Debates of June 14th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Internal trade

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to engage in this debate. I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Yes, the motion before this House is about freeing beer, but it is far more than that. It is about determining whether in fact Canada truly has free trade, not with other countries; we have a lot of that already, but do we truly have free trade within our country, among our provinces and territories?

We are a trading nation. We trade all over the world. I remember way back to the 1980s when Canada signed that monumental agreement called the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which eventually morphed into the North American Free Trade Agreement. That was a defining trade agreement for the world.

For the first time ever, a comprehensive trade agreement was signed where two, and later three, countries—Canada, the United States, and then Mexico—agreed that the North American production platform would be one in which we have highly integrated supply chains and where we trade across our boundaries without the barriers of tariffs. Why do we do that? It is because it makes our nation, Canada, more competitive.

The same thing is true when we talk about internal trade. The more we can remove barriers to trade within our own country, the more productive, the more competitive we become, the greater the value to consumers, the greater the value to businesses, as they have expanded markets within their own country.

We saw a great example of this when three provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, had the vision to say that they wanted free trade among their three provinces. They tried to bring Manitoba onside, but Manitoba at the time had an NDP government, which was not in favour of trade at all, so they established what they called the New West Partnership, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. For the first time ever in Canadian history, they were able to remove many of the barriers to trade, to the trade of goods and services, to the mobility of people across our provincial boundaries. They have achieved significant improvement in their competitiveness, because when we are competitive within Canada, we also become that much more competitive within the global marketplace.

The previous Conservative government, of course, was very active in negotiating trade agreements all around the world. After the North American Free Trade Agreement came into force, we had 13 years of darkness under the previous Liberal government under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, when they were only able to negotiate three very small trade agreements.

When we were elected in 2006, our Conservative government said it had a lot of catching up to do, and in the intervening 10 years, we were able to negotiate free trade agreements not with three, six, or 10 countries, but with an amazing 46 countries around the world.

We expanded our global and commercial reach to markets that had been closed to us for so many years, and the same thing is true when we do this in Canada. We need to eliminate the barriers that reduce our competitiveness, that reduce our ability to improve our standard of living. It is right for Canadian businesses to ask why they cannot do business within Canada freely when they can trade with countries all around the world.

The irony is that countries from around the world can do business with individual provinces more easily than businesses in Canada can do business with individual provinces and territories. Who gets hurt? Canadians, consumers, small and medium-sized businesses, and taxpayers writ large get hurt, because of the loss of potential tax revenues that can sustain our great standard of living within Canada.

The barrier we have within Canada among our provinces and territories is protectionism, really, at its very worst. It is freer and more open trade that represents the pathway to secure a strong and prosperous economy going forward within Canada.

Canada has been an outspoken proponent, a champion of free trade on the international stage. The economic freedom index, which the Heritage Foundation puts out on a regular basis, ranks countries in terms of their openness to trade.

Do members know where Canada fits in? It is number six out of 166 countries. We do very well when it comes to openness to trade with countries around the world, but when we look within Canada, it is quite a different picture.

We have set these barriers where regions of the country and individual provinces and territories try to protect their own businesses and do not recognize that the ability of their businesses to actually expand and thrive is based on more competition and freer and more open trade.

Another thing that barriers to trade do in our federation is that they undermine the strength of our federation. Here we are as a country, trying to improve Canada's economic performance, trying to improve our trade performance, trying to improve growth in GDP, trying to nurture our small and medium-sized businesses, and the best thing we can do is to get out of their way and let them do business in an unimpeded way.

That is what we are looking forward to doing. This motion, if I might quote it, just so that listeners and viewers across the country understand what we are debating here in this House, says:

That the House: (a) recognize that it is a constitutional right for Canadians to trade with Canadians; (b) re-affirm that the Fathers of Confederation expressed this constitutional right in Section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which reads: "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”; (c) recognize that the recent Comeau decision in New Brunswick creates a unique opportunity to seek constitutional clarity on Section 121....

Over the years, section 121 has been interpreted by our courts as actually constraining free and more open trade across Canada. We now have an opportunity with the Comeau case to have the Liberal government show leadership and step into this litigation, have it referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, and let the Supreme Court of Canada determine whether we are actually allowed to have free trade within the country.

The motion also asks for there to be constitutional clarity on the matter of the relationship between the provinces and the federal government, and their ability to trade amongst each other.

I mentioned the New West Partnership earlier, simply because this is already being done. The provinces have voluntarily gotten together and said that freer and more open trade amongst them is beneficial to the people they serve and to the people who elect them. They have moved forward with that and have achieved significant improvement in their competitiveness.

Moving forward, what we are asking the Liberal government to do is to take a leadership role in this. It is negotiating an agreement on internal trade with the provinces. I get collaboration. We are looking forward to co-operative federalism between the new government and the provinces and territories.

