Correct Answer: how far Ottawa should go to remove trade barriers between provinces
Passage Reference: Ottawa has now published a discussion paper that asks whether it should force the provinces to open up
Why this is correct: Ottawa has published a paper asking whether it should force the provinces to open up. The editorial reports this and weighs how strong Ottawa’s role should be.
Tips: For a “mainly about” question, find the question the discussion paper asks in the first paragraph. Every speaker gives a view on how far to go.
Why the other options are wrong:
- whether Canada should leave its trade deals with other countries: The editorial is about trade between provinces inside Canada, not about deals with other countries.
- why wine costs more in the smaller provinces: Wine appears only as one example of goods stopped at provincial borders. Its price is never discussed.
- how provinces should train more licensed welders: Farrow’s welder is an example of a certificate that is not recognized, not a question about training more welders.
Correct Answer: Nadim Spence
Passage Reference: He is willing to share more inspection data with other provinces, but he will not accept a federal power to override them.
Why this is correct: Nadim Spence will share more inspection data with other provinces, which is closer cooperation. But he will not accept a federal power to override them.
Tips: Several speakers talk about federal power, so sort them by whether they accept any of it. Then check who still offers some help to other provinces.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Helga Rainville: Helga Rainville wants binding national standards, so she does not refuse federal control.
- Celia Hynes: Celia Hynes starts with provinces accepting each other’s standards. But she also accepts a federal backstop if talks fail, so she does not refuse federal control.
- Lev Farrow: Lev Farrow could accept a federal override for trade certificates, so he does not refuse federal control.
Correct Answer: evidence that voluntary deals rarely survive an election
Passage Reference: half-measures have been tried for thirty years with little to show
Why this is correct: Rainville wants binding national standards because half-measures have failed for thirty years. Evidence that voluntary deals rarely survive an election would support her case for something binding.
Tips: Find Rainville’s reason for her view. Then pick the proof that would make that reason stronger.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a finding that provinces reached quick deals on their own: If provinces reached quick deals on their own, binding national standards would be less needed, which weakens Rainville’s case.
- evidence that voters punish ministers over food rules: Voters punishing ministers is Spence’s argument for keeping provincial control, which works against Rainville.
- a report that local inspectors know local farms best: Local inspectors knowing local farms is Spence’s reason for keeping provincial food rules, which works against Rainville.
Correct Answer: a federal backstop would apply only after talks fail
Passage Reference: Only if negotiations fail within a fixed period would a federal backstop apply
Why this is correct: Hynes says a federal backstop would apply only if negotiations fail within a fixed period. Even then, it would apply only to barriers named on a public list.
Tips: Hynes gives her condition in the third sentence of her lines. Restate it in simple words, then match it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the backstop would apply to every provincial rule: Hynes limits the backstop to a published list of the costliest barriers, so it would not cover every rule.
- provinces would drop all barriers within a fixed period: The fixed period is for negotiations, and Hynes expects some barriers to stay with a public cost note.
- each province could veto the list of costly barriers: Hynes never gives provinces a veto over the list. The list decides where the backstop applies.
Correct Answer: open to it, but only as a last resort
Passage Reference: two years of talks, after which the backstop applies automatically
Why this is correct: The writers say the country needs something firmer than goodwill. But they back a backstop only after two years of talks, which makes the override a last resort.
Tips: For an attitude question, read the closing paragraph with its “firm limit”. Pick the choice that fits everything the paper says there.
Why the other options are wrong:
- eager to use it before any talks: The writers want two years of talks first, so they do not want an override before talks.
- opposed to it in every form: In the last paragraph, a backstop applies automatically after two years, so the writers are not opposed to every override.
- indifferent, leaving it to the courts: Courts are never mentioned, and the editorial takes a clear position with a firm limit.
Correct Answer: firms keep a separate compliance team for each province
Passage Reference: firms keep separate compliance staff for each province instead of one team for the country
Why this is correct: Rainville, the economist, argues that without national standards firms keep separate compliance staff for each province instead of one team.
Tips: The comment calls her “the economist”, so find Rainville’s lines. Look for the word “Without” and read what businesses do in its place.
Why the other options are wrong:
- firms pay too much tax in the smaller provinces: Taxes are never discussed. Rainville’s point is about duplicated compliance staff.
- truck drivers need longer rest breaks: Truck weights are mentioned, but nobody talks about drivers’ rest breaks.
- wine sales fall when shipping is blocked: Wine shipping is on Rainville’s list of rules, but she never says wine sales are falling.
Correct Answer: job-site safety inspections stay with the provinces
Passage Reference: provided safety inspections on job sites stay with the provinces
Why this is correct: Farrow could accept a federal override for trade certificates, provided safety inspections on job sites stay with the provinces.
Tips: The comment says “the trades leader’s condition”, so find Farrow’s last sentence. The word “provided” tells you his condition.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Ottawa take charge of job-site safety: Farrow wants job-site safety to stay with the provinces, so Ottawa taking charge is the opposite of his condition.
- trade exams be rewritten in each province: Farrow complains that a welder has to rewrite exams, so this is the problem he wants to end.
- welders be certified only by their employers: Farrow never suggests certification by employers. His issue is recognition between provinces.
Correct Answer: a public cost note for each kept barrier
Passage Reference: any barrier a province keeps should come with a public note on its costs and benefits
Why this is correct: Hynes says any barrier a province keeps should come with a public note on its costs and benefits.
Tips: Read the sentence that starts “She adds” in Hynes’s lines. Match what it asks of provinces in other words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a national vote on each barrier: No national vote is proposed in the editorial. Hynes wants a public note on each kept barrier.
- a federal fine for each broken promise: Fines are never mentioned. Hynes’s tool for kept barriers is a public note on costs and benefits.
- a court ruling on each trade dispute: Courts play no part in Hynes’s plan. She relies on talks, a backstop and public notes.
Correct Answer: lumber, wine and an electrician
Passage Reference: a truckload of lumber, a case of wine or a licensed electrician
Why this is correct: The first sentence names what provincial rules stop at their borders. The list is a truckload of lumber, a case of wine or a licensed electrician.
Tips: The comment says “your opening list”, so read the first sentence of the passage. Match all three items, not just one.
Why the other options are wrong:
- fish, beer and a plumber: Fish, beer and plumbers are never mentioned. The opening list is lumber, wine and an electrician.
- milk, cheese and a nurse: Milk, cheese and nurses do not appear in the editorial. Its examples are lumber, wine and an electrician.
- grain, fuel and a teacher: Grain, fuel and teachers are never named. The editorial’s list is lumber, wine and a licensed electrician.
Correct Answer: provinces accepting each other’s standards where risks match
Passage Reference: Provinces would first accept one another’s standards wherever the risks are similar.
Why this is correct: Hynes’s path begins with provinces accepting one another’s standards wherever the risks are similar. The backstop and the list come only later.
Tips: The comment says “Starting with”, so look for the word “first” in Hynes’s lines. Notice which step comes before the backstop.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a federal override on truck weights: A binding standard on truck weights is Rainville’s idea, and in Hynes’s plan any federal step comes last, not first.
- a published list of the costliest barriers: The published list is part of Hynes’s plan, but it matters only after talks fail, so it is not the starting point.
- a vote in every provincial legislature: No votes in legislatures are proposed. Hynes starts with provinces accepting each other’s standards.
