Free Trade, From East to West
Oh sure, free trade, the world needs more of it, yes? So here we have free trade, from east to west; oops, within Canada, that is. Canada has long ago signed on to free trade agreements with the United States, another representing all of North America, with Mexico included. And more international free trade agreements in the offering, come the future, in all likelihood.
But within the confines of its federal borders, between provinces, there is no free trade. Is this absurd or just madness? Trade irritants, conflicting provincial product legislation, consumer protection laws, bitter union divisions have all contrived to ensure that the provinces within Canada have more restrictions placed upon cross-provincial-border trade than international trade.
It appears to have occurred to the economic and trade sensibilities of provincial authorities that "it makes a lot of sense to sign some sort of bi-lateral agreement". High time. Take the situation between Ontario and Quebec, where labour unions in Quebec are so bitterly opposed to enabling trade workers from Ontario to enter the province to work they successfully force the province to impose legal restrictions against out-of-province workers.
While on the other hand, trade workers in Quebec are also constrained; if they're unsuccessful in attempts to join specific unions they cannot work in their own province. While, conversely, less strictured Ontario permits them to pursue their qualified-but-union-uncertified labour in Ontario. Clearly an unsatisfactory and uneven state of affairs, but one that has been going on for an awfully long time.
Take the fact that, for example, in theory there is supposed to be an even situation in Canada with respect to the provision of and quality of health care. When individuals who reside in Ontario for some reason have medical treatment in Quebec, the Ontario health insurance scheme will pay for all services. Conversely, when Quebec residents seek treatment or hospitalization in Ontario, the Quebec health insurance scheme balks at paying the full professional rate accepted by the Ontario scheme, and health professionals and their institutions are then out of pocket.
"Ontario is always open to strengthening the economic union by decreasing barriers to trade and labour mobility," according to Ontario's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Marie Bountrogianni, and that certainly appears to be true. Ontario has tried for years to reach an agreeable accord with Quebec on fairness in trade and worker mobility, and each such attempt came to an abrupt halt until last year when an agreement enabling inter-provincial mobility for construction workers and contractors appears to have finally seen some light.
Meanwhile, Quebec and Ontario are each other's largest domestic trading partners. Quebec sold almost $31 billion in goods and services to Ontario in 2003, representing 62% of its exports within Canada, and Ontario sold $38 billion to Quebec, representing 41% of its domestic imports. The problems they face represent differences in regulations, to duplicate licensing fees, to permits to get across the border. Wouldn't harmonization in all these areas make eminently good sense? How is it possible that good intentions haven't been able to breach these impediments successfully in the past?
And here is Alberta and British Columbia bringing in their Trade, Investment and Mobility Agreement; they too are facing impediments to the implementation of their free grade agreements, the very same arguments, both for and against, heatedly, at times, are being brought to bear as those that existed during the time of the initial U.S.-Canada free trade talks.
The latter I can understand; the former remain a mystery. Protection of provincial and local rules and regulations. Yet the deal between these western provinces assures there is room for protection of regulations on matters such as water, health and social services, agriculture and Crown corporations. Why weren't these protections adequately covered under the Canada-U.S. free trade deal?
Provincial protectionism, seen through the imposition of regulatory duplication, impeding trade simplification, the understandable parochialism of local purchasing when feasible, and multiple licensing regimes haven't proved to be particularly cost-effective in some areas. Studies appear to indicate that business is hampered by cross-border irritations; previous internal trade agreements had no built-in dispute settlement capabilities.
As with the experience seen by Ontario dealing with Quebec, the Alberta-B.C. trade deal is bitterly contested by labour groups who insist the ability of municipal and provincial governments to tailor policy to local needs will be impaired. No denying that could be a legitimate concern.
The thing is, if businesses cannot conduct fair and equal trade meant to enhance the provision of goods and services across provincial borders, why are we so anxious to do the same, to completely open up our markets to foreign sources? Wouldn't it make far more sense to enable the open and free transport of goods and services inter-provincially first and foremost?
Wouldn't that be instrumental in advancing the economic and workplace agenda of Canada as a whole? Isn't that more likely to advance the national interest, and level the playing field within the provinces, encouraging competition, innovation and satisfaction?
On the other hand, it makes me awfully suspicious, and not a little nervous to read that former Canadian free-trade negotiator Michael Hart is arguing for an open economic border with the U.S., dismissing sovereignty concerns, blasting Canadians for anti-American and anti-Bush sentiments. Give me a break.
Agreement or no agreement, conciliatory and adversarial initiatives apart, Canada always has to step back in agreement with anything the U.S. insists is its right. Whether within the auspices of its own conflict resolution committee giving Canada the green light in disputes, or taken further to the World Trade (WTO) group agreeing that Canada has been ill done by through a dispute with the U.S., the Americans are resolutely adamant that it's their way or no way.
Guess there will never be full agreement on the compatibility of free trade with full protection of home markets. Wherever there's an opportunity to pull weight and leave a competitor behind in the dust the stronger partner will take that initiative, right or wrong. Government support (subsidies) of vital industries and agriculture are verbotten if it's another country, quite all right when we're talking about U.S. hand-outs.
In many ways free trade agreements do work well, in others they don't. Smoke-stack industries have gone the way of the Dodo in higher-wage economies, leaving a whole lot of blue-collar workers and their families without economic defences against the future. It doesn't make me melt with pleasure to realize that our critical natural resources may be vulnerable to foreign predation under NAFTA.
As government relations minister for Saskatchewan, Harry Van Mulligan, also looking on to joining the TILMA agreement out west says: "For some people this is the greatest thing since sliced bread and for others it's the end of the civilized world as we know it. Somewhere between there, there's a truth."
