Madam Speaker, the agreement on international trade came into effect on July 1. Bill C-88 is intended to make it possible for the federal government to comply fully with its obligations under the agreement. I therefore believe that it is important for the House to proceed expeditiously in its consideration of Bill C-88.
For years, business and private sector groups have complained to both the federal and provincial governments about domestic trade barriers and impediments to a free and open internal market. Numerous studies going back as far as the 1940 Rowell-Sirois commission have recognized the issue and documented the broad scope of the problem.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association in 1991 estimated the cost associated with barriers and economic inefficiencies to be approximately $6.5 billion annually. The most recent Statistics Canada figures indicate that interprovincial exports of goods and services in 1990 were worth $141 billion annually and responsible directly or indirectly for 1.7 million jobs.
A recent study by the chamber of commerce underlined the fact that the Canadian internal market is the most interdependent of any area in the world. In agreeing to negotiate the agreement, Canadian governments recognized that how well our domestic economy works is key to how we will prosper as a nation and how we will compete in the international economy. An open domestic market and economy will allow Canadians and Canadian companies to strengthen their international competitiveness and develop new opportunities to grow and prosper. The alternative offers only an
ultimately self-destructive protectionism that benefits only a few special interests at the cost of the country as a whole.
When they agreed to negotiate the agreement on internal trade, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments all recognized and accepted the importance of working together in the national interest. In concluding the agreement, Canadian governments have demonstrated that they are prepared to work together, both now and in the future.
As the Minister of Industry has said in the House, the agreement is a consensual agreement. Some members opposite have criticized the agreement as inadequate and insufficient. The agreement may not be perfect, but it represents an improvement from where we were before. It reflects a consensus on the principle of an open and efficient national economy. It establishes a detailed rules framework for internal trade and it provides a consistent and defined process for preventing and resolving disputes that may arise over specific issues or measures.
All the parties have accepted to a greater or lesser degree disciplines that in the sectors covered will improve how the national economy functions in the future. It will be possible, indeed it is the government's intention, to work to improve the agreement in the future and to expand its scope and coverage. For the moment it is a start, a point from which to start to work. We can and we should build on that.
Some members have also criticized the government for not exercising its constitutional authority over interprovincial trade to open an internal market more forcibly. The national economy has become considerably more complex than it was when the constitutional powers of the different levels of governments were first agreed to in 1867. In the context of today's economy and modern Canadian federalism, the views of these critics are, frankly speaking, simplistic.
If anything is clear it is that a country operates most successfully when all levels of government work co-operatively in the national interest, not unilaterally and certainly not by fiat. Governments were not negotiating constitutional change in the agreement on internal trade. Rather, they were developing the basis of working together with their respective powers and responsibilities to make the national economy work more effectively and efficiently.
Unilateral action may be theoretically possible as a method to achieve the same ends. Some may consider it to be a desirable way of proceeding. However, it is simply not an effective or acceptable way to make Canadian federalism work.
Some members opposite have suggested that the government has a hidden agenda on Bill C-88, that it conceals a power grab and is intended to provide a means to force provinces to the will of the federal government. That is purely and simply wrong. The Minister of Industry has responded at length and in detail to those allegations. I will not dignify them with further comment. Those should preclude even the most obtuse interpretation of the bill's language.
Bill C-88 does not deal with the responsibilities of the provinces or provincial measures, only federal responsibilities and measures. It is intended only to make it possible for the federal government to comply fully with its obligations under the agreement and to play its part in making the agreement work.
Bill C-88 gives the government specific authority or makes changes to certain pieces of legislation to enable it to act in accordance with its obligations. It also changes some existing legislation to make it easier for provinces to comply with some of their specific obligations under the agreement.
The Minister of Industry has indicated in a response to his provincial counterparts and to Senator Roberge that he intends to propose one or two amendments to Bill C-88 when it is considered in committee. I expect those will remove the grounds for misinterpretation or misrepresentation that some have made of the government's intentions.
We should be clear in our understanding that Bill C-88 does not by itself legislate or give life to the agreement on internal trade. The agreement has already been signed by the parties-the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. When it came into effect July 1 all those governments became bound by the obligations they accepted when they signed the agreement.
Each government is responsible itself for complying with its obligations and for living up to its responsibilities under the agreement. At the annual premiers conference this summer the provincial premiers and territorial leaders renewed their commitment to the agreement and to removing barriers. Two provinces, Alberta and Newfoundland, have already passed their implementing legislation.
As I said earlier, I believe it is important that we on the federal side proceed expeditiously in our consideration of this legislation. The federal government has played a leading role in getting all governments to work together in the interests of all Canadians on international trade issues.
Bill C-88 does what is necessary to ensure the federal level of government will be able to continue to play its role in the co-operative intergovernmental process. We should not delay it further.