It is very difficult to negotiate an agreement for fewer barriers to trade when we do not know the constitutional framework within which we are negotiating. It is absolutely critical that the Liberal government step up to the plate, show the leadership that is required, engage as an intervenor in this litigation, and make the case that Canada is a country that is built on trade, not only with the rest of the world but amongst the provinces.

Our government started this work with the Agreement on Internal Trade, but having the proper constitutional framework within which that discussion takes place is going to be very helpful as the Liberal government tries to get this right. We have an opportunity to get this right, but it is going to require the leadership that allows us to be an intervenor in this court case, the Comeau case.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. The sentiment, as reflected in the motion, is something I can support. I think a lot of the members on this side of the House can support it. Fair and free internal trade in Canada is something that I know I have worked on for several decades now, unfortunately, and much remains to be done.

Understanding that we just had the recent Comeau decision in New Brunswick, I would just ask this for the member. As part of the prior government, what prevented the member from using his prior portfolio or his prior interests? What prevented him and the mover of the motion from asking cabinet to recommend a reference to the Supreme Court to clarify those rules? It is something that interested watchers of their previous government's processes were kind of expecting. What prevented that member from urging his government to act by referring the matter to the Supreme Court at that time?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I appreciate the member's question.

I have two answers to that.

One, as former minister of international trade over four and a half years I was busy engaging in the most ambitious and active trade agenda our country had ever seen. Members should remember that we did trade agreements with 46 different countries around the world, something that the previous Liberal government had never gotten done.

The second answer is that the Comeau case was not decided until after we left government. Until the Comeau case was decided by a lower court, it was generally accepted that the constitutional law in Canada allowed provinces to interfere to a certain degree in international trade and to put up barriers for different reasons. Those included regulatory reasons, safety and health reasons, and also reasons that actually were simply protectionist in nature. The Comeau case was decided post-election. A court actually established that there is truly a constitutional right to free trade.

We welcome the Liberal government's intervention in that case, because it is critically important for Canada and would open up a whole new opportunity for economic growth within our country.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his eloquent speech.

Folks in my riding cannot understand trade barriers, especially the non-tariff barriers that we face, not only between our countries, particularly in the agricultural sector, but even for the consumers in my riding. They are very frustrated, and we saw what happened in Quebec when that province regulated the colour of margarine. For 20-some years, we could not even have margarine traded across the provincial boundaries simply because of the colour of the margarine, which was all based on a protectionist philosophy.

Protectionism might seem like an expedient thing to do for politicians to get re-elected, but it leads to division and to treating some more fair than others. When it comes to free trade, we do not need government at all. Individuals can decide anywhere in Canada how they want to trade. If they have a deal that is mutually acceptable to both parties, they can trade. Trade agreements are usually about what we are not going to trade in the context of hoping for what we will trade.

We have barriers when it comes to loading our trucks. A trucker who is travelling across 10 different provinces has to load for the lightest province. These are ridiculous things that cost consumers and cost industries billions of dollars.

I am going to ask my colleague, who is very learned when it comes to trade, whether it is extremely prudent for the Government of Canada to get involved and get a decision rendered that is in the best interests of Canadian consumers and Canadian businesses.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my very respected colleague here in this House.

I am glad he raised the issue of non-tariff barriers because a lot of Canadians understand that trade agreements can be about eliminating tariffs or duties. In fact, they go far beyond that. Most of the value today in trade agreements is actually getting rid of those standards, regulations, and rules behind the borders that are not being applied to protect health and safety, but are being applied to prevent free trade. The member is absolutely right.

Government needs to get out of the way of business people who are trying to trade with each other. That is how we drive economic growth. That is how we drive economic prosperity for our country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, National Defence; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Ethics; the hon. member for Sherbrooke, The Senate.

Before resuming debate, I want to remind hon. members that I am really interested in hearing the person who is speaking. During the last speech we had a couple of members shouting at each other across the floor. I just want to remind them that it makes it very difficult for me to hear what the hon. member is saying when the conversation takes place across the floor.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion moved by my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. This motion has been affectionately dubbed “free the beer”.

As a new member of Parliament, I must say that it is truly motivating to listen to an experienced parliamentarian like the member for Abbotsford.

This member just shared his vast experience as a minister in the previous government. His words were very inspiring, as was his belief in the importance of eliminating trade barriers.

He is an inspiration to us, and he should also serve as an inspiration to the new government, which should be taking advantage of the experience this member gained by negotiating numerous free trade agreements with other countries. These negotiations were successfully carried out by our colleague from Abbotsford, and I applaud him for that. By way of tribute, I would say:

He was fast and efficient.

I will admit that using beer as the foundation of a motion on the liberalization of internal trade is a little unexpected.

However, for the benefit of those who have been tuning in since the start of the day and who have heard about the Comeau case, but who do not really know what we are talking about right now in the House, I would like to recap because I think it can be useful to look at why the motion came to be and explain how we got to where we are.