But within the confines of its federal borders, between provinces, there is no free trade. Is this absurd or just madness? Trade irritants, conflicting provincial product legislation, consumer protection laws, bitter union divisions have all contrived to ensure that the provinces within Canada have more restrictions placed upon cross-provincial-border trade than international trade.
It appears to have occurred to the economic and trade sensibilities of provincial authorities that "it makes a lot of sense to sign some sort of bi-lateral agreement". High time. Take the situation between Ontario and Quebec, where labour unions in Quebec are so bitterly opposed to enabling trade workers from Ontario to enter the province to work they successfully force the province to impose legal restrictions against out-of-province workers.
While on the other hand, trade workers in Quebec are also constrained; if they're unsuccessful in attempts to join specific unions they cannot work in their own province. While, conversely, less strictured Ontario permits them to pursue their qualified-but-union-uncertified labour in Ontario. Clearly an unsatisfactory and uneven state of affairs, but one that has been going on for an awfully long time.
Take the fact that, for example, in theory there is supposed to be an even situation in Canada with respect to the provision of and quality of health care. When individuals who reside in Ontario for some reason have medical treatment in Quebec, the Ontario health insurance scheme will pay for all services. Conversely, when Quebec residents seek treatment or hospitalization in Ontario, the Quebec health insurance scheme balks at paying the full professional rate accepted by the Ontario scheme, and health professionals and their institutions are then out of pocket.
"Ontario is always open to strengthening the economic union by decreasing barriers to trade and labour mobility," according to Ontario's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Marie Bountrogianni, and that certainly appears to be true. Ontario has tried for years to reach an agreeable accord with Quebec on fairness in trade and worker mobility, and each such attempt came to an abrupt halt until last year when an agreement enabling inter-provincial mobility for construction workers and contractors appears to have finally seen some light.
Meanwhile, Quebec and Ontario are each other's largest domestic trading partners. Quebec sold almost $31 billion in goods and services to Ontario in 2003, representing 62% of its exports within Canada, and Ontario sold $38 billion to Quebec, representing 41% of its domestic imports. The problems they face represent differences in regulations, to duplicate licensing fees, to permits to get across the border. Wouldn't harmonization in all these areas make eminently good sense? How is it possible that good intentions haven't been able to breach these impediments successfully in the past?
And here is Alberta and British Columbia bringing in their Trade, Investment and Mobility Agreement; they too are facing impediments to the implementation of their free grade agreements, the very same arguments, both for and against, heatedly, at times, are being brought to bear as those that existed during the time of the initial U.S.-Canada free trade talks.
The latter I can understand; the former remain a mystery. Protection of provincial and local rules and regulations. Yet the deal between these western provinces assures there is room for protection of regulations on matters such as water, health and social services, agriculture and Crown corporations. Why weren't these protections adequately covered under the Canada-U.S. free trade deal?
Provincial protectionism, seen through the imposition of regulatory duplication, impeding trade simplification, the understandable parochialism of local purchasing when feasible, and multiple licensing regimes haven't proved to be particularly cost-effective in some areas. Studies appear to indicate that business is hampered by cross-border irritations; previous internal trade agreements had no built-in dispute settlement capabilities.
As with the experience seen by Ontario dealing with Quebec, the Alberta-B.C. trade deal is bitterly contested by labour groups who insist the ability of municipal and provincial governments to tailor policy to local needs will be impaired. No denying that could be a legitimate concern.
The thing is, if businesses cannot conduct fair and equal trade meant to enhance the provision of goods and services across provincial borders, why are we so anxious to do the same, to completely open up our markets to foreign sources? Wouldn't it make far more sense to enable the open and free transport of goods and services inter-provincially first and foremost?
Wouldn't that be instrumental in advancing the economic and workplace agenda of Canada as a whole? Isn't that more likely to advance the national interest, and level the playing field within the provinces, encouraging competition, innovation and satisfaction?
On the other hand, it makes me awfully suspicious, and not a little nervous to read that former Canadian free-trade negotiator Michael Hart is arguing for an open economic border with the U.S., dismissing sovereignty concerns, blasting Canadians for anti-American and anti-Bush sentiments. Give me a break.
Agreement or no agreement, conciliatory and adversarial initiatives apart, Canada always has to step back in agreement with anything the U.S. insists is its right. Whether within the auspices of its own conflict resolution committee giving Canada the green light in disputes, or taken further to the World Trade (WTO) group agreeing that Canada has been ill done by through a dispute with the U.S., the Americans are resolutely adamant that it's their way or no way.
Guess there will never be full agreement on the compatibility of free trade with full protection of home markets. Wherever there's an opportunity to pull weight and leave a competitor behind in the dust the stronger partner will take that initiative, right or wrong. Government support (subsidies) of vital industries and agriculture are verbotten if it's another country, quite all right when we're talking about U.S. hand-outs.
In many ways free trade agreements do work well, in others they don't. Smoke-stack industries have gone the way of the Dodo in higher-wage economies, leaving a whole lot of blue-collar workers and their families without economic defences against the future. It doesn't make me melt with pleasure to realize that our critical natural resources may be vulnerable to foreign predation under NAFTA.
As government relations minister for Saskatchewan, Harry Van Mulligan, also looking on to joining the TILMA agreement out west says: "For some people this is the greatest thing since sliced bread and for others it's the end of the civilized world as we know it. Somewhere between there, there's a truth."
Labels: Canada, Politics of Convenience
posted by Pieface | 12:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home