International Trade Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

So that I'm absolutely clear, your suggestion is that the federal government, through the power of Parliament, should create such an agency with the hopes that the other provinces and territories may join. It should give actual power, which would be necessary to do the coordination, whether it would be harmonization or mutual recognition.

[Paul Daly]

Yes, something like that was what the Supreme Court was considering in the pan-Canadian securities reference, a national securities regulator. There was some planning and buy-in already from several provinces when that came before the Supreme Court.

I would expect that Parliament would.... I would expect there would be some buy-in from the provinces. You're not just going to go off on your own. Fundamentally, Parliament is a key player in moving forward with a scheme like this.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Intellectually, I get what you're saying. From the legal perspective, I'm struggling from the political variables that exist within our federation for something like that to—I'll say it colloquially—fly within the Canadian federation.

[Paul Daly]

“Perfect is the enemy of good” is what I would retort with. Yes, it would be nice to have everyone on board and everyone acting at the same time, but the realities of a federation are often significantly messier than that.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I can't wait to get my Bloc colleagues' point of view on such a suggestion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Next, we have Mr. Savard-Tremblay for six minutes, please.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Thank you, that's a very nice transition.

I'm glad to hear the enthusiasm from my colleague across the floor for what I'm going to say on these issues, but the stars are, of course, our witnesses today.

Mr. Daly, it must be noted that you did mention Quebec's history of free‑trade and the independence movement. Separatists like Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry were among the first to push for free trade with the United States in the 1980s. Long before it became well‑known, before it became fashionable, it was the great economists of the sovereignist movement who pushed for it. Then, the government of Jacques Parizeau also signed a free‑trade agreement with the rest of Canada. The sovereignty project has always included a partnership or association with the rest of Canada. We don't need any convincing in that respect. We agree. We are in favour, but that doesn't mean under any conditions. There are agreements that won't be as good. When we've opposed free trade agreements, very rarely in history, it wasn't on the principle of free trade itself, but on other contentious aspects. The idea of trade as such therefore poses no problem for us.

The issue is harmonization. We fear that there might be a Trojan horse in there and that it's a forced harmonization.

Behind this idea of an agency that your colleague mentioned in the first hour, there's still the issue of how to balance constraints and respect for skills. This is never easy.

In the case at hand, while we say that it doesn't threaten the autonomy of the provinces, what do we do, for example, if there's an encroachment, a conflict between an economic consideration and a social, cultural or identity consideration? The main issue would be who would do the arbitration. Who would make a decision in that case?

[Paul Daly]

That would be a question for the agency.

First of all, harmonization or federal action does not necessarily mean denial of, let's say, a province's linguistic interests.

For example, at the CRTC, the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission, there are fairly strong broadcasting policies related to Canadian content and language requirements. I would hope that such a measure could be implemented for any effort at harmonization or mutual recognition in internal trade as well.

It's true that, at some point, someone has to make a decision. However, it's possible to create such an agency and define its powers. There could be reference to social interests or differences, to the distinct character of a province. All that can be included in the legislation to define the agency's work.

That said—and I'm sugarcoating it a bit—it must be acknowledged that, at some point, someone will need to make a decision, the agency will need to make a decision. Even if a province is a party to the agency and takes part in developing a regulation, among other things, there could, at some point, be some tension. That's clear. Everyone should then ask themselves whether the value, the added value of free trade, justifies certain sacrifices. On that, even an independent Quebec would face such choices in its foreign relations with the world.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Yes, absolutely, it goes without saying. An independent Quebec—like any independent country that negotiates—will sometimes make mistakes and other times succeed. It would be a game of negotiation. That's obvious.

What we want to be sure of is that this is not due to the lack of leverage on the part of Quebec as a province—at least for the time being, and, I hope, for as short a time as possible.

However, in the current situation, if that type of decision were made, would we have a say? You cited the example of the CRTC. You say that it would be possible to include requirements related to content and language, among other things, but it remains centralized at the federal level. This means that, even if there's a concern about a cultural distinction, the province has no independence with respect to that culture.

That's kind of how I understand what you're saying.

[Paul Daly]

That's true, but we also need to remember something.

I'm Irish. When I go back to Ireland, which has been part of the European Union for about fifty years, I'm in Ireland. I have my own distinct culture. I have Irish customs.

When I'm in France, I'm in France. I'm in a country where there is a strong tradition of protecting its linguistic and cultural identity. These things don't necessarily disappear in an economic union.

If I were a Quebecker, I would draw some comfort from the experience of the European Union in this respect.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

The idea of being in a large market or an economic union isn't a problem, as I was telling you, and you yourself said so in your opening remarks.

