Debates of June 14th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Internal trade

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard on CBC about a week and a half ago from the CEO of Moosehead Brewery, Canada's oldest independent brewery, who said, on the subject of a supreme court reference, that he was fully supportive of this getting done as soon as possible. Industry in New Brunswick is calling for this. He even mentioned that Moosehead Brewery is doing business in more than 50 U.S. states and it is fairly open. He hopes he will have the same opportunities here in Canada. That is what industry is saying.

On the other side, we all know the case involving Mr. Gerard Comeau, a resident of New Brunswick, who tried to bring beer across a provincial border and was fined. He took his case to court. We on the Conservative side, and I believe members of the NDP, salute his courage in standing up to this.

Does the member believe that Mr. Comeau has a constitutional right to do that? Does she believe that every Canadian has a right to trade with other Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member representing southwest New Brunswick, the riding where one of the owners of Moosehead Brewery lives, I can speak quite personally to this.

The transfer of alcohol from one province to another is limited. We want to have freer trade and managed trade. There is an opportunity here for us to look further into this, but the provinces need to be involved in terms of the regulations.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my hon. colleague from New Brunswick Southwest on the leadership she continues to show on the international trade committee.

We would agree that different levels of government need to work collaboratively to take down the interprovincial trade barriers, in order to promote trade within our country.

Could the member perhaps elaborate on what might be some unintended consequences of allowing interprovincial trade to continue without proper agreements between the provinces?

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of unintended consequences, we have an opportunity here to solve a problem. We want to reduce the barriers to free trade between the provinces, but we need to do it in a managed format, the same as we do with international trade. We prepare our businesses and our governments. We prepare our policies for the best avenue for trade to work in the best interests of Canadian consumers and Canadian businesses.

We also have to work closely with the provinces because we also have the other aspect of consumption tax that is collected on goods such as alcohol. That is something we have to consider. What would happen in the province of New Brunswick if 80% of New Brunswickers were purchasing their alcohol out of province? Where would we be as a province to pay for some of our services? We are looking to have managed trade to help our businesses prepare for this rolling forward, and that preparation includes looking at the possible consequences of freer trade. We want freer trade. New Brunswickers and Atlantic Canadians want freer trade. We just want it done in the best interests of Canadians, with the best process to help and protect our businesses.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for bringing the motion forward today.

My colleague on this side asked a question a few moments ago, and he definitely did not get an answer. One part of the question was this. Does the member on the Liberal side believe that it is a constitutional right for Canadians to do business across provincial borders without penalty?

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

Mr. Speaker, the aspect of a constitutional right is best decided by a court. In the interim, we are looking to continue with our good will, to work with the provinces and territories, one of the things that we campaigned hard on. We have been successful since the election as a result of that. We want to continue with that because it is the best way to find solutions.

If it goes to the court of appeal, we also stand the risk of a level of uncertainty if it does not go forward and is struck down by the court.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate today on the Conservative motion in relation to internal trade in Canada. As we all know, the government is currently working with its provincial and territorial counterparts to renew the Agreement on Internal Trade. We believe that working co-operatively with our provincial and territorial partners is the best approach.

We also respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories and want to work with them to bring down provincial and territorial trade barriers. The motion presented proposes an antagonistic approach that is inconsistent with the collaboration needed to make meaningful progress on internal trade, and as such, I oppose it.

My objective today is to highlight important federal actions that are helping to foster a more competitive environment for businesses, including small business and entrepreneurs, across Canada. I will tie this in at the end.

Let me provide an overview of several key initiatives that are advancing entrepreneurship and fostering internal trade. These actions are informed by our commitment to consult broadly with stakeholders and businesses to strengthen our platform of innovative, inclusive growth.

It is no secret that one of the important ways for Canadian businesses to improve competitiveness, productivity, and innovation is by enhancing trade within Canada. The Canadian market provides valuable opportunities for growth and accounts for almost $400 billion in annual trade per year.

