Debates of June 14th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Internal Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to be joining this debate, as I get to use both court decisions and John Maynard Keynes in support of a Conservative argument. I am glad to see that my friend the parliamentary secretary is here. I am sure that he is a big fan of both and will enjoy hearing this Conservative argument, which references the wisdom of the courts and of John Maynard Keynes.

I want to thank my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for bringing forward this important motion and for all the work he has done on this issue.

What we are talking about today is internal trade. We are bringing forward a motion that encourages the government to make a reference to the Supreme Court, or to elevate a particular case to the Supreme Court, which will provide us with some clarity on what the constitutional requirements are in terms of internal trade. Our party has been clear throughout this process that we are strongly supportive of more open trade generally and in particular of more open trade within Canada between Canadians in different parts of the country.

In my remarks today I would like to start by talking more generally about why I favour policies of open trade. Then I will talk about internal trade specifically in the context here. Finally, I want to move beyond the economic discussion to talk about the social and cultural benefits of trade, because often when we talk about trade, we see the benefits economically in terms of economic growth and prosperity. However, there are important social and cultural reasons to favour greater internal trade. I think it is positive in terms of creating greater harmony within our country and between different countries. I will talk more about that later on.

First, fundamentally, why do we believe in the importance of trade policy? I think sometimes when this issue is discussed the language can be a bit confusing to people. When we talk about negotiating free trade agreements with other countries and within Canada, we are not talking about the government negotiating to trade. We are not talking about the government saying, “We will trade this much of these particular goods with you for a certain amount of other goods.” It is not up to governments to specifically negotiate trades. When we talk about trade deals, they are agreements to remove barriers to allow private individuals and private actors within those jurisdictions to make voluntary trades themselves. It is not principally about trade. It is about the freedom of individuals to trade. This illustrates its importance.

Many of the counterarguments against trade I think misunderstand the freedom component. We hear people say, “Trade is well and good, but is the trade fair?” The response is simply that if the trade is not fair, the private individuals involved in making that trade need not participate. We are not talking about forcing people to make an exchange. We are talking about removing barriers to allow a voluntary exchange between individual actors who would invariably regard those exchanges as mutually beneficial.

Therefore, at a basic logical level, we can see that this invariably creates benefits, because if the individual actors previously prevented from engaging in voluntary exchange are now able to make exchanges and see that a trade arrangement is in both of their interests, then almost certainly it is. I think people are better judges of their own economic interests than an external agency like the state. Therefore, the state removing barriers to free economic exchange, giving individuals the ability to exchange without state intervention, enhances their freedom and allows them to pursue their own well-being and their own conception of the good life without unnecessary state restrictions. Almost by definition, the freedom to trade is good.

There are some exceptional circumstances where economists will talk about the concept of externalities, where the exchange between two private individuals might have a negative or a positive effect on a non-consenting third party. However, in the absence of these externalities, it always makes sense for governments to remove barriers to free and voluntary exchange between individuals in different jurisdictions.

There is a basic principle of individual freedom here that applies just as much to an individual's right to buy certain kinds of goods as it does to that person's finding the good life with respect to social or other kinds of private activities.

In addition to being consistent with the principles of individual freedom, trade helps to create collective wealth. It helps to facilitate specialization. It allows individuals or communities to become focused on certain activities that may fit certain natural competencies—obviously we do not grow a lot of bananas or coffee here in Canada—and it allows others to focus on other things and to then make exchanges. Having both specialized in certain areas leads to enhanced efficiencies, and there is a collective economic benefit in that voluntary exchange.

This is the basic logic of trade agreements, and it should, in some ways, be fairly elementary. There are still members of the House, not just in the NDP but in the government, who demonstrate significant skepticism about the value of trade deals, at least of certain kinds of trade deals. Going over that basic groundwork on the importance of allowing voluntary exchange and how it is conducive to the growth of wealth is important.

We are talking specifically about allowing voluntary exchange within Canada. The recent Comeau court case recognized that individuals should be able to go across provincial borders and trade without undue and unnecessary restrictions. We are saying that the government should get clarity from the Supreme Court. We should negotiate, as well, to remove trade barriers. We should work with the provinces and continue the work the previous government did on this, but we need some clarity from the Supreme Court in terms of what actually is required by section 121 of the Constitution.

In terms of the economic impact of internal trade, estimates produced by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business say that barriers to internal trade cost the Canadian economy nearly $15 billion per year. Another estimate, from the Conference Board of Canada, says that the removal of trade barriers would add close to $5 billion to real GDP and would create close to 80,000 jobs in B.C. and Alberta alone, and much more, I am sure, across the country.

The same arguments that apply to international trade very much apply with respect to internal trade. We need to realize the economic benefits, in terms of efficiency and the growth of our collective wealth, that come with increased trade. However, we also need to respect the freedom of individuals who might want to buