We could be here all day. Hopefully, everyone is buckling up for this.
What I love about this question is that we got stuck. Section 121, which the honourable member discussed, is the free trade clause in the Constitution. We got stuck in a 1921 decision where it was said that internal trade barriers have to do with customs, duties and tariffs, essentially. We got stuck in that for a long time. We are still pretty much stuck in that. We have not progressed in the same way. We have to segment out the charter from the BNA Act—the genesis and the interpretive authorities.
It is true that when the whole world came to realize that internal trade barriers were about more than just tariffs and were about the behind-the-border non-tariff regulatory measures, it seemed as though our judicial system couldn't keep up. We've seen it increment every 20 years. The Comeau decision moved it a bit. We've come to realize that the court is kind of saying that the responsibility to be inching forward is not for us but for the elected members of our society.
We have an understanding, and we could reopen it by doing some sort of constitutional work, but I don't think that's on the table. This is where we are now. We went to a political agreement with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and its predecessor to try to inch it forward.
To make a long story short on your question, yes, we're held back by an old version from back when the clergy were our economists, in the 1920s. We're grappling with that a bit.