Debates of June 14th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Internal trade

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

(Motion agreed to)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member was saying. I loved the example of hay. The member illustrated just why we need to see the different levels of government working together to see what we can do to streamline the regulations. The member is quite right in his assertion that by taking a proactive approach there is $400 billion in interprovincial trade. If we get this thing right, we could see a significant increase in economic activity. There is a great deal of benefit by it.

The question I have for the member is similar to what I have been asking of other members. Would he not agree that the best way to take down those barriers is in fact to work with the provinces and indigenous governments in trying to build consensus as to how we can take away and harmonize regulations? We know that can be effective because we saw that take place in 1995 when everyone came to the table, and they took down the barriers and put us on a road. At least that would take us in a more positive way dealing with internal provincial trade.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. He hits the point right on the head. It was 1995.

The provinces are not willing partners. They do have the unique opportunity by participating in this court case, by actually watching it and working with it going into the Supreme Court. They have an opportunity to actually have a hammer on the provinces to say that this is going to the Supreme Court, that we think the Supreme Court is actually going to respect Canadians' rights to trade as they see fit across this country.

It enhances their bargaining ability, so they should be there showing leadership because that would be their fail-safe if they cannot negotiate. If you can negotiate something in the next six months, which I do not think you can, that would be fine. However, Canadians are becoming very impatient on this issue, so to drag your feet and go through a process like you are doing on TPP would not be acceptable and would not be accepted by Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members to speak through the Chair, and not directly across.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the case that Canadians are impatient to get rid of interprovincial trade barriers. I want to remind the House that the commitment was made in the Speech from the Throne in 2007 by the previous government that there would be a specific effort to tackle barriers to trade interprovincially. The former government said in 2007 that the previous prime minister would be prepared to use the trade and commerce clause in the Constitution if needed.

I am very sympathetic to this motion. I appreciate the fact that we have had a day to examine the Comeau case and to consider whether a Supreme Court reference would help. However, would the hon. member not agree with me that, as the previous prime minister had it in his powers and did nothing, the current Prime Minister has it in his powers to invoke the trade and commerce clause and begin cleaning up interprovincial barriers to trade if we do not see movement from the provinces?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at that very closely before I give my opinion on that.

Regardless, in this situation with the Comeau case, the Liberals do have that ability to use that case and take it right to the Supreme Court to get a result that would actually be beneficial for all Canadians. That definitely is an option. There is the fact that in 2007 there was a strong commitment to move forward on this file. The agreement was not lacking on the federal side; it was lacking on the provincial side. That is what I am saying.

They do not have a hammer with the provinces unless they decide to use it. Right now, the Liberal government is showing no leadership and no ability to use that hammer. Just simply by being involved in this case would give them that hammer. Why not be involved? Why not do that?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again the issue is that the Supreme Court narrowed the application of section 121 in 1921. Since then, we have been unable to have evidence that would actually show otherwise.

This court in New Brunswick, with Justice LeBlanc, has brought that evidence forward and found that. The member has raised that the Supreme Court is the venue for this issue to be solved. Does the member agree right now that there is going to be a ton of provincial taxpayer monies used to litigate this all the way up to the Supreme Court? Would it not be better for taxpayers and for Canadian producers to get this in front of the Supreme Court right now?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree. It is just common sense. This is a lot of money being spent that is not being used for health care and other things that are important to our provinces. The reality is that this law is going to change. The Supreme Court is going to hear it and it is going to throw it out, and Canadians are going to end up being able to trade across this country freely and widely.

The reality is this. Does the federal government want to have a leadership role in this, or is it just going to sit back and let the wild west evolve?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand today to speak to this subject. At the outset, one does not get a body like this by not drinking beer. One gets a body like this by drinking a lot of beer. Therefore, I am in support of freeing beer.

In all seriousness, I know the hon. member was speaking about this, and it is his motion we are presenting today. However, it quite disturbed me this morning to hear the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and his answers to the issues the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola brought up.

I was elected as a new member of Parliament in an opposition role, and as a new MP not part of the previous government. I did not come to the House for history lessons, on a daily basis, about what the past governments did or did not do. I came to Ottawa to hold the government to account on what it was not doing, not what previous governments did not do.

We see the government not providing leadership on a lot of issues. In fact, the Liberals are looking back through rose-coloured glasses, through a Liberal lens. Of course, it is easy to govern when we do not want to make a decision. Leadership means that we stand for what is right, even when people do not agree with us. It is about moving people in a direction in which they know they should be going but perhaps are unwilling to go, and we are not seeing that.