This is about a citizen of New Brunswick, Gérard Comeau, and his fight for justice, which highlighted how difficult it is for Canadians to trade freely within our country's borders. Mr. Comeau singlehandedly broke down the barriers to internal trade.

I found a good summary of Mr. Comeau's story in an editorial. The title of the publication made me smile: it is called “Bières et plaisirs”, or “Beer and other pleasures”.

Even so, it is a very serious editorial. It recounts Mr. Comeau's story, which I will now share with the House of Commons and all of the Canadians who are tuned in.

Gérard Comeau was arrested in October 2012 in possession of 14 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor. He had just done some shopping on the Quebec side of the border. In October 2012, Gérard Comeau committed an illegal act: purchasing a quantity of alcohol over the authorized limit in another province, not in a licensed establishment.

According to the Government of New Brunswick and other Canadian governments, alcohol is under provincial jurisdiction.

Here is more from the editorial in “Bières et plaisirs”:

All residents of New Brunswick buy their alcohol in provincially owned licensed establishments: outlets of the New Brunswick Liquor Corporation, also known as the liquor commission.

That is the law as enacted in 1928, a year after the commission was created. Laws governing the sale of alcohol were enacted around that time across Canada. The goal was to protect each province's market....Many New Brunswickers prefer to buy their alcohol in Quebec, where prices are much lower. The Province of New Brunswick sometimes applies high mark-ups to wine, beer, and spirits sold in its stores.

The article goes on to say:

After receiving a guilty verdict, Gérard Comeau decided to take his case to the New Brunswick provincial court. His argument was simple: the Fathers of Confederation passed a law that stipulates that the provinces of Canada must allow interprovincial free trade, a law that was written long before all of Canada's post-prohibition laws, and one that remains in effect all across Canada....The court found in favour of Gérard Comeau. The judge ruled that the provincial law was unconstitutional. Gérard Comeau was found not guilty.

Our motion today is very clear. It recognizes one of the key elements of the vision of Canada's founding fathers:

That the House: (a) recognize that it is a constitutional right for Canadians to trade with Canadians; (b) re-affirm that the Fathers of Confederation expressed this constitutional right in Section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which reads: “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”...

The wording is very clear.

I think that the article in Bières et plaisirs is a good summary of the Comeau case, but also many other cases involving countless Canadians who travel across our country and would like to take advantage of a free market here at home. It took a New Brunswick man standing up for his rights to remind us, the elected representatives of this great country, that we have an important role to play to preserve the spirit of our Constitution.

We are talking about beer here, but the Fathers of Confederation were clear:

121. 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.

It is simple. I am sure that most Canadians did not even know that some provinces put up so many barriers that hinder interprovincial trade. I can understand them, because we form a single great country made up of extremely dynamic provinces and territories. We all want to improve the economy of our regions, and it is rather amazing to realize here that Canadians do not always have the right to do business with one another as they would like.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development said this morning in the House that he prefers that any disputes be settled by negotiations between the provinces. Despite years of negotiations, it seems that the agreement the minister would like to negotiate is not possible. On this side of the House, we believe that this government does not have the leadership required to arrive at such an agreement. It is all well and good to say that the government wants to promote trade and reach an agreement with the provinces. However, at the first opportunity this government does the opposite.

Take the example of Bill C-10, which was supposed to meet Quebec's and Manitoba's expectations. By invoking closure, the government rammed through a bill that forces the legal action against Air Canada to be dropped. Lo and behold, two provinces asked us not to act too quickly because they cannot conclude their agreement as negotiated if the threat of court action, which is on their side, disappears. The government ignored the provinces' requests.

Another example is Bill C-14. The Quebec Minister of Health said that Bill C-14 was inadequate. Even so, the Liberals went ahead and imposed a gag order so that parliamentarians could not express their views.

That does not bode well for the federal-provincial negotiations under this government. Since it took office, the Liberal government has shown leadership and interest in only two things: running an ever-growing deficit and increasing the tax burden on small businesses. The Liberals have done a good job on those things.

Today, the Liberal government has a unique opportunity to do something tangible to help small businesses and, once again, it is turning its back on them by relying on a negotiation process with an unknown timeline. We are skeptical about the results of that. The second part of my colleague's motion is clear. It states:

[That the House:] (c) recognize that the recent Comeau decision in New Brunswick creates a unique opportunity to seek constitutional clarity on Section 121 from the Supreme Court of Canada; and that therefore, the House call on the government to refer the Comeau decision and its evidence to the Supreme Court for constitutional clarification of Section 121.

That would finally make it possible to set clear guidelines for trade between the provinces.

Creating more free trade in Canada is not a partisan issue. The issue here is what is fair. Canadian businesses do not want their government to tell them with whom they can and cannot do business. Businesses should be able to sell their products across Canada, and consumers should have more choices on the market.

