Everyone supports internal trade these days. Premiers support it. Business groups support it. Economists support it. Faced with geopolitical uncertainty and renewed trade tensions with the United States, governments across the country have embraced the idea that goods, services and workers should move more freely across provincial borders.
Progress and Persistent Barriers
To be fair, some progress has followed the rhetoric. The federal government has removed its own exceptions under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. Provinces have begun reducing theirs. Mutual recognition has emerged as the preferred solution to many long-standing barriers: If goods and services pass muster with the regulations of one province, other provinces accept them.
And yet, despite the agreements, barriers remain. Provinces continue to negotiate implementation details, exemptions and transition measures. Businesses and workers still encounter different rules, registrations and regulatory requirements depending on which side of a provincial border they happen to be operating on.
The Holdup: Concentrated Costs vs. Shared Benefits
Which raises a simple question: if everyone agrees with free internal trade, what's the holdup? Part of the answer is that the benefits of liberalization are widely shared, while the costs are often concentrated among those who benefit from existing barriers. Internal trade barriers survive, not because nobody notices them, but because somebody benefits from them.
Canada has a single currency, a common citizenship and a common passport. Yet a company can still face additional registrations, compliance requirements and regulatory processes simply to operate across a provincial border. And though Canadians can move freely across provincial borders, their paperwork isn't always granted the same privilege.
Labour Mobility: Swiss Cheese Holes
The Canadian Free Trade Agreement guarantees the right of qualified workers to move and practice across the country. But Canada's labour mobility framework is still like Swiss cheese. The framework is there — but there are holes.
Nova Scotia, for example, has maintained exceptions for psychologists from Alberta because it believes there are meaningful differences in competencies related to assessment and diagnosis. As a result, a psychologist may be considered fully qualified to assess and diagnose patients in Alberta but require additional professional assessment after crossing over to Nova Scotia. Saskatchewan has exceptions for dental hygienists because of differences in scope of practice, prompting the question: does plaque really behave differently in Regina than it does in Halifax?
Patients may not notice the border. Regulators and practitioners certainly do. Every province supports labour mobility in principle. But they also all believe their particular exceptions are warranted.
Quebec's Language Layer
Quebec adds another layer to the discussion. Even if a professional possesses the necessary qualifications and experience, he or she may still need to demonstrate proficiency in French before receiving a full permit to practice. A geologist arriving from Ontario may discover that mastering mineral deposits is not quite enough: they also need to satisfy Quebec's French-language requirements before obtaining a regular licence. The rocks may not care whether they are studied in French or in English but the regulatory framework does.
The challenge in freeing up internal trade and commerce is not identifying barriers. It is confronting the interests that benefit from them.