Canadian businesses have noted a number of areas where firms and entrepreneurs are held back by internal trade barriers. For example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted a survey of over 6,000 of its members and identified many interprovincial obstacles, such as regulatory differences and burdensome and duplicative paperwork and permit requirements. These obstacles can significantly impair the ability of its members to expand across borders.

To address such issues, the CFIB and other prominent business groups developed a far-reaching vision paper to help inform government priorities for renewing the Agreement on Internal Trade. The vision paper advanced several principles. For example, it should be as easy to trade with another province or territory as it is with other countries. All businesses should have open access to all markets within Canada.

The business coalition identified a number of priorities for reform, such as modernizing the AIT to align with the commitments made to the EU; enhancing regulatory co-operation and addressing technical barriers to trade; ensuring effective and efficient dispute resolution; and ensuring an effective, transparent, and inclusive structure to govern internal trade.

It emphasized that regulatory and administrative barriers are the most prominent barriers to trade for small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. It also highlighted that past incremental efforts to improve internal trade have often not focused on the needs of the SMEs.

We are very mindful of the views of the business community, and the overall message we have heard is that now is the time for strong, collaborative action, by all governments, to work together to renegotiate the AIT. We are committed to advancing and finalizing those ongoing collaborative negotiations.

As the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development attested, there is goodwill and commitment on the part of the federal government and our provincial and territorial partners to get this job done. We need to continue in this positive manner and work to sign an eventual agreement. The timing of this motion could not be more wrong.

We are also committed to acting, as the federal government, to make it easier for entrepreneurs and growing firms to do business across Canada. For example, small businesses and entrepreneurs regularly cite BizPaL as an effective and efficient service for navigating jurisdictional differences in government permits and licencing activities for federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments.

While BizPal users are currently able to obtain the kinds of business registration forms required to operate in various jurisdictions, they are not able to acquire information on associated regulations, such as provincial regulations related to goods and services.

The federal government continues to work with willing jurisdictions through initiatives such BizPal to explore ways to make it easier for Canadian businesses to operate anywhere across the country.

Another area identified by business is the need to reduce differences across Canada in corporate registration and reporting requirements.

In Canada, when a business is incorporated, it must generally register and report in each province and territory in which it carries on, or intends to carry on, business. Our government is working collaboratively with provinces and territories to explore the feasibility of electronically connecting federal-provincial-territorial corporate registration systems. Such an approach presents an opportunity to help reduce the burden faced by businesses in the areas of multi-jurisdiction searches, registration, and reporting. This could potentially make it easier to find information on whether a firm with the same name has been incorporated elsewhere and would eliminate duplicate requirements across borders.

The government is also committed to broadening the use of the business number as a common business identifier among federal departments. Broader use of the business number would allow the federal government to cut red tape and expand electronic services for all businesses.

For example, the business number could eventually allow a business dealing with the federal government to register once to be eligible to access a range of federal programs and services for businesses instead of having to register separately under each federal service or program. This would make it simpler for businesses to interact with the government anywhere in Canada. Such actions would further foster domestic trade, given that many provinces are already using the business number and are expanding the range of provincial programs that are connected.

Finally, our government is working to better quantify the extent of existing trade barriers and to determine their economic impact. Such information is notoriously hard to assemble, calculate, and validate. However, we are taking a major step by building a comprehensive internal trade barrier index to catalogue barriers to internal trade.

The results of this work are expected late this year and should help all governments work better and understand the extent of existing barriers. It should also help governments prioritize areas to address that particularly impede the flow of goods and services across Canada.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that we are committed to listening and to acting. We want to understand the concerns of stakeholders and position ourselves to advance collaborative solutions. We are also committed to advancing meaningful initiatives that will help businesses compete and thrive.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the members of this House for allowing me to share our approach. We will continue to listen, collaborate, and act in the service of strengthening our domestic markets and fostering a more competitive and innovative economy.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Richmond Hill for his substantive speech. One of the great things about being in the House of Commons is getting to know different people from all across the country. The member for Richmond Hill has a rich history and experience in the business community. That is what my question is about.

The member provided an eloquent description of the benefits of removing barriers to interprovincial trade and how we would need to modernize the Agreement on Internal Trade in Canada.