In my member's statement today, I spoke about young entrepreneurs in Quebec. Three thousand young entrepreneurs in Quebec will make deals and work hard to sell their products and share their passions. Three thousand of them will open their own small business. Imagine telling them that they cannot do business with their neighbour because they are not on the same street. They are in the same city, same province, and even same country. These are the kinds of barriers we want to eliminate. We want to eliminate them to enable small and medium-sized businesses to do business, create wealth, and drive our economy.

I will wrap up quickly and say that this was the will of the Fathers of Confederation. The government has a unique opportunity to take action. I hope it will seize this opportunity to do away with empty rhetoric and to finally take real action for small businesses in Canada. For all these reasons, I urge the government to join me in supporting this motion to free the beer.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. Campbellton and Pointe-à-la-Croix are not the only places where people are buying their beer like that. Anyone who comes to my riding, Gatineau, will see that the same thing happens there.

His colleague, the former minister, basically told us that he was too busy to do anything about the problem, yet he and his colleagues want us to make this a priority even though they themselves did not.

I agree, this is a huge challenge that the government needs to address. Canadians want us to find solutions. For all of the reasons given by the member and many of my colleagues, it is a good thing to help break down non-tariff barriers and barriers to interprovincial trade.

Just out of curiosity, since my colleague is from Quebec, can he give us some examples of non-tariff barriers in Quebec that he would be willing to reduce in the interest of a comprehensive agreement on reducing barriers to interprovincial trade?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's short speech. There are so many aspects to his question that I will have to choose which one to address.

First, I commend my colleague from Abbotsford for his excellent work when he was minister. He made it possible for Canada to take its place in the global economy. All Canadians should be grateful to him for that.

Second, if the member is such a strong supporter of abolishing borders, he should vote with us in favour of the motion. We would gladly welcome him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the subject of the motion, which is a really practical subject for most people in Canada, Quebec, and all the other provinces.

My government colleague says that we are pressuring the government to take action whereas the Conservatives did nothing for 10 years. That is also true. I am not a beer expert. I drink beer, but I do not import any from Ontario.

If this is so simple, why does my colleague think it has not been done before? Why is it easier to buy Corona, Dos Equis, 1664, or European beers, which are found everywhere? Quebeckers look for exotic beer, but they cannot get beer from other provinces.

Why is this so complicated?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is so complicated because everyone wants to protect their market and their interests. No one wants to lose what they already have.

My colleague's political party is a champion of protectionism. If we want to move forward, if we want our economy and small businesses to grow, if we want to set an example for young entrepreneurs and tell them that they can succeed in business, the last thing we want to do is to tell them that they will have to comply with a thick book of regulations and prohibitions. This would discourage them before they even got started.

We need as few barriers as possible. Everyone will benefit: our economy, small businesses, and all Canadians.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Essex.

I am happy to rise today to speak to this motion. Although my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola has framed it as “free the beer”, it has much broader implications, as we have heard throughout the debate today. It is an important issue in my riding and his because of the wine industry. However, I will happily start with beer, as the motion refers directly to the Comeau decision that was triggered by the transport of beer across provincial boundaries.

Not being an economist, when I began to prepare my speech on this subject, I asked my colleague, the member for Regina—Lewvan, if he had any advice. His immediate sage advice was to watch Smokey and the Bandit. That was a 1970s movie that I had somehow missed over the past 40 years, but I found it yesterday on Netflix. I knew that it was a fun story about truckers and the police, but I had not appreciated the serious theme at its heart, which was the transport of beer across state lines. I am told that in subsequent years, the interstate restrictions on beer transport were largely lifted in the United States, though I am not sure that Burt Reynolds can take any credit for that. However, interprovincial restrictions on beer transport are still an issue in Canada.

There are many examples of interprovincial trade barriers, but the most apparent to the public are those for alcohol. Beer production and sales are a great example. One of the biggest trends in Canada over the past decade has been the growth of independent breweries in Canada. In 2006 there were 88 breweries in our country; today, there are more than 500. Most of them are small and produce less than 2,000 hectolitres each year.

Over a quarter of Canadian breweries are in my home province of British Columbia. Yesterday I talked to the owner of one of those fine small breweries in my riding. He urged me to support this motion to clear up the uncertainty around the transport of alcohol across provincial boundaries. These legal restrictions hamper the ability of small breweries to expand as their products grow in popularity.

Earlier today, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development mentioned the problem many small businesses have scaling up their operations. Here is a straightforward way to make it easier for many small businesses to grow across our country.

The issue of interprovincial trade barriers is even more critical for small wineries, since it makes even more economic sense for small wineries to ship their products across the country than it does for small breweries. The wine industry is a large and growing part of the economy in my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, as it is in many other parts of Canada, although I have to say, as I often do, that wineries in my riding make the finest wine in the country.

