your bio, and you have what seems like very extensive experience in common-law-oriented countries—some of them are federations as well. I wanted to engage you in a dialogue on the realities of a federation like Canada.

When you are looking at breaking down barriers, whether it's mutual recognition or harmonization, it very much requires, depending on how the constitution is structured—and ours in particular—a very sophisticated level of coordination and understanding between the federal government and the provinces and territories. In other words, unilaterally, you have very limited capacity and power to do that.

Would you elaborate on that, please?

[Paul Daly]

As you can tell from the accent, although I'm Canadian and I live in Ottawa, I didn't grow up here. I grew up in Ireland, in the European Union, and I can still remember—in my lifetime—trading posts, customs, and actual trade and trading barriers within Europe on the island of Ireland and on the continent.

They're all gone. They were systematically dismantled after the Maastricht Treaty and through the Treaty on European Union and various other treaties, because there was significant political will to do it across the European Union, but also because there was an understanding that what you need are legal tools like mutual recognition and regulatory harmonization. These are the things that allow people, services, goods and capital to move across borders.

I spoke to provincial buy-in and provincial participation. In a federation, it's always critical that there's involvement at all levels by all the players, but there does have to be that central power to bind in order for any of this to be effective. Proceeding, as Canada has done heretofore, on the basis of goodwill and free trade agreements that are non-binding will be insufficient.

All that said, in the European Union, for example, one of the core principles of the European Union is subsidiarity. Decision-making authority should be exercised at the lowest possible level, where possible, and that is a principle that would form part of any Canadian equivalent to a European Union approach based on harmonization and mutual recognition. There would still be a role for provinces in contributing to the elaboration of standards and their enforcement.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I appreciate your answer.

You cited the example of the European Union, but all those treaties were a result of extensive negotiations and agreements. I don't recall—and my knowledge may be limited compared to yours—that there were unilateral decisions being made by one or two states within the European Union with the hopes that others would join.

[Paul Daly]

That's true, but we need to compare apples with apples. In Canada, the initiative here has to be federal if you want to do something like this, if you want mutual recognition and if you want regulatory harmonization. The first pillar here would be set down by Parliament. Yes, in negotiation, yes, in partnership, but, fundamentally, the first step is for Parliament to act. If Parliament doesn't act, we're never going to get an integrated regime.