We are seeing a lot of misses by the Liberal government, with respect to the Carter decision and the deadline of June 6, and the Agreement on Internal Trade. I anxiously await, and I am sure all Canadians do, for the time when the government starts building its own legacy rather than tearing down others. I am not sure and I am not confident that a legacy will be had.

However, we have seen a systematic dismantling of a lot of things, almost, in effect, like governments had never existed in our country. One of the things the Liberals need to focus on is not only talking about the Constitution when it suits them, but they are the government now. As such, they must uphold the Constitution at all times and not when the wind blows in their favour.

I want to remind Canadians, again, how we got to this point.

The Comeau ruling is a landmark court decision in New Brunswick, which struck down the province's alcohol importation limits. In his decision, Judge Ronald LeBlanc dismissed chargers against Gerard Comeau under New Brunswick's Liquor Control Act, saying the law violated section 121 of the Constitution.

Section 121 is clear:

All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.

In a May 30 news release, the deputy leader of the opposition and the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola issued a press release which said:

If the Liberal government truly supports free trade in Canada, it will refer the Comeau ruling to the Supreme Court, and agree to act as an intervenor now that the Comeau ruling has been appealed....Given the failure of the Liberal Government to reach a new agreement on interprovincial trade with the provinces and territories, it only makes sense for the Liberals to refer the Comeau ruling to the Supreme Court. The Court should also comment on which products, jurisdictions and types of barriers are covered by the Comeau ruling.

It further states:

The Comeau ruling could lead to stronger economic growth because freer trade amongst the provinces and territories is a cost effective way to encourage greater job creation and private sector investment. A positive decision by the Supreme Court would also give consumers access to more choice in the marketplace.

It then goes on to say, “It is time to free the beer and free the Canadian economy.”

What does it mean in terms of the Canadian economy when we look at the issue of interprovincial trade?

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said that barriers to internal trade cost the Canadian economy nearly $15 billion every year. What could we do with that $15 billion today? We could pay for a year's worth of taxpayer funded benefits to parents with children under 18. It could cover the costs of the employment insurance system for an entire year. That $15 billion represents more than triple the funding the government has allocated to building strong communities in budget 2016. It could even pay for the Liberals' Syrian refugee plan 15 times over, although we should probably wait for the final bill to come in for that before we start committing to that figure.

The Atlantic region of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said that small businesses in Atlantic Canada lose $1 billion in annual compliance costs associated with trade barriers within its region. What can $1 billion do for Atlantic Canada? It would support the many routes of ferry services in the Maritime region for 20 years.

The Conference Board of Canada says that removing internal trade barriers would add $4.8 billion to real GDP and create 78,000 jobs in British Columbia and Alberta alone. The 78,000 jobs that could be created represents more than all jobs lost in Alberta in 2015.

From 1981 to 2014, interprovincial trade has lagged behind growth in international trade. From 1981 to 2014, interprovincial trade grew at an average annual rate of 4.2% and international trade grew at approximately 6%. Therefore, in terms of the federal angle on interprovincial trade, what does it mean?

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development wants to talk about previous governments. Then, let us talk about previous governments.

The previous Conservative government, with the provinces and territories, agreed to work together to increase free trade across provincial borders. Former industry minister Mr. Moore declared the Agreement on Internal Trade outdated and made removing domestic barriers to internal trade a priority. The former minister called for the modernization of internal trade in Canada by updating the Agreement on Internal Trade based on four new additional principles: first, the economy, and that is that Canadian goods, services, labour and investments should be treated as favourably as those from other countries; second, full inclusive transparent coverage, that we should ensure the free trade of all goods and services, labour and investment; third, aligning regulations, standards and practices across the country and explaining when exceptions are necessary; and, fourth, parties should regularly report to Canadians on the progress of those modernization efforts.

Those were the goals of the previous Conservative government, with the understanding that there were limits on internal trade, which the Comeau case has now opened up constitutionally.

There are some key recommendations in the Senate report on internal trade called “Tear Down These Walls”, which was released in June of this year. As the report is available, I would encourage all members of the House to read it if possible.

In conclusion, the current AIT had a deadline of March 31 for a renewed agreement. No new agreement has been announced.

When the Agreement on Internal Trade was signed in 1994, Canada had free trade with two countries, Mexico and the U.S. Today, Canada has 36 agreements involving 15 countries.

The federal Liberal government needs to lead and show leadership as the intervenor of the Comeau case now that it has been appealed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the leader of the Green Party raised a good issue. She made reference to the fact that the former Conservative prime minister said that he believed internal trade between the provinces would be of the utmost priority. He knew full well at the time that he could have gone to the Supreme Court for a reference.