There are now 671 wineries across Canada, over 250 of them in British Columbia, and they create $6.8 billion in economic activity each year. I applaud the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for his private member's bill in the previous Parliament, which removed the federal interprovincial trade barriers for wine. Unfortunately, since that bill was passed, only three provinces have removed their own barriers to the transport of wine: British Columbia, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia.

For British Columbia producers, the most critical barrier is the one between British Columbia and Alberta. When Parliament passed the legislation that freed up interprovincial wine trade a couple of years ago, Alberta was the only province without specific trade barriers for wine. Ironically, the Progressive Conservative government in that province then took it upon itself to create such legislation to keep a barrier in place once the federal barrier was removed. Now to bring wine into Alberta from British Columbia or any other part of Canada, one must accompany the wine across border and consume it in one's own home.

Many of the visitors to the local wineries in my riding come from Alberta, and many of them are so impressed with the quality of the wine they taste that they like to buy a case or two to ship home. They cannot do it.

Those visitors also cannot go back home and order that wine online, and neither can wine shoppers from Ontario, Quebec, or most other provinces in Canada, but if they were from the United States or Nova Scotia or Manitoba, they could do both of those things.

I have talked to many of the wine producers in my riding and several from other parts of Canada in the past few years, and lately they have quickly brought up the Comeau decision as an example of how federal action could help their industry grow.

Right now, only 10% of the wine consumed in Canada is made entirely in Canada, but that could grow more quickly if interprovincial barriers were lifted. That would benefit all Canadians, both financially and by allowing them to consume the fine wines made in my riding and across the country.

The question today is on the motion. Is this the best way to move forward? Will asking the Supreme Court for a reference to the Comeau decision help the negotiations between the federal government and its provincial and territorial partners? I can only say that the situation now is a situation of uncertainty, and it cannot be helpful in these negotiations. Clarity would help negotiations and help build collaboration and co-operation between provinces and the federal government.

I am happy to support the motion. While I cannot speak for the whole House, on this side of the aisle at least, as Burt Reynolds would say, “Looks like we got us a convoy”.

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

Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating that we need to look at how we can bring down provincial barriers to enhance interprovincial trade. One only needs to recognize the amount of money that comes through interprovincial trade. It is $400 billion, and it makes up about 20% of Canada's economy.

The federal government in particular needs to work with stakeholders and look at ways we can harmonize regulations and take steps that would enhance trade. If we realize that ambitious goal, we will have a healthier economy, which means that Canada's middle class will be healthier.

Does the member believe that it will be through negotiation, as opposed to litigation, that Canada will be better able to accomplish tangible results on this particular file?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I would characterize the House asking the Supreme Court for a reference in this case as litigation. I would think the House would just be asking for some clarity. If we are going to negotiate with the provinces and the territories to seek some sort of agreement to bring down interprovincial barriers, then it behooves us all to have some clarity. It behooves us all to know if what we are negotiating is actually constitutional.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his support of the motion.

We have heard many government members comment today that somehow litigating would be inappropriate. This case is going to be litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court. It is just a question of how soon and how much time is wasted.

Would the member agree that the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of issues of constitutionality in this country, should be the proper mechanism to deal with this issue?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a constitutional lawyer or anything like that, but as the member mentioned, this case will likely be carried up the line to the Supreme Court eventually. If it would bring clarity to the negotiations between the federal government and the provinces to have the Supreme Court rule on this sooner rather than later, that could be helpful.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also a member of Parliament who represents a wine-producing region, the beautiful Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island.

There are a lot of great things about visiting the province of British Columbia. However, our fine wines and our wine industry really are a top reason that many people come to my area. We get a lot of Americans, but we also get a lot of people from other parts of Canada.

I think the member is a fantastic representative for the wine industry in his area. I was wondering if he could tell this House a bit more about some of the feedback he has received directly from his constituents with respect to this particular issue.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what I said. When I go to a local wine club barbecue at one of the wineries, it seems that most of the people there are from Alberta, and they are buying good quantities of wine that they want to ship home. A lot of wineries do ship it, even though it is not legal. I know that in Newfoundland, there was a case where a courier was charged with shipping wine illegally.

I think the law is ignored a lot. There is a lot of confusion around this right now, and I think it would really be helpful to the industry if it could be cleared up as soon as possible.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to today's opposition motion on internal trade. Issues relating to internal trade are important for the Canadian economy, as well as for consumer rights. Businesses and consumers have the right to have access to clear and fair rules.

By now, most of us are familiar with the case addressed by today's motion. In 2013, Gerard Comeau, a resident of New Brunswick, was fined about $300 for buying beer and spirits in Quebec and then taking his purchases home with him back to New Brunswick. According to authorities, he was in violation of New Brunswick's Liquor Control Act, which requires that residents of New Brunswick purchase their alcohol from the provincial liquor corporation.

Mr. Comeau challenged the fine, arguing that New Brunswick's rules violate section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which reads:

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.