I wonder if the member could share with the House what a modernized agreement on internal trade would accomplish for Canadians, as opposed to the Conservative motion to refer the Comeau decision to the Supreme Court. I wonder if the hon. member could help educate the House on that.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the great question and for his leadership on the industry and innovation committee.

The renewal of the AIT gives us the opportunity to work together on a new framework that addresses the common challenges faced by our various partners.

Canadians expect us to work together to make doing business in this country much easier. All governments are seized with this goal. Our government ran and won on a positive platform that encourages co-operation across Canada. However, the opposition proposes an antagonistic approach that is not aligned with our platform of meaningful engagement with Canadians.

Modernizing the AIT would allow us to reduce barriers and harmonize regulations across all sectors in Canada, unlike the current AIT, which covers only a few specific sectors.

It would have more open government procurement, which would give Canadian firms the opportunity to bid on procurement contracts and to lower the costs. All this would eventually lead to growing our economy and creating jobs that would be of benefit to the middle class.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

We only have five minutes for questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his speech, but when he uses phrases like “antagonistic approach”, I would encourage him to go back and actually read what the motion talks about. The motion talks about a Supreme Court decision. It talks about getting clarity from the Supreme Court on what we are required to do in light of constitutional rights.

It seems to me that there are two separate issues here. There is the issue of protecting rights and the issue of policy. We would say that we can move on both tracks simultaneously. Yes, ongoing conversation with the provinces is important as a matter of policy, but it is also critical that we actually get some understanding from the Supreme Court of what rights exist, and then that we protect those rights.

The Liberals talk a lot about rights. Can they not agree, in this case, that there is a rights issue that needs to be protected, and that is why the Supreme Court needs to be reviewing the situation?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member agrees that we need to continue on the path we are taking, because that is, I believe, the path that will ultimately lead to the result we are looking for.

However, I would like to go back and clarify the “antagonistic” comment. There is a process in place, and there is an appeal process within the provincial court system. We can follow that process, and if it does not work, we can follow the natural process to go to the Supreme Court.

Right now, cutting it short and bypassing that process is not going to result in the outcome we would like to see.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that more people than usual will be listening to this afternoon's debate. We are talking about something that affects a lot of people. Obviously, this is about consumers.

It is deplorable that, clearly, the Conservatives' natural inclination is to say that this is terrible, because it has to do with a constitutional right. This kind of American-style rhetoric is from another era.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have a government with a severe case of “consultitis”. Everything takes forever; nothing happens quickly.

Can the member name one single thing, one point he would like to resolve with the provinces, even if this motion is adopted?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to working collaboratively with the provinces and territories, and it will continue to do that.

As I stated before, this is the process that we believe, in the long term, will be beneficial. We are working on it. We are committed to making sure that it will move as fast as possible without compromising the result. This is not an issue we are going to resolve in the next week or month. This has been an issue that has been going on for a long time, even in the previous government, and we have now been successful in doing it right.

Please be patient. The process is the right process. The participants are all at the table, and we are working on it. I believe it will result in a positive outcome.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I will assure the hon. member for Yukon that we will get him into questions and comments at some point.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with the member for Calgary Shepard. I look forward to his remarks and hope that we have time for most of his speech.

Canada was built on trade. From the earliest European settlers trading with indigenous peoples and fur traders following rivers and exploring the land, to present-day Canadians for whom one in five jobs depends directly on exports. Extraction and exchange are in Canada's bones.

As well as creating a single unified country for mutual defence, the Fathers of Confederation sought to bind the provinces of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia together through unrestricted internal trade. Indeed, the debates around Confederation tell us that trade was a top priority. In fact, if one consults the debates on the subject of the confederation of the British North American colonies, 3rd session, 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada, one sees in the pages of debate that the colonies eagerly desired full access to each other's markets.

I find it fitting that a railway to British Columbia would later unite Canada's centre to the west, while demand for one between Halifax and Quebec City drove the formation of the Dominion to unite the centre with the east.

