That is what it says.
Cabinet should be accountable to Parliament in relation to any decision concerning a change in federal law. While this agreement does contain a code of conduct that restricts the tax breaks and grants a province can use to attract business from another province, it also provides a number of exceptions to the code for the provinces and the federal government. The most significant of these are the provisions that establish barriers based on "legitimate objectives".
Most people agree that a determined province will find a way around the intent of the agreement based on the so-called legitimate objective. Other exemptions from the agreement include agriculture, alcohol, energy, natural resources, culture, regional development and, of course, crown corporation procurement.
It is for this reason that the Reform Party believes that the overall intent of the agreement does nothing more than reinforce the status quo. In other words, the agreement is like a toothless tiger, lots of noise and no bite.
A perfect example is how the premier of New Brunswick recently lured UPS to his province from Newfoundland through tax relief exemption plans. However there was an outcry from the other provinces that claimed New Brunswick was breaking the deal, even though the deal was not in effect as New Brunswick so rightly pointed out, and was in fact poaching jobs from other sectors of the country. These cries, of course, fell on deaf ears.
Reformers want to see the elimination of all interprovincial trade barriers. We want to see economies of scale. We have confidence that our country can compete with the best for the benefit of all Canadians, especially in the global economy. We feel this can be achieved by two methods: first, through provincial agreement and, second, by constitutional challenges.
The agreement in Bill C-88 does not eliminate barriers. It only reinforces barriers which already exist. The federal government has the power under section 121 of the BNA Act to eliminate these trade barriers. Section 121 states clearly that "all articles of growth, produce, manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces". This power can and should be used unilaterally if necessary.
The federal government could enforce section 121 by striking down any provincial laws which impede interprovincial trade. Our colleague from Dartmouth mentioned that Nova Scotia, when it came into Confederation, was an economically strong province. It has been waiting 125 years for changes in the trade barriers. This will not be what it wants. It must go farther. It must go back to the original of section 121.
To enforce this the federal government could simply withhold all transfer payments to those unco-operative provinces until they have removed all barriers to interprovincial trade. The process is there. We have it.
Bill C-88 is moving in a direction but not nearly far enough. I hope that provinces such as Nova Scotia do not have to wait another 125 years before it gets any movement.
The central question from the Reform Party point of view is the speed at which the movement is occurring. I understand the Bloc's position. It is a philosophically different position, but ours is in terms of speed and process.
In conclusion, I think a quote from the book titled Common Ground for the Canadian Common Market is quite relevant as it states that:
If one province plays the restrictive game, it can do better than free trade, but if they all play it, they do worse.
It is like one individual who stands up at a football game to see better. When everybody does it nobody sees better.
This power can be used unilaterally and should be used if necessary. The federal government could enforce section 121 by striking down any provincial law which impedes interprovincial trade or by simply withholding all transfer payments to those unco-operative provinces until they have removed all barriers to interprovincial trade. Therefore let us work to ensure an agreement which will remove these trade barriers rather than settle on one which simply reinforces the status quo.
It is for these reasons that the Reform Party will not be supporting Bill C-88.