The judge in the case agreed with Mr. Comeau, and now the New Brunswick government is appealing that decision.

My colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, is now asking fellow parliamentarians in this place to call on the government to refer the Comeau decision to the Supreme Court for constitutional clarification of section 121.

This strikes me as a pretty crafty move, pardon the pun. We know the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear constitutional order references and provide clarifications, but in this specific instance I have to wonder if this is the best avenue available to us or if it is just the most politically convenient tool at the moment.

I understand that my Conservative colleague who moved today's motion has done a lot of work over the years on liberalizing the interprovincial trade for beer, wine, and spirits. Interprovincial trade has always been a key element of Canada's economic development. The NDP is in favour of reducing artificial barriers and harmonizing regulations, because we know this is good for Canada's small and medium-sized businesses.

To clarify who we are talking about when we say SMEs, let me take a step back. Statistics Canada defines small businesses as those that employ fewer than 100 employees, and these made up a whopping 98.1% of all Canadian businesses that reported having employees in 2014. Medium businesses employ between 100 and 500 employees, and represent 1.7% of Canadian businesses. While large businesses, those that employ more than 500 employees, represent 0.2% of Canadian businesses.

Small businesses create local jobs, support our families, and drive economic prosperity. They are the backbones of our country and the hearts of small towns across Canada, small towns like those I represent in Essex.

It is important that we have this conversation about reducing trade barriers because there are actually a lot of barriers inhibiting Canadian SMEs from greater trade both interprovincially and internationally. We hear a lot about tariff reductions with international trade agreements, but it is also important to look at the range of non-tariff barriers that inhibit trade.

Last spring, the Standing Committee on International Trade undertook a study about the experiences of Canadian SMEs that are involved in international markets, and some of what they learned is also applicable to our conversation today about internal trade. I think Canadians would be surprised to hear of the challenges facing SMEs in accessing international markets.

The committee heard testimony about the strong entrepreneurial spirit that exists among Canadians. This is clearly evident when we look at the explosion of craft breweries operating in communities across Canada.

The committee also heard that the international footprint of Canada's SMEs has not reached its potential. Only 10.4% of SMEs exported in 2011, and most of this trade was done with the United States. They really have not penetrated the high-growth markets we see around the world. SMEs told the committee how they face challenges accessing capital, require deeper levels of support, and experience difficulties and inefficiencies with border clearance.

Many people in my riding of Essex have extensive knowledge of the challenges with moving goods across the U.S. border. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is critical to the success of Canadian SMEs that the federal government act on this report, and that they address the trading challenges faced by SMEs.

Domestically, there is a lot the government can be doing to strengthen the competitiveness of SMEs, such as craft breweries, wineries, and distilleries. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, internal trade barriers cost the Canadian economy more than $14 billion each year. These trade barriers add costs and discourage our businesses, mainly our SMEs, from doing business in more than one jurisdiction and from growing their presence in new markets in Canada.

In addition to addressing internal barriers, we should support talking about other ways the government can support SMEs.

The NDP is a strong proponent of several proposals to help our businesses and interprovincial trade, including restoring cuts to the tax rate for SMEs from 11% to 9%, restoring the hiring tax credit for small businesses, imposing a limit on credit card transaction fees, and facilitating the transfer of family businesses from parents to children. The Liberals' broken promise on reducing the SME tax rate is very disappointing to the many small business owners I represent in Windsor Essex. I urge the government to re-examine its commitment and seriously look at following through on that.

It is important to note that most Canadians support trade within our own provinces and territories. Canadians are quite favourable to the idea of removing internal trade barriers, particularly when it comes to alcohol.

This is an important issue to my riding of Essex, which is home to well over a dozen wineries, including distillers as well as craft beer brewers. They attract a significant level of tourism to our region. I have met with several wineries in my riding, as well as the Canadian Vintners Association. We spoke about the interprovincial trade issues and they are pleased to have an opportunity to export their wines to some provinces. However, only a few provinces have reduced regulations so far, so there is still a lot of work to be done on this file.

I think there is broad support among parliamentarians from all parties for the spirit of the motion. What I would really like to see now is some concrete action. We know what can be done to support Canadian SMEs. We know what can be done to increase internal trade. Now it is on the government to get the job done.

According to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, issues relating to interprovincial trade, including discussions around the 1995 Agreement on Internal Trade, would be a priority. He said he has addressed this issue with his provincial counterparts, but once again we have seen no evidence of this.

Now the Conservatives are blaming the Liberals for not being able to reach a new agreement with the provinces and territories on interprovincial trade. It should not be forgotten, however, that the Conservatives had 10 years in office and were not able to settle this issue. I appreciate that some progress was made, but the fact of the matter is that these issues are still outstanding. Now they are trying to go through the Supreme Court for political gain.

