Debates of June 14th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Internal trade

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate this afternoon. Now that we have gotten past all the lawyer self-adulation, we can get back to some blue-collar debate about beer.

Today's motion by our hon. colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola kind of highlights the dilemma that we have in Canada, the dilemma of the federation itself. Canada is a country made up of 10 provinces and three territories that in many ways operate quite independently, but we still fall under Confederation and under the country of Canada.

We have gone through some cycles in our 149 years. It was not that long ago that we had the federal government playing a fatherly role to the provinces, and I can think of programs such as the national energy program, the Canada Health Act, and so on. However, then we went through what I believe was 10 years where we had a Conservative government that believed that there was federal jurisdiction and there was provincial jurisdiction. By and large, under the leadership of our previous prime minister, it was felt that the federal government's responsibility was to stay out of the jurisdiction of the provincial governments.

It is pretty obvious, by some of the actions we have seen happen so far with the current government, that we are probably moving back more into a time when the federal government will be trying to play that fatherly role with provinces again. I am thinking about things like discussions we are hearing today about a carbon tax. We are also talking at various committees about looking at bringing in pharmacare. We always have the debate in this House about supply management. In some ways it is timely that we have this debate about the motion that has been brought forward today.

As has been been mentioned on several occasions, it is clearly pointed out in the Constitution in section 121 that free trade between provinces is part of our Canadian Constitution. However, there are clearly a number of examples of how that has moved over the past number of years. The most recent debate relative to my colleague's “free the beer” campaign is but one issue that tends to rear its ugly head, on more than one occasion.

As an example, labour mobility has become a big issue between provinces. While we have the Agreement on Internal Trade, there are still varying degrees of constraints around labour mobility. I think about the health care field where we have scope of practice, which is not the same from border to border. There are also certain professions that are regulated differently from province to province. Then if we move more into the apprenticeship role, clearly the certification around different apprenticeships varies from province to province. We have issues relative to food inspections and food safety. Then of course, the one that is probably the most troubling is that certain provinces prevent out-of-province companies from competing for government contracts. We all know that takes place on a fairly regular basis across the country.

However, I want to talk a bit about the successes that I am aware of. In a previous life I had the opportunity to serve in a provincial legislature of Alberta. At that time there were a number of agreements that we managed to negotiate. First, with the Province of British Columbia, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement was very popular in our two provinces; so much so that Saskatchewan came on board in 2010. I believe a number of issues have been resolved through TILMA. The issue that comes to mind was when the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta decided that to have a weigh station, or a truck regulation stop, in each province did not make any sense as the trucks were travelling either across the Trans-Canada Highway or the Yellowhead Highway. They had to stop in Alberta and get inspected. Then they crossed the B.C. border, and another inspection had to take place.

What Alberta and B.C. did on the Trans-Canada Highway was jointly set up an inspection station to make sure that regulations were adhered to, but it was a joint initiative. It not only saved money but saved a lot of hassle for the trucking industry. Those are the kinds of issues to which the provinces could find some resolution, if they were prepared to work together.

I do have some concern as we move forward. I have to admit that I think it is in the Liberals' DNA that they become protective and more parochial in the way they do business. We all know that we have a number of Liberal governments across the country today. I hope that in the so-called negotiations that are under way, which the federal government is talking about, that the message can be sent that we should be opening up borders, not working to close them.

Coming back to the particular motion that is before the House today, I clearly support the concept of what my colleague is attempting to do relative to the reference to the Supreme Court. I am not one who would normally suggest that the court is the right place to handle these kinds of decisions, but this particular case is a classic case of where a reference to the Supreme Court would give direction to provincial governments in a number of other areas.

I would strongly urge government members to reconsider their position and support the motion that is before us today. With that, I appreciate the opportunity to contribute.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being in the member's part of the world from 1984 to 1992, when I graduated from the University of Calgary and the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology.

The hon. member mentioned TILMA. I would like to ask a question for the member. Are there any other trades or technical designations that should be part and parcel of TILMA, so it is easy for us to move professionals around when it comes to creating opportunities that Canadians need?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question that the member raises.

The TILMA model is one that I would hope we could maybe expand upon across the country. It does not necessarily have to just be a western initiative.

I must admit that it has been a while since I have been involved in the administration of TILMA and how it is unfolding. What I think is important is the framework that was established. I would like to see that possibly work as a framework elsewhere in the country, but also for other industries in the country.