As a movement, it's part of our traditions. We are resolutely in favour of it. We also have great admiration for the Irish people. They're an admirable people in every way. I wanted to say that. By the way, the green on the Patriotes flag represents the contribution of the Irish.

However, shouldn't it be made clear—in this case, at an early stage—that there is a certain threshold that should not be encroached upon, and that this should be incorporated into the regulations of any such agency from the outset?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, but we've run out of time.

Next, we have Mr. Groleau for five minutes, please.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, guests.

Mr. Gilbert, in March 2025, Mr. Carney met with the premiers of the provinces and stated that he was removing interprovincial trade barriers. In your opinion, are there still interprovincial trade barriers in Canada?

[Rodrigue Gilbert]

Yes, we have many interprovincial barriers.

When the barriers were removed, it was initially a step in the right direction, and I think we need to acknowledge what's been done. However, it must be understood that it had a very minor impact on the construction sector. As you know, there's certification, there are all the building codes, the regulations in all the provinces and even the cities—some municipalities have many—which makes it very disparate nationally.

We still have a great many interprovincial obstacles to improving these services.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

You talked a lot about transportation and the fact that transporting materials like wood between provinces is complicated. Can you provide more details, please?

[Rodrigue Gilbert]

Of course.

There's a reason why integration with Americans has worked very well for many years. It's a matter of proximity. I'll use steel as an example, but it could be wood, it could be aluminum, it could be just about everything. Transporting steel beams from Ontario to the west can sometimes cost seven, eight or ten times more than if the materials came from the United States, even if western Canada were to pay all the current and return customs fees. Due to the proximity, it's even more expensive.

There's another problem in Canada that's important to mention: The state of our infrastructure for transporting goods in Canada is, at best, in disrepair.

The Canadian government is about to issue its Buy Canadian policy, which industry supports. I think it's important to support our Canadian producers. That said, it should be understood that the current transportation costs and methods are not adequate to serve all of Canada. While the government's investing in infrastructure, there's a cost attached to every project to be built. That must be acknowledged.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I'm from Beauce. We're on the American border and it's easy to transport things. North‑south transportation has always been easier than east‑west transportation.

On the other hand, you just said that, even if the west were to pay all the fees, it would still be more expensive. Why is that?

[Rodrigue Gilbert]

It's the proximity. Beauce is the best example we can use because it's next to the United States. Even with all the tariffs and countermeasures in place right now—unfortunately, I don't have a specific example for Beauce—I'm certain that it will still be cheaper to bring some materials in from the United States.

Does that mean we shouldn't buy here and support Canadian producers? Absolutely not. You know, removing those barriers and encouraging our supply chain is something that should have been done sooner. We should have been working on that 50 years ago. Now, it's too late, we're in a crisis. It needs to be done.

Those costs still have an impact today. It will take an entire decade before transporting all materials from east to west might become profitable for a project.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I have one last question for you. I'd like to hear your opinion on labour mobility between provinces. It seems complicated.

[Rodrigue Gilbert]

Indeed, it's very complicated. It's a matter of regulation, certification and recognition of all workers across Canada. Each province has its own recognition program. Each province has its own certification. Each province has its own occupational health and safety program.

Worker mobility is becoming increasingly complicated. It must be understood that construction is very complex. There are highly specialized people who you're trying to move from one place to another to carry out major projects. However, these people aren't always able to qualify or get certified within a reasonable time to be able to work on construction sites.

It was a problem many years ago. Now that projects are growing and expanding, it's even more important.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Do you have any concrete solutions?

[Rodrigue Gilbert]

I think there needs to be complete harmonization across Canada. I think there's a will for that. I often hear about provincial and territorial issues, but I think there's a will for it at the moment.

I was in British Columbia last week to meet with the provincial government. Right now, I think the provinces are willing to harmonize these things. Things need to be more efficient, and there's no time to lose.

When there's a housing crisis, the workers simply won't be there to deal with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Mr. Lavoie for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for taking the time to be here with us. We're very grateful to them.

Mr. Daly, I have the same question as my colleagues: Why create an agency? I'm asking you because, based on what we've heard from the witnesses, there's a desire for harmonization and there are meetings like never before. Moreover, all provinces share the desire to work together, to do it together, without constraint.

Why is it so urgent to have an agency today, so quickly?

Maybe, if it doesn't work after five years, we'll have to start thinking of a plan B, but with what's happening and with how most people feel, what's the urgency? I want to understand.

[Paul Daly]

I'd say it's been 160 years, and it still doesn't work. It could still be said that—