Mr. Speaker, I will respond to some of the issues which were brought up by the members who spoke. I do not have much time obviously to spend on the response to any one particular member. I will start by responding to the questions posed by the hon. member for Etobicoke North. He asked what would happen to some of the smaller breweries if barriers to internal trade were removed. He asked about Alberta specifically.
If the member wants to refer to Alberta, it would be important for him to know that the province of Alberta has led the movement to remove barriers to internal trade. Unilaterally it has made many of the changes which will be and should have been put in place by a completed agreement on internal trade. Alberta has done it unilaterally because it feels that this issue is important to Albertans.
There have been a few people who have complained about this unilateral action. They feel that Alberta should have waited until the agreement is completed. That is what my private member's bill would do. It would lead to the completion of the agreement.
Members who have called it simplistic obviously have not read it and thought it through. It is simple. It is a simple amendment, but it is not simplistic and it will do the job.
In terms of the breweries, many successful breweries are in fact micro-breweries, smaller breweries. I cannot say for sure that some would not close down as a result of removing barriers.
However, every province, each territory and the federal government, when they signed the agreement on internal trade agreed that there would be a net benefit to the people of each and every province.
That brings me to the comments made by the Bloc member. He was concerned that Quebec would lose its veto within the formula which would remove the unanimous consent requirement and put in place the consent of at least seven provinces having at least 50% of the population. His concern is completely unfounded. In fact, the Government of Quebec signed the agreement on internal trade. It agreed to a step by step process to complete the agreement. All my bill would do would be to allow for the completion of the agreement on internal trade.
The concerns put forth by the hon. Bloc member are completely unfounded because Quebec has already agreed to it, as has every other province and territory in the country.
Furthermore, I believe that Bloc members supported the implementation agreement which was introduced in 1995 and passed in 1996. This nonsense about Quebec losing its veto is completely unfounded. It has already expressed the desire to have this agreement completed and that is all my bill would do. It would put in place a more realistic formula for approval for each step in completing the agreement on internal trade.
The reactions of government members have been very vague in some ways. However, they did say they were concerned because the agreement on internal trade was signed by all governments in Canada, so how could the federal government alone make this amendment.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary if the government has even attempted to consult with the provinces and the territories to make this change or a change like this. I do not care if they use the exact method that I am putting forward. I do not care. I just want the job done.
The government has far more resources than I have in terms of coming up with a way of doing it. I believe it will work, as do members of these institutions who have studied the issue in some depth. They agree it will work.
I do not believe it is simplistic. I believe it is simple. The concerns the government has expressed are completely unfounded. I will use some quotes from Liberal ministers in the last government to back that up.
One is from Alan Toulin, writing in The Financial Post , October 25, 1996. He referred to the minister from Edmonton West hoping for agreement on internal trade in electricity. She also raised the possibility that Ottawa would use its constitutional powers to manage the country's economic union.
That would mean a more active federal government, a role in bringing about deregulation for that minister and the Minister of Industry.
On February 25, 1997 the Minister of Industry spoke to a group of Edmonton small business people at a small business conference. He said that from his point of view it would soon be time for the federal government to consider alternative strategies. To say that he was disappointed, angry or frustrated is not only how he felt but an understatement. Being this far along into the agreement with so little progress to show indicated to him that it was certainly time to re-examine the strategy.
I will close with that. I had several quotes from constitutional experts. I would be glad to table them if I am requested to do so. I thank members for their input. I thank them for their clear support in dealing with the issue. It was unanimous, I believe. If government members do not believe my bill is the best way to go in this regard, I encourage them to come up with their own and I will support it wholeheartedly.