In a time when governments relied heavily on tariffs for revenue, the founders clearly stated in section 121 of the British North America Act of 1867 that, “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 founders did not foresee the rise of the regulatory state and all of the non-tariff barriers that an ever-growing bureaucracy would erect.

Canadian parliamentarians must ensure that the spirit, as well as the letter, of section 121 of the Constitution create a country with unrestricted labour and goods. Therefore, I urge my colleagues of all parties to vote in favour of the motion to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on the interaction of constitutional provisions on jurisdiction and free trade.

Canada has a strong domestic economy and admirable labour mobility. However, many non-tariff barriers continue to impede the flow of goods and workers across provincial borders. For example, many licensed professionals and tradespeople still have to qualify for different regulatory regimes in different provinces. Should standards differ for dentists and accountants? Are teeth so different on one side of the continent than they are on the other? Are debits and credits wildly different from the east side of Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, compared with the west side in Alberta?

Canada devotes resources to foreign credential recognition and requalification for foreign-trained professionals, yet neglects to harmonize some of our own internal standards.

Red tape and redundancy do not stop with so-called white collar work. Many tradesmen and tradeswomen are similarly stymied from working across provincial lines. Many might find it frustrating that a road crew from Gatineau can cross the river to work in Ottawa, but one from Ottawa cannot go and work in Hull since provincial labour rules keep Ontarian labour out of Quebec.

In contrast, there are many encouraging examples of labour mobility that benefits Canadians. Many Maritimers and Newfoundlanders have come to Alberta to work in the oil sands. This mass migration sent money back east to the workers' families, addressed a labour shortage in Alberta, and generated taxes and royalties that funded public services.

Speaking of public services, preferential sourcing for government procurement costs Canadians in extra spending and foregone savings. I understand that provincial governments would want to hire or buy from firms in their own province. However, this does a disservice to the rest of their taxpayers. Speaking as an Albertan taxpayer, if the government in Edmonton needs a service that a Saskatchewan company can provide at a lower price than an Albertan one, it makes sense to spread the benefit of a good deal to all Albertans by choosing the best bid instead of paying extra to an uncompetitive firm.

Shrewd sourcing is even more important given that free trade agreements open foreign government procurement to Canadian goods and services, granted that we let their firms compete here in return. Why should a domestic company from another province suffer any restriction in competing for contracts in Canada when foreign firms can enter the bidding?

Moving from talk of services to goods, many Canadian staples are slowed or stopped in their travels by unnecessary regulatory variations. Starting with the example on which today's motion is based, what logical reason is there to keep vacationers to Niagara or the Okanagan from stocking up on the fantastic local wines that they sample before heading home?

Why should a New Brunswicker be unable to buy a few cases of beer in Quebec? Mr. Comeau could be congratulated for his service to Canada by doing such a Canadian activity as shopping for the best deal on beer. Provincial liquor monopolies, which restrict supply to raise revenue through high markups, are just tariffs by another name.

One could argue that Canadian beer, wine, and whisky are not truly essential to life in Canada. I might not make that argument, but one could.

However, gasoline certainly is a necessary part of our economy. The same cars, trucks, and lawnmowers that are sold throughout Canada have different sets of requirements by provincial governments for the fuel. This means that refineries that supply our gasoline cannot make one large batch and deliver it wherever needed. They must prepare different batches for each different mix requirement and transport them into each jurisdiction despite the inconvenience and extra costs that this adds. This inefficiency costs us all at the pump and is less than ideal for the environment.

It is challenging enough that Canada is a continent-wide country with a thinly spread population and a high demand for transportation, but geography, monopolies, and regional sale restrictions are not the only impediments to internal trade in goods.

Transportation itself is subject to bizarre regulatory discrepancies such as different allowable weights, dimensions, and tire sizes for trucks. One can imagine the nuisance this causes for a company trying to send cargo across several jurisdictions.