I am sorry I cannot answer the question more thoroughly than that. I know it provides an excellent framework from which to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

It is laughable to think that, officially, I do not have the right to bring a bottle of wine from Ottawa to my home in Longueuil. That way of doing things is outdated and prehistoric. Nevertheless, it is the reality.

I would like to know why it is taking so long to resolve this issue. This is not the first time we have talked about this. The member's party was in power at the time. Why is this issue still not resolved, even just where alcohol is concerned?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. We could also ask why it was put in place in the first place and why it was not resolved many years ago. That is exactly why this particular motion is before the House today: for reference to the Supreme Court. We would get a decision that way and it would take it out of the hands of politicians to be making these kinds of decisions. That is why I would encourage the hon. member to support the motion before the House.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the reduction of interprovincial trade barriers is essential for making sure that Canada's economy is strong. The member has made a number of good points, particularly with regard to the reference to the Supreme Court.

I was wondering if he could comment specifically on his region. The region I represent grows potatoes and makes beer. Creemore Springs Brewery is in my riding, and we obviously want it to be available to all Canadians. I would ask him if there are some specific industries that he believes will substantially benefit and, therefore, robustly aid the Canadian economy once we reduce these interprovincial trade barriers, as well as what leadership role the government should be taking, which it has not taken, in order to make that happen.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that, if we were to start with a blank sheet of paper and start with no trade barriers among provinces, I think we would be quite surprised to find out how many particular industries we do not even recognize today are being impacted by some regulation that is buried somewhere within the system.

As an example, the member raised the issue of industries in her riding. I know, for instance, that things like the labelling of particular products, whether they are dairy products or other farm products, vary from province to province, and that does not make any sense when we are all part of one country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on the Conservative motion on Canada's internal trade. I would also like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Surrey Centre.

I am pleased to share my opinions on this topic with the members of the House of Commons. I would like to thank the opposition member for raising this important issue.

Today, I want to talk about how important the federal government thinks it is to have a strong and enduring partnership with our provincial and territorial counterparts. This issue gets to the heart of how we want to govern the country.

Our government's approach is very different from that of the former Conservative government. It is particularly important when the governments have to address complex, 21st-century issues on behalf of Canadians. All levels of government need to work in partnership as much as possible to deal with these issues.

That is why the Government of Canada places a high priority on intergovernmental co-operation. We are taking practical measures to strengthen this approach in various sectors in order to increase competitiveness, productivity, and innovation in Canada.

Internal trade is just one example of the positive partnership that the federal government has established with the provinces and territories. Our government is determined to achieve its objectives with a renewed sense of co-operation in order to make changes for Canadians, and we are taking real action to strengthen this approach.

Another example is working together in forums such as the advisory council on economic growth, which my colleague, the Minister of Finance, launched in March. This council brings together a diverse group of forward-thinking business and academic leaders to advise the minister on developing a solid growth strategy for Canada.

Furthermore, yesterday, I attended a meeting of federal, provincial, and territorial innovation and economic development ministers. This meeting was chaired by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and was the first meeting of its kind in 12 years. I repeat, this was the first meeting of its kind in 12 years.

The minister and his colleagues discussed how economic growth in Canada has evolved and what our common challenges are as we try to grow the economy and create high-paying jobs for the middle class.

Because of low commodity prices and relatively weak growth, we can no longer count on the traditional engines of growth. We must switch our focus to innovation in all sectors.

That means businesses, governments, and communities have to make strategic investments in innovation. We cannot move forward without the collaboration and constructive engagement of all parties.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development talked to his colleagues about the federal government's approach in developing an inclusive innovation agenda. The goal is to create more jobs for middle-class Canadians and to solve the problems that Canadian families are grappling with.

In addition, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development committed to ongoing engagement with his colleagues on issues that matter to Canadians, such as innovation, clean technology, and economic development.

The ministers agreed that governments must take urgent action to support innovation and economic development while meeting their own needs and priorities.

The ministers also agreed to work together to better identify the clusters and networks in Canada that already are or have the potential to be hotbeds of innovation.

They also made a commitment to help create the jobs of tomorrow by further encouraging innovation across the entire economy.

The ministers then had a thorough discussion on growth itself. We do not regard environmental protection as a burden, but rather an opportunity for Canada to become a global leader in innovative and clean technologies.

A panel of experts made up of indigenous trade and economic development organizations also weighed in. Indigenous people are key players in creating a strong and vibrant economy in Canada.

