International Trade Committee on April 28th, 2026

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Popta, you have five minutes.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

I'll start with Mr. Manucha. It's nice to have somebody here who knows trade and constitutional law. I'm going to ask you a question along that line.

It's fair to say that Canadian courts have taken a generous rather than a legalistic approach in interpreting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It probably started with the Big M Drug Mart Ltd. case, which we all had to read when we were in law school. Chief Justice Dickson stated that charter rights must be interpreted generously and purposively in light of the underlying objectives.

That led to what some critics called the start of judicial activism. Add to that the more recent development of courts applying a charter values framework to find, for example, that a territorial government had to provide French-language education even to children who were clearly not section 23 rights holders. Never mind what the charter actually said. What was the intent? That brought judicial activism to a new level.

When it comes to interpreting sections of the old BNA Act and the Constitution Act, 1982—I'm thinking of section 121, the so-called free trade section of the old BNA Act—courts have taken a very narrow approach to reject initiatives by people, with the Comeau case, for example, or by legislators, for example with the national securities regulations deal.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Ryan Manucha]

We could be here all day. Hopefully, everyone is buckling up for this.

What I love about this question is that we got stuck. Section 121, which the honourable member discussed, is the free trade clause in the Constitution. We got stuck in a 1921 decision where it was said that internal trade barriers have to do with customs, duties and tariffs, essentially. We got stuck in that for a long time. We are still pretty much stuck in that. We have not progressed in the same way. We have to segment out the charter from the BNA Act—the genesis and the interpretive authorities.

It is true that when the whole world came to realize that internal trade barriers were about more than just tariffs and were about the behind-the-border non-tariff regulatory measures, it seemed as though our judicial system couldn't keep up. We've seen it increment every 20 years. The Comeau decision moved it a bit. We've come to realize that the court is kind of saying that the responsibility to be inching forward is not for us but for the elected members of our society.

We have an understanding, and we could reopen it by doing some sort of constitutional work, but I don't think that's on the table. This is where we are now. We went to a political agreement with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and its predecessor to try to inch it forward.

To make a long story short on your question, yes, we're held back by an old version from back when the clergy were our economists, in the 1920s. We're grappling with that a bit.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

I think you were suggesting that the Canadian Competition Bureau could be put in charge of regulating and advancing free trade in Canada. Isn't that going to run into the same narrow thinking that the Comeau decision or the national securities regulator decision ran into?

[Ryan Manucha]

The Competition Bureau is pretty well-seasoned at policing anti-competitive behaviours and trying to create markets and create space for Canadian small and medium-sized businesses to compete. Internal trade is about the efficient allocation of resources, making sure that we can actually be a G7 economy of competitive intensity. It's about the proper orientation of our internal people, capital, labouring and all the factors of production.

The Competition Bureau is there with soft powers, advisory powers and investigatory powers and is able to memorialize research and advise on matters of internal trade, which is better than the status quo. We have a non-political and non-activist secretariat in Winnipeg that runs the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. It needs to be non-partisan, non-involved and unaffiliated. You need a more centralized authority in the federal government that has a coordinating responsibility.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

One of you gave evidence about the volume of trade between Canada and other countries compared to the volume of trade between the provinces, suggesting that perhaps if we just had free trade between the provinces, we could improve our economy substantially. Are we comparing apples to apples? The trade barriers with the United States are tariff-based and have regulations and differing standards. Among the provinces, it's really just the latter, so are we comparing apples to apples?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Give a very brief answer, please.

[Ryan Manucha]

There's a great degree of opportunity there—up to 7% growth of the GDP.

It's the subnational jurisdiction. You would think it would be easier. We have complete control, and we're all part of the same nation here. In that respect, you would think you would be able to achieve things that you can't in Mar-a-Lago.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Lavoie, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you also to all the witnesses here today who took the time to come to Ottawa to meet with us. I also thank the witnesses who are appearing via video conference.

I have two questions for you, Ms. Senneville.

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you, I was taken aback twice during your presentation. I want to offer you the chance to clarify what you meant.

First, you said that the domestic market had very low potential.

According to economic studies, we're talking about growing Canada's GDP by $200 billion. You also mentioned increasing productivity. These measures will indeed increase productivity by 7%, but also reduce prices by 15%.

I would like you to expand on that.

Second, you said that internal trade barriers are a myth. I will confess that I had never heard that one before.

Mr. Manucha gave a bunch of examples of internal trade barriers within Canada. Do you have any concrete counter-examples that would explain why it's a myth and there may not be as many barriers as we think?

I'd like some clarification on those two points.

[Caroline Senneville]

It's been said. We don't have any tariff barriers in Canada. The provinces and territories are all part of the same country. When I said that there are fewer trade barriers for internal trade than for international trade, I meant that unions thought, during NAFTA negotiations, that protections for wages and workers weren't robust enough. Chapter 9 on protecting workers wasn't strong enough. When CUSMA was renegotiated, worker protections were reinforced, but the actual mechanisms weren't.

We need freedom of trade, but individuals who cross interprovincial borders, who are working and who ensure that trade works also need the freedom that comes with decent jobs, decent wages and the right to associate. That has to be respected, and there can be no social dumping.

I gave the rolling mill example. I would completely agree with anyone who would suggest that we should have a rolling mill to make our own aluminum cans. However, considering our geography and our population of 40 million, if it has to be installed in Winnipeg and the cans have to be sent 3,000 kilometres one way and 4,000 kilometres the other way, the issue isn't trade barriers or regulations, it's the sheer geographical size of the domestic market. That's why Mr. Carney wants to sign contracts all across Canada.

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

I understand, Ms. Senneville.

But my question was about why you believe that the domestic market is so weak. The reason I'm asking is that every economic study talks about a potential $200-billion growth of Canada's GDP.

[Caroline Senneville]

The reason is that Canada is a huge country with 40 million people. We have more geography than history, as Mr. Macdonald, the first prime minister, said.

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

Okay.

So, according to you, $200 billion isn't enough.

Is that so?

[Caroline Senneville]

I'm not saying that it isn't enough. I'm saying that it won't suffice. We'll have to do more.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Greer, you mentioned momentum and meetings. Other witnesses say the same thing. We see more and more meetings between provinces. All of that has accelerated.

There's one point that I'd like some clarification on, however. You talked about carrots and sticks.

Can you expand on that a little?

I have this image in my head. There's a space for collaboration, I believe, between provinces—it's happening right now—but we should to come to the table with carrots and sticks.

Can you give more details about what your position is in this regard?

[Ryan Greer]

The one specific example that Mr. Manucha and I alluded to is perhaps tying labour market development funding to sticking to the 30-day commitment on credential recognition.

We don't know what's going to happen north-south and with the U.S., but the genesis of the progress in 18 months was not that premiers, first ministers or others woke up and said, “It's time to do the things we haven't been doing for a long time.” It happened because of threats to the south. If those threats abate, if we reach a deal with the United States or if any other number of things happen economically, we're worried that this will take some of the momentum out of what we have achieved. The federal government ought to be looking at all the different ways it can promote that.

I mentioned transparency and accountability in reporting. Looking at all the federal engagements with the provinces and deciding how to incentivize the right behaviour happens all the time. It happened over climate policy. It happens across a range of different policies. In that pecking order of engagement and leveraging carrots and sticks in a collaborative way, we think internal trade ought to be at the top.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to our witnesses. As always, that was very valuable testimony, as we move forward.

For the information of the committee, on Thursday, we will be starting our study on trade with Japan. We look forward to starting that at that particular time, but rest assured that we will be continuing to work on free trade within Canada.

Thank you very much. I move adjournment.