I intend to support the motion, but in the same vein, I also want to encourage the government to follow through on concrete solutions for Canadian small businesses. As I discussed earlier, that means reducing the SME tax rate, restoring the hiring tax credit for small businesses, and limiting credit card transaction fees.

I would also like to emphasize that the public system for distributing liquor has been a largely effective model for both consumers and government. Crown corporations such as the LCBO provide significant revenue streams for the provinces, as well as good-paying jobs. The LCBO is globally recognized as an award-winning retailer of beer, wine, and liquor. Recognizing the success of provincial retailers in Canada and the incredible service they provide to consumers is important.

In conclusion, I support reduced restrictions on the interprovincial trade of wine, beer, and spirits, so I will be voting yes to the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member said she wants to see the government take more action. I believe that the government has acted. In fact, in terms of the agreement that was put in place in 1995, the Agreement on Internal Trade, it was the first time there was an agreement put in place. A number of years went by and there was a change in government, which did take some action but it was somewhat limited.

We have now been in government for roughly eight months and already we have seen significant attempts to try to get the provinces, premiers, and ministers to recognize the benefits of taking down those barriers. We can think of inconsistent regulations and standards, and the cost to potential business growth, which has an impact on the number of jobs that could be created, and then the increase for consumer choice if we can get this done right.

However, this is critically important, and this gets to my question for the member. Would she not agree that the best way to deal with interprovincial trade is to work with the different provinces in a collaborative fashion, to bring them to the table and recognize where the modifications can best be realized and ultimately where the Canadian economy would benefit so that all Canadians benefit? The best way is a collaborative approach and that is something that we should be aggressively pursuing as opposed to trying to bring something to the Supreme Court of Canada at this point.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that having a collaborative approach is incredibly important. We know that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has said in the House that he has discussions that are ongoing between the federal government and the provinces on this issue. What we would like to see is some transparency. We would like to have a fulsome understanding of what those conversations are so that we can know if interprovincial trade barriers are being addressed in the way the member who presented this particular motion speaks to.

Therefore, we would like to know if the government is considering a phase-in period. The specifics around these conversations that are happening is what we would all like to know. We support any effort that would remove interprovincial trade barriers in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her very eloquent speech. It is clear that she is quite familiar with trade between provinces and countries.

As a consumer, when I stand in front of the shelves of beer in a grocery store, in Quebec, or in a Beer Store here, I am increasingly surprised to see how many European brands there are, when our own industry produces so many beers. We have many craft brewers, but there are so many imported beers.

Since I know that my colleague is quite familiar with this issue, I would like her to explain how we got to the point where it is easier to bring Dutch beer into Quebec than Ontario beer.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is exactly what this particular piece speaks to. It is the fact that it is easier to import and export outside of the country than it is across provinces with these barriers. We certainly see this in the case of Mr. Comeau who was making a purchase for personal use in another province and trying to bring it back.

I think that all Canadians would be very pleased to see these provincial barriers removed and to be able to access beer, wine, and spirits across those borders. Therefore, when they travel to the beautiful regions of Canada, such as mine in Essex where we have a beautiful wine industry, they can go back home and still access those products within Canada, as opposed to having the only option of international products on the shelf.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all my colleagues for this important debate. I would like to acknowledge my colleague from British Columbia for the work he has done on freeing wine across Canada. I understand now his campaign to free beer is also very popular among Canadians. It is something we should continue moving forward on as we start to liberate the Canadian economy from provincial trade barriers.

I want to talk about bales. No, this is not a Liberal speech that is irrelevant to the topic. This is actually a very relevant example of what happens with interprovincial trade barriers and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil. He has a very important topic he wants to talk about also.

One might ask what hay bales have to do with interprovincial trade barriers. Actually, this is a very real story. In August 2003, we had a horrible frost on my farm. It took out my crop. It cost me and many of my neighbours in the area of millions of dollars. For myself alone, it cost me about a quarter of a million dollars in one night.

When a farmer has an established crop and that happens, he looks at what he can do to salvage that income. We worked with our local agriculture officials and they realized that canola, for example, made great horse feed. We did everything right and we baled that crop. We salvaged it. Then we went on the Internet, Western Producer, and places like that and we sold that crop. We sold it into Alberta. It worked out great. The horse guys in Alberta were happy. We were happy. Everything was happy-go-lucky. We got everything baled and ready to ship the crop into Alberta. The trucks hit the border, and who would have known that the regulations for a trailer in Alberta when hauling hay are different? It required a different coloured sign and different symbols on the wide load signs, and different permits.

For farmers, they look at this and ask “What are you talking about? If it's safe to haul in Saskatchewan why can't it be safe to haul in Alberta, or be funded?” A neighbour gets a fine, then another neighbour gets a fine. All of a sudden the guys from Alberta are saying it is not worth the hassle to buy the hay from Saskatchewan, even though they really need it because of the drought. However, because of the interprovincial trade barriers, the regulations that were put in place, it made that move impossible to happen.