It is a huge program that will require broad collaboration and partnerships. The goal is to promote a Canadian action plan for innovation that is inclusive, adds value to the entire economy, encourages sustainability, and promotes the well-being of our society as a whole.

That is why I was pleased to hear that the ministers agreed to meet again in the fall to continue their discussions with a view to establishing priorities to advance clean technology, innovation, and job creation.

In fact, our collaborative activities are already underway. There are many key measures in budget 2016 that provide a foundation for this action plan and demonstrate our commitment to change.

For instance, our government is investing $2 billion in enhancing and modernizing research and commercialization facilities on Canadian university campuses through the post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund.

Budget 2016 also proposes an $800-million investment starting in 2017–18 to support innovation networks and clusters. We have also earmarked over $1 billion over four years, starting in 2017-18, to support clean technology. We have also announced that we will invest $500 million to enhance broadband service in rural and remote communities.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order, please. We have a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the parliamentary secretary. He is a fine gentleman and a great contributor to the House, but I am raising a point of order on relevance. We are debating a motion on interprovincial trade specific to a Supreme Court reference. The member has so far basically skated around everything but that. Again, I do know that oftentimes Speakers give a fair bit of latitude, but it would be nice to have the member speak on the subject and not on other parts of his portfolio.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Thank you. I have heard many different topics discussed here and often what happens is that it goes from one side to another, and sometimes just as you wonder where it is coming to, the hon. members often bring it back to where basically the intention is.

I will leave it with the hon. member to finish up his speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. opposition colleague that I am here to discuss an option, an alternative to the Supreme Court reference. It is about having discussions with the provinces to negotiate in good faith. I digress. I will come back to my speech and continue.

We cannot stop here. To move forward, we must continue to have a dialogue and work with the provinces and territories. We must work together to succeed. I would like to point that out to my dear opposition colleague. We must harmonize our efforts in order to create the critical mass needed to make progress on the issues that matter. That is the approach we are adopting through the inclusive innovation agenda. It is the cornerstone of the federal approach to innovation and economic development, and it calls for federal-provincial-territorial collaboration in order to optimize results.

Budget 2016 also announced that the government will develop a nationwide Canadian cluster mapping portal. The federal government will develop this portal in collaboration with the provinces, territories, research institutions, and community stakeholders.

This important work is modelled after the cluster mapping that has already been done in the United States and Mexico. We anticipate that this will produce evidence to inform the design and delivery of programs by all levels of government.

The Government of Canada also intends to hold a bilateral dialogue with the provinces and territories in order to better harmonize common priorities. We are determined to work with our provincial and territorial counterparts to establish a solid relationship that is built on collaboration in order to advance the inclusive innovation agenda in Canada.

In closing, I want to reiterate that the federal government sees collaboration as key to meeting 21st-century challenges in innovation and better preparing Canadian businesses to increase their activity and be competitive on the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We will now move on to questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. It is fascinating to hear from him that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development met with all the provincial ministers and that this meeting only resulted in the promise of another meeting.

The provincial ministers are calling for practical measures and the government talks about discussions. Discussions are not an alternative to action. It is all very well to mention “practical measures” several times in a speech, but that does not lead to action. The promise of action in 2017-18 is no substitute for the immediate measures called for by the provinces. Consultations are not actions.

What real action will the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development take to address the provinces' urgent requests?

Today, we are talking about real action. What will be the alternative to real action?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her question. I want to remind her that this is the first time that Canada's ministers of innovation and economic development, all of the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers, have met in 12 years. That is extraordinary.

I am sorry, but we are not going to be able to come up with a fully developed plan or anything tangible right away. All of the minsters said that they were delighted that the federal government was working with them for the first time in 12 years. We can finally align all of our plans and projects to make Canada even more innovative.

I had the pleasure of sitting next to the representatives from Quebec. We participated in a number of meetings together over the past two days. Quebec was thrilled that the federal government included measures in the budget and has a plan to make innovation work for Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like my Conservative colleague before me, I question the relevance of the speech we just heard. We heard a lot about innovation. We heard a lot about collaboration with the provinces. However, we did not hear anything about the Supreme Court case, the Comeau case, which I believe could be the defining case when it comes to determining whether we truly have free trade within Canada.

The Comeau case is the perfect case to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada, so that, once and for all, Canadians can understand whether we will be able to buy and sell products across provincial and territorial boundaries free of interference from the provinces and territories. Obviously we do not want to tread on provincial and territorial jurisdiction, but this is something that the Supreme Court is perfectly positioned to determine.