This red tape coiled around Canadian companies costs Canadian consumers. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other organizations estimate that internal barriers cost the economy nearly $15 billion per year in inefficiency. Similarly, the Conference Board of Canada estimates that eliminating internal barriers would add $4.8 billion to real GDP and create 78,000 jobs in Alberta and British Columbia alone. Although that figure is just for our two westernmost provinces, I am sure that similar employment gains would accrue to other provinces were the barriers to be abolished.

Non-tariff barriers slow the economy down unnecessarily. However, these barriers fall under provincial jurisdiction. How can we in Parliament help without overstepping our constitutional bounds? We can vote for the motion today, and seek clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on where exactly the lines are between jurisdictional differences on one hand and internal free trade on the other.

I mentioned earlier that Canada was founded as an internal free trade zone. The Fathers of Confederation knew that trade enriches both parties, overcomes linguistic divides, and builds trust and respect between different groups. The wording of section 121 of the Constitution clearly expresses their intent for a Dominion free of the division and distrust brought about by discriminatory trade rules in favour of one of prosperity and co-operation brought about by free trade and mobility.

Establishing true free trade in Canada should not be a partisan issue. Canadians of all parties and political persuasions benefit from labour mobility, more jobs, and more affordable goods and services.

The current government may be commended for its oft-stated commitment to work with the provinces and all Canadians toward good policy, but I encourage it to act on that goal by negotiating a new agreement on interprovincial trade.

In the meantime, the government can take a serious step toward resolving the issue of non-tariff barriers by referring the New Brunswick case of the Queen v. Comeau and its evidence to the Supreme Court of Canada to seek clarity on the constitutional limits on such impediments. It can also intervene on the side of free trade as New Brunswick appeals the Comeau decision.

Today's motion does not intrude on the lawful jurisdiction of the provinces. It seeks clarity from the Supreme Court on how they can co-operate with us and each other for the benefit of all Canadians.

Canada's founders desired the Dominion to be free of internal tariffs. I am sure that they would have wanted Canada to be free of non-tariff barriers as well. Our founders knew that cultural, geographic, and language differences would require a federal system with provinces with real power, bound together by mutual defence and free trade, but I do not believe they wanted that provincial power to be used to stifle the very trade and mobility that united the colonies.

As Canada's 150th anniversary approaches, I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to take this small but significant step toward upholding our founding purpose and vote in favour of the motion.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for paying attention to such a far seat in the House and a far region of Canada.

I do not have a question. I thank the member for his thoughtful speech. However, I do have a comment. I want to outline the special case of the territories.

In the territories, we have very fragile economies, very small companies, and high costs of energy, of living, of expenses for the companies. They are not well able to compete with their big southern neighbours, so we have to work out these special agreements, internal trade agreements, with the provinces and territories. I think that is the only way we can accommodate that.

If we are going to make a reference to the Supreme Court that unilaterally opens things up, it would reduce the chance that our territories would negotiate something where they would actually fit in this Confederation and still be competitive.

I just want to make that case on behalf of our businesses in the north.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in response, I would say that, yes, of course, we must be sensitive to not only the territorial governments, given the challenges they have around small populations and remote physical proximity to the larger provinces. In the maritime provinces we have small populations as well. I cannot see how the restriction of trade and barriers to the exchange of goods could benefit any province or territory, large or small, such as having different sets of tire requirements for trucks. To me, any step taken to reduce these kinds of barriers and incompatibility within provinces will benefit all Canadians, regardless of where they live.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate to pass up an opportunity to ask my esteemed colleague, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, a question.

I have been up on my feet today advocating for this. My constituents have been advocating, through me, for this for a long time. We have managed to have some gains on the international trade front over the last 10 years, with some 46 new countries we have trade agreements with. Some of my constituents would tell me that it is actually easier for them to trade, buy, and sell goods and services with other countries than it is to purchase goods and services from other provinces.

