Read the following editorial from a website.
Canadian premiers praise open markets in speech after speech, and then defend the rules that stop a truckload of lumber, a case of wine or a licensed electrician at their own borders. Ottawa has now published a discussion paper that asks whether it should force the provinces to open up, or keep relying on voluntary agreements that tend to weaken after each election. We think the country needs something firmer than goodwill. We also believe the paper’s strongest option goes further than the problem requires.
Helga Rainville, an economist who helped write the paper, argues that half-measures have been tried for thirty years with little to show. Her team estimated what duplicated inspections and closed purchasing lists cost the economy, and she says the figure justifies binding national standards on truck weights, wine shipping and trade certificates. Without them, she argues, firms keep separate compliance staff for each province instead of one team for the country. Nadim Spence, who serves as farm minister for a smaller province, calls that approach a threat to accountability. Provincial food rules, he told his legislature, reflect what local inspectors can handle and how big local farms are, and voters can punish a minister who gets them wrong. He is willing to share more inspection data with other provinces, but he will not accept a federal power to override them.
Celia Hynes, who teaches trade law, argues that a middle path exists. Provinces would first accept one another’s standards wherever the risks are similar. Only if negotiations fail within a fixed period would a federal backstop apply, and then only to the costliest barriers, named in advance on a public list. She adds that any barrier a province keeps should come with a public note on its costs and benefits. Lev Farrow, who leads a skilled trades association, says his members want one simple thing: a welder certified in Moncton should not have to rewrite exams to work in Regina. He could accept a federal override for trade certificates, he says, provided safety inspections on job sites stay with the provinces.
In our view, Hynes’s design should be the basis of the bill. It respects Spence’s point that provinces answer to their own voters, while giving Rainville the pressure she rightly wants. We would add Farrow’s narrow test and a firm limit: two years of talks, after which the backstop applies automatically. Ottawa should also publish the cost notes in one place, so that our readers can see what each remaining wall costs us.
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.
Who most clearly accepts closer cooperation while refusing federal control? 2..
Helga Rainville’s position would most likely be supported by 3..
What outcome does Celia Hynes’s condition call for? 4..
The editorial’s attitude toward a federal override is best described as 5..
The following is a comment by a visitor to the website page. Complete the comment by choosing the best option to fill in each blank.