I want to bring the discussion back to what the speech should have addressed, and that is the Supreme Court case. I would ask the member for Hull—Aylmer why the Liberal government will not refer this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that as the new agreement on internal trade is negotiated it is actually in compliance with Canada's constitutional law.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try my best, but every so often we come up with a fundamental difference of perspective. I know the hon. member from British Columbia, a former minister, supports free trade, so does our government. Not only do we support free trade because it brings jobs and creates growth, we also support having negotiations between the federal government and the provinces and territories. We believe that negotiations can go beyond the narrow scope that the former minister is talking about.

If we were to take it to the Supreme Court, we would be using a big stick and a narrow approach as to the scope. As well, there would be a whole bunch of legal costs. If I could put our approach versus their approach in four words or into words the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Surrey Centre.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for raising this important issue before the House.

I am pleased to rise to speak to the significant benefits that internal trade brings to Canada's agriculture and food industries. We are talking about a sector that drives over $60 billion of Canada's exports, generates over $108 billion, accounts for almost 7% of Canada's GDP, and creates jobs for over 2.3 million Canadians.

We are talking about an incredibly productive and innovative industry. Canadian farmers today can produce twice as much output compared to 1961 with the same level of input. On the other hand, with the value chain, the Canadian food processing sector has doubled its sales in the span of two decades to over $100 billion. Science and technological innovation are a big reason for these leaps in productivity and efficiency.

Advancement in genomics and biotechnology are helping to drive productivity and competitiveness in the agriculture sector in many ways, including increasing yields of crops and animals, strengthening disease and pest resistence, and reducing inputs like fertilizers and herbicides. Technology is allowing us to develop new varieties of crops, which are better for consumers, more efficient to grow, and more adaptable to our changing environment.

I want to remind the hon. members that the government is absolutely pro-trade. The Government of Canada supports trade as a way to open markets to Canadian agriculture and food producers, to grow Canadian farm businesses, create good-paying jobs for Canadians, and provide choice and lower prices to Canadian consumers.

Canada is a trading nation. Canada has always depended heavily on international trade and investment for its economic well-being. We live in a vast country with a relatively small population, and we enjoy a high standard of living. We sell our products and services abroad, which helps maintain a strong economy. We strive to maintain and expand access to foreign markets, since an open trade and investment environment allows companies to prosper and provide better middle-class jobs.

The government is committed to developing trade in Canada and attracting investments that create jobs in our country. In Canada, one in five jobs is generated by trade. In 2014, Canadian exports of goods and services represented just under one-third of our GDP. Canadian consumers also reap the benefits of international trade, which gives them a greater variety of goods at better prices.

Trade is equally vital to our agriculture and agrifood industry. About half of the value of Canada's agricultural production is exported. Over a third of our wheat crop is exported, two-thirds of our pork, 85% of our canola, and 90% of our pulse crops. Trade agreements help Canada's agriculture and food sector build on its stellar export performance for the good of our nation and our economy. That is why we are consulting Canadians on the trans-Pacific partnership, and moving forward on ratifying the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, which will open up the world's most lucrative market for food to Canada's farmers and food processors.

Once the tariffs have been phased out, seven years after the agreement comes into effect, more than 95% of the tariff lines on agricultural products will be duty free. Eliminating duties will increase export opportunities in the European Union for Canadian producers, including exporters of agricultural and agrifood products.

Similarly, the domestic market is vital to a large number of agricultural and agrifood related products. We have seen in the news how consumers have a growing interest in local products. We also know that a strong domestic market is a great springboard for companies to compete in the global arena. Agriculture and food trade within Canada is significant. According to the latest figures, over $40 billion dollars in agricultural and agrifood products are traded between provinces. We know that number can and should grow. However, there are still some barriers to internal trade.

Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction between the provinces and territories, and this sometimes creates bottlenecks. The federal government is responsible for interprovincial and international trade, while the provinces are responsible for the production and domestic marketing of agriculture and agrifood products. For example, certain products, such as meat, must comply with federal standards to be traded between the provinces or internationally. In addition to the federal standards, the provinces may have their own rules and regulations regarding the foods produced and sold within their borders.

Depending on the product, some industries must comply with a patchwork of rules, which can impede the free movement of products from one province to another. These barriers can lead to losses or shortfalls for some segments of the agrifood sector, for example, the distilled spirits industry.

