I think you're hitting on the key point. The problem is that we always frame the issue in the context of trade barriers, as if there's some sort of tariff or real measure actually at an interprovincial border stopping the movement of goods or people or capital, whereas I think we're both trying to convey that that's very simplistic. If we approach the policy challenge of this in simply those terms, I think we're missing the much bigger point.
In fact, it's really no different from international trade in that, yes, you have tariffs at the border, but we know that in global trade, often the much more insidious and damaging impact to the actual flow of goods, people, or capital are the internal measures. In agriculture, often those are subsidies. That's why we have a WTO agreement that brings discipline to the exercise of domestic support to agriculture. There are internal standards, internal technical issues. You may have no barrier at the border, but you have all kinds of measures that fundamentally prevent you from investing or selling products.
I agree that it's not really a trade barrier. Most of these things are obvious examples in supply management, where you have actual regulation of a commodity, meaning, for example, if I'm a chicken processor in Ontario, my ability to source live chicken out of Manitoba to use in my plant is subject to a whole bunch of rules that prevent the movement of those live birds. There are, however, relatively few examples of that.