That is just one example of how a barrier like this really restricts the flow of goods across our country. It is a very real example of what costs people thousands and thousands of dollars for no reason at all. The roads were not made any safer by having different regulations. They were not improved. There was no issue other than the fact that Alberta wanted to do it one way, and Saskatchewan's NDP government at the time wanted to do it another way.

It went the other way also, when we had stuff coming back from Alberta to Saskatchewan, we had to get a permit. The Saskatchewan NDP government at the time said it did not want to get rid of the permits because they were a good cash cow. We have to remember that back at that time all our kids were moving to Alberta, so the NDP was looking for any type of taxation it could get. This was one way to do it.

When we look at that we realize that is a direct impact on what can happen when we have improper trade regulations.

I sit on the trade committee. I was actually the former chair of the trade committee. I always find it really interesting when we bring in different producers from around Canada to talk about trade. They say we need trade, that it is very important. When we ask about internal trade they say it is actually easier for them to sell their stuff in Washington than to take it out of B.C. and sell it in Alberta.

We have to scratch our heads and ask if this make sense. What is the logic behind that? What are we really trying to accomplish as a country, as a confederation, when it is easier to export our goods than to sell them next door in our own country? Those things need to be eliminated. The Comeau case really provides the government with a unique opportunity to be involved in helping eliminate barriers.

We have heard speeches here in the House today talking about how this case is probably going to go to the Supreme Court and be ruled upon by the Supreme Court. The provinces should be very worried about that. They should be so worried they might want to negotiate something beforehand to put some stability in place, so that it is done in such a way that the barriers are actually removed.

The federal government has a chance to show tremendous leadership on this file if it so chooses. Keep in mind, I am also on the trade committee that has been consulting and delaying TPP passage. Let us face it, the Liberals are going to let Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump actually write our foreign trade policy. If the Liberals would not write their own foreign trade policy, why would they write their policy here in Canada? They will just vacate that to provinces and accept whatever comes out of it. That way they are not responsible. Why show leadership? They are not used to doing that.

Another example of silliness in this market, I think, is that all of us here in Ottawa sneak across to Quebec and go to Costco. I can buy beef there, bread, wine, and beer. I can buy beer, but I better not bring it back to Ontario where I live because then I would be breaking the law. I would be like Al Capone. However, that beer in Quebec is the exact same beer that is in Ontario. It is just as safe, brewed probably in the same factory, but yet for some reason we have a barrier to prevent that from happening. It does not make sense. Canadians cannot figure that one out. The reality is, they are just ignoring it and doing it anyway.

A colleague from the NDP just stated the exact same thing. We have already seen wine shipments going across Canada, breaking these barriers as we speak. In reality, Canadians are already doing what the market should be allowed to do, and that is trade interprovincially, free.

We look at legislation, and the Liberals say we should not use litigation to solve this; we should actually negotiate and wait until negotiations move forward. Like I said previously, we could use this court case to enhance our argument in that process if we want to go through a consulting process, but litigation is a valid form for settling this. When we are breaking somebody's constitutional right, that is what the courts are there to do, whether we like it or not.

We have a perfect example of where that has happened here, right in front of us in the Senate today. Bill C-14 is because of litigation. It is because the court did not like the way the law was written. I do not agree with the court. I do not necessarily like it, but litigation was the process that was used that sent it back to this House to rewrite the law. It is valid. In fact, the government is doing it through C-14 as we speak. To say that we should not do it that way just does not make sense. It is hypocritical. It is already happening.

The reality is, the courts are there to actually protect the rights of Canadians, so in this scenario, Canadians feel that they should be able to trade freely among the provinces. I should be able to go to B.C. and sell some stuff, and the member from Kelowna should be able to come back to Prince Albert and sell his goods. As long as they meet the safety requirements, as long as they are safe, where is the issue? Why do we have these barriers?

If we looked at them more closely, I think we would see there is a good reason to get rid of them, and I will give credit to the western provinces. They actually showed some leadership on this. The New West Partnership, Premier Wall, showed lots of leadership in trying to identify what these barriers are and remove them.

Labour mobility, getting rid of the situation that we had with trucks hauling hay across the border. These things need to be eliminated, and I want to congratulate the provinces that have taken this seriously because it just happens that those are the provinces that are doing very well in this confederation. Saskatchewan has a growing, booming economy, regardless of what is happening in the oil and gas sector, what is happening everywhere else. It is still holding its own.

If we want to do economic stimulus, if we want to boost this economy without spending a dime, let us deal with these. This is one thing the Liberals could do and it would not cost them a dime, but the impact across this country would be spread and felt immediately.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Should you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, for the consideration of the supply period ending June 23, 2016, Standing Order 81(18)(c) shall be amended by replacing the words 10 p.m. with the words 9 p.m.

This of course means that the bells would ring at 9 p.m. tonight for the vote at 9:30 p.m.