I listened to the member opposite. If I take him at his word when he said the Conservatives were aggressively trying to work with the provinces to update the Agreement on Internal Trade, something Jean Chrétien established.

At the very least, would he not recognize that this government has been in office now for seven months and has made a commitment to work with the different stakeholders, in particular, our provinces, to deal with internal provincial trade? Should we not allow for the opportunity to work in collaboration to accomplish the types of things that his previous government was unable to cause to materialize and that has been called upon—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up an important point. When we look at what happened before the Comeau case was announced, there were some clear challenges in dealing with the provinces. There is no question that we should be taking a collaborative path with the provinces. I do not think any member on this side of the House would disagree with that.

The challenge exists now on the constitutionality of what the Comeau case does. The government now has the ability to appeal that case and act an the intervenor, as I said earlier, in order to open it up. We have to be very careful. I think if we were to ask Canadians, most of them would like internal trade opened up, not with a narrow focus on internal trade but a broad focus on what goods and services could be traded between provinces.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. One good thing about his approach is that he provided a lot of information on the negotiations and the issues.

However, let us look at a very simple, very clear example that will be easy for everyone to understand. When it comes to a case of 12 or 24 beers, can the member tell me, out of all the potential obstacles to interprovincial trade, what are the two most important obstacles to overcome and negotiate with the provinces?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I refer back to the recent case. There is a definite constitutional issue that can be addressed, as long as the government acts in a leadership manner to do that. I do not think, as I said in my speech, that we should be limiting it. The Comeau case very clearly indicates that it is the constitutional right of Canadians to deal with internal trade and to have this done. The government should, in fact, intervene on this matter rapidly.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard a number of arguments today, and over the past several weeks, when we started talking about “free the beer”. First is the moral argument. It is completely moral for Canadians to want to trade with Canadians when there are negotiated trade deals with foreign jurisdictions that give them federal market access. Then there is the economic argument. It is a debt-free way to grow our economy.

However, now we have a legal argument, one that has been found by a justice in a court, new evidence that challenges the current understanding of constitutional law when it comes to section 121. Would the member agree that the most expedient way for us to deal with this business is to raise this to the Supreme Court level for its ruling? There is a clear public interest and a clear desire for change.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely agree with the member on that. This case has really opened up the issue of interprovincial trade and the constitutionality of it. It is quite clear that if the government chose to, and it should choose to, act as an intervenor on this case and get some real clarity on the issue, Canadians would be better off.

I spoke about the overall economy and how that would benefit not just our economy but Canadians in general. It is absurd that we are not moving in this direction.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond Hill. I want to thank the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for bringing his motion before this House.

I think we will find that all members, no matter where they sit in this chamber, will agree on the importance of internal trade to the Canadian economy. This debate, however, highlights two approaches: one legislative and one collaborative. The collaborative approach provides more opportunity, in my opinion.

Canada has always been a trading nation. The Agreement on Internal Trade represents an important issue where we are implementing the government's commitment to work closely with provincial and territorial partners.

Modernizing the agreement would lead to enhanced trade across provincial and territorial boundaries, and serve to strengthen our economy. As a small business owner, a certified international trade professional, and a member of the international trade committee, I feel very strongly about trade and also internal trade.

Today, I will speak to the very topic where our government is working to enhance Canada's internal trade, the topic of energy. From electricity transmission to oil and gas pipelines, we have an opportunity to protect Canada's energy security, encourage energy conservation, and bring cleaner, renewable energy onto a smarter electricity grid.

In fact, these opportunities are outlined in the Minister of Natural Resources's mandate letter from the Prime Minister. The minister has been asked to work closely with his provincial and territorial counterparts on a Canadian energy strategy. That is exactly what he is doing.

This new approach of bilateral relations, working collaboratively across government, is an approach that will provide clear and substantive results. For best collaboration, the provinces and territories have developed a Canadian energy strategy, and we look forward to supporting the work they have started.

In fact, at the recent first ministers meeting in Vancouver, the federal government formally recognized the leadership demonstrated by the provinces and territories in developing the Canadian energy strategy. This strategy will shape the sustainable development of Canada's energy future.

Further, budget 2016 speaks directly to greater regional co-operation between provinces and territories. The objective of this co-operative relationship serves to encourage greater electricity reliability while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants across Canada.

To that end, budget 2016 provided Natural Resources Canada with $2.5 million over two years to facilitate regional dialogues and studies to identify promising electricity projects. As all of these steps demonstrate, there is growing consensus across the nation for a Canadian energy strategy. Moving forward with a collaborative plan is key.

I would like to use my time to touch upon five areas of federal jurisdiction where our government can help deliver a truly comprehensive energy strategy, not with a hammer but with collaboration.