The Agreement on Internal Trade can help provinces and territories enhance interprovincial trade. The purpose of the agreement is to eliminate interprovincial barriers that impede the free movement of workers, goods, services, and investments. It is also encouraging to note that provinces themselves are collaborating to facilitate greater trade in both western and eastern Canada.

There is no doubt that the domestic market is critical to the success and growth of Canada's agriculture and agrifood sector. We need to do all we can to facilitate internal trade and remove barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and services. This work will only be done with the collaborative approach that this government is taking.

Industry stakeholders often say that it is easier to export outside of Canada than to another province. With the conclusion of recent international trade negotiations with, for example, the European Union, there have been calls for business associations, consumer groups, and academics on the need to modernize the Agreement on Internal Trade to ensure that internal trade does not lag behind international trade liberalization, and that Canada's market should be as open internally as it is to our external trading partners. The federal government, the provinces, and the territories are now working together to renew the Agreement on Internal Trade.

We are at a time of tremendous opportunity for Canada's agriculture and agrifood sector. Agriculture exports are at record high levels. Agriculture and food is one of the top five fastest growing export sectors of Canada. With our small population and huge production capacity, Canada is the world's leading agriculture trader on a per capita basis.

Meanwhile, global demand for food is projected to increase by 65% by 2050. Our farmers have the responsibility and the ability to feed the world. The future is bright for Canadian farmers and food processors, with growing demand for the great products we grow in Canada.

The government will work hard to open new markets for them, while working hard to strengthen agrifood trade within our borders. A better integrated internal market supports a competitive and innovative agriculture and agrifood sector. Improving internal trade will also reduce costs of production and increase productivity. It is a natural complement to Canada's intense involvement in international trade.

While the member opposite may prefer the antagonistic approach of the former government, this government recognizes that we need constructive collaboration to achieve our goals of creating a strong, more innovative economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for actually staying on the motion at hand for most of the speech. That was a refreshing change.

There are two things.

The Agreement on Internal Trade was actually started by the previous minister of industry. I believe 15 of the 17 rounds of negotiation were done under the previous government. Therefore, it is interesting that the Liberals are talking about new changes to collaboration. It seems that they are just picking up where the previous government left off, and that is not a bad thing.

Does the member believe Canadians have a constitutional right to trade with other Canadians?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Canadians have a constitutional right to trade with other provinces, however, it is the approach that we take.

The previous government never had a first ministers meeting in the last eight years. It showed that the Conservatives did not want to work with the provinces.

It is this government that made it a mandate, and started with that to work with the provinces. Rather than antagonize them, we work in collaboration with them. Rather than take them into lawsuits, we work with them.

The lawsuit itself will take its course, and we will see the results at the end. However, there are certain jurisdictions that we need to respect. We need to negotiate and work out those trade barriers rather than simply go to the Supreme Court to mandate them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the theme from the Liberals today seems to be that seeking clarity from the Supreme Court on this issue will hamper negotiations with the provinces and hinder the collaboration and co-operation we all want. I want to know from the member how seeking clarity on this issue will hamper negotiations rather than actually move them forward.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be much more helpful if we allow the legal action take its course, which is going on in Comeau. We do not need to interfere in that respect. If we work within that process, it would be a lot better, as opposed to interfering and creating a roadblock in that process.

In the interim, it would provide some leverage for the minister and the Prime Minister to work with their counterparts in the provinces to iron out a lot of those differences and come up with solutions, rather than antagonize provincial counterparts.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important issue for the Pontiac. I am very pleased that my colleague from Surrey Centre mentioned the agricultural aspect. It is very important to people in the Pontiac to be able to sell their products in Ontario, whether they raise cattle or make alcoholic products.

It is very important for farmers in the Pontiac to get those products to market in the Ottawa and eastern Ontario region. I would ask the member to further describe, particularly in the meat sector, for example, where federal and provincial inspections can be such a challenge. Could the member talk a bit about how we might improve the efficiency of that aspect of interprovincial trade?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we already have great regulations in Canada in the meat sector, which is federally inspected. I do not believe we need the health inspections that some provinces place upon each other.

I am a believer that trade barriers must be lifted on products, especially within Canada, a country with some of the best standards for its food supply of any country in the world. They should be streamlined so products can cross the borders between Quebec and Ontario, as well as western Canada. That should be the foremost priority of the government. I trust our government will take that into consideration and ensure that these barriers are lifted as soon as possible.