I wonder if my colleague has any particular examples when it comes that, and if he could cite some of the absolutely ridiculous barriers we have as well. They are all non-tariff barriers. We do not have tariffs, I believe. He mentioned the organized trades, when it comes to Blue Seal versus Red Seal, and how people who have the same credentials from a school in Alberta cannot work in Saskatchewan, and vice versa. These are ridiculous barriers and impediments. Perhaps he could comment on the, hopefully soon, accession of Manitoba into the new west economic partnership, with B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan, and, as a fellow Albertan, talk about how Alberta's initiative has resulted in years of prosperity that we have had there.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am going to get too far into some of those specifics because I am not as deeply versed in some of these, other than by anecdote. We hear about things like truck tires and gasoline, which I mentioned in my remarks, as well as labour mobility and the challenges that professions, regulated occupations, and construction trades have in dealing between provinces. It is well known and I have heard many times the same comments that the member for Red Deer—Lacombe made about how it is easier to do business in any particular state, or maybe all 50 states, than it is deal with the province next door. This is well known and well documented.

What I would like to add and what I would like to stress is that the state we find ourselves in with these barriers that make it so difficult to do business with other Canadians is not what this country is supposed to be about. This is a trading nation. Internal trade is what we began with, and it is very important that we restore internal trade in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for Calgary Shepard know that there are only five minutes remaining in the time allocated for the business of supply this afternoon, but I will give him the usual indication before we approach that spot.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have done before, I am going to start with a Yiddish proverb, a hint hits harder than the truth. The truth is that the government is wrong to be moving its members to vote against the motion. The hint is from my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola that this is the right thing to do on behalf of all Canadians. The hint is in the motion. The truth is in the motion, and the government should support this because it is good for Canadians.

I want to thank the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola both for having a difficult riding name to pronounce and also for fast becoming the most popular member on Parliament Hill with his catchy free the beer campaign. I get countless messages from constituents. He deserves a round of applause.

The motion the member has put forward to the House challenges us to answer the question of what Canada is. What is our country? Are we a nation of traders, or are we 10 separate islands? Are we living up to the dreams of the Fathers of Confederation for something more than a mere customs union, or are we 10 distinct protectorates set on fighting endlessly? I believe we can be a nation of traders while respecting the distinct character of every single province.

On the matter of the free the beer campaign, the provincial liquor control boards and the related regulations are a holdover from the temperance movement that was introduced during the Prohibition years. Prohibition has been gone for over half a century, but the controls remain, and they have become an impediment to internal trade.

Mr. Gerard Comeau did us all a favour on probably the greatest Canadian beer run ever. He did the most Canadian thing ever, the Canadian tradition of shopping around for the cheapest possible beer, so we can bring it home and enjoy it. His error was that he moved across a border, but his error was to the benefit of the Canadian taxpayer because we have an opportunity here to do the right thing for Canadians and refer this case to the Supreme Court to review its original decision, the Gold Seal decision. The $292.50 fine Mr. Comeau got is probably the best money ever spent if this is referred to the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court does review its original Gold Seal decision. Fighting this in court is pointless. The right thing to do is for the government to refer it.

Section 121 should be applied in the spirit of the original intent of our founders. On that intent, I actually went to the original Debates on confederation. They are often called the constitutional moment. In referring to parliamentary Debates on the subject of the confederation of the British North American provinces, the third session, 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada, page 276-277, the member, Mr. Ryan, goes into vast details on the type of trade they had imagined for Canada: flour, grain, bread, beans, peas, butter, eggs, tallow, soap, and they keep going on. New Brunswick, shockingly enough, is an incredible source of boots and shoes, and he goes into vast detail on how the Canadian confederation could benefit from being able to trade among themselves instead of running it through the United States.

The member said, “These under Confederation would go duty free from Canada”. They were concerned about customs and tariffs and duties imposed by the American government. This was in 1865. A year later, in 1866, the reciprocity treaty would be abrogated by the United States. This was a long time coming, and the founding fathers knew it was coming. Therefore, they knew when they were debating this issue that they were not debating what size of barrel there should be and what the gauge should be for the railway on the intercontinental railway that they were debating. They were talking about free trade for all of these products. That was their concern. They were not debating the size of the product, but that the product itself should be available for all Canadians.

We should support Mr. Comeau. I invite all members to support the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:30 p.m., and today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, 2016, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.