First is clean energy innovation. Along with the provinces and territories, our government recognizes that the continued investments in clean energy technologies are imperative in order to ensure that Canada's resource sectors remain sustainable and prosperous.

Furthermore, these investments must include technologies that improve energy efficiency and security, while expanding the use of cleaner energy resources, such as wind and solar energy. For this reason, the Prime Minister announced last November that Canada—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola has a point of order.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I do appreciate the member opposite has a point of view, I bring up the fact of relevance. So far, beyond acknowledging that this is the motion we are discussing, there has been no conversation whatsoever, no relevance to what is here.

If this were a discussion about energy policy, I am sure it would go quite far. However, I would ask that she return to the actual motion we are supposed to be discussing.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. It is true that it is in the Standing Orders that members should make sure that their commentary and/or questions are pertinent to the question that is before the House.

I do note that the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest began her commentary on the energy topic as it related to barriers between provinces and so on. If members start and link the topic of their discussion to the matter before the House, they can in fact carry on with that topic.

One would normally expect, of course—and I recognize that the member is about four minutes into her time permitted—that she will summarize and bring that back around to the point that is before the House. I am sure she will do that.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, linking the two—energy and the motion at hand—is very significant and very relevant. It is a true example of working in collaboration with provinces and territories to get the work done, which has not happened in the energy sector over the last 10 years. I will get back on track.

Our government will help deliver a truly comprehensive Canadian energy strategy through international leadership on energy, which does require collaboration. As one of the world's top producers and exporters of energy, Canada has a powerful story to tell on the world stage. Canada also has a powerful opportunity to demonstrate on the world stage that we are not a government that wields a hammer. We are a government that talks and collaborates.

Strengthening our relationship with international partners will help position Canada as a stable, reliable energy supplier of choice, as well as increase export opportunities for Canadian products, services, and technologies. Whether it is joining with the United States and Mexico in continental co-operation on energy and the environment, or opening new markets through international trade agreements, the federal government can propel our efforts both here at home and internationally.

The third area where Canada can lead is through indigenous engagement. In Canada, the role of indigenous people in the energy sector has never been more important or promising. Again, they need to be collaborated with, and they need to be involved in the discussion.

In order to get things done in this country, we all have to be working together to have a solution that we can live with. Indigenous people have asked for assurances that their rights and communities will not be adversely affected in developing energy. Provinces and territories have identified respect for aboriginal and treaty rights as one of the key principles that will guide their ongoing work under the Canadian energy strategy. Federally, we will do the same.

The fourth area pertains to infrastructure development. The federal government recognizes that Canada needs significant new investment in green, climate-resilient infrastructure. That is why we will invest billions over the next decade and work with the provinces and territories.

We have an amazing opportunity to connect our energy resources across the country and to foster the kind of enhanced internal trade outlined in today's motion. This is true in many different scenarios, be it the enhancement of the east-west electricity transmission in order to strengthen resiliency and reinforce market integration, or be it new pipelines that support the diversification of our oil and gas markets.

The last component I would like to speak about in which the federal government could help deliver a truly comprehensive Canadian energy strategy is public trust. As the Prime Minister has said many times, governments grant permits, but only communities grant permission.

Canadians expect energy to be developed sustainably to ensure that the health, safety, and security of citizens are protected, and our vital ecosystems. Recently, however, Canadians have been dissatisfied with the manner in which major energy projects are reviewed and assessed.

Through meaningful engagements with indigenous people, through investing in clean technologies, energy efficiency, and renewable sources of energy, we can make significant improvements to our current procedures. This is the reason our government has announced an interim strategy to review major resource projects currently in the regulatory review process. For this reason, we have promised an overhaul of Canada's environmental assessment process to achieve a more permanent and comprehensive collaborative approach. To that end, we will be modernizing the National Energy Board.

Provinces and territories also have environmental assessment and regulatory processes, and they have an equally important role in restoring public trust that energy development will be done safely and sustainably. We will continue to work collaboratively with the provinces and territories to efficiently achieve common objectives to our respective regulatory processes, just as in internal trade.

We see a bright future for the Canadian energy sector. We see a bright future for the internal trade sector; a future that takes our vast endowment of energy—collaboration from oil and gas to wind and tide and sun—and joins them together under one cohesive plan. We are a nation, and nation to nation, from coast to coast to coast, we want a plan that is a national plan.

The government is currently working with its provincial and territorial counterparts to renew the agreement on internal trade. We believe working collaboratively with our provincial and territorial partners is the best approach and the one that will deliver the results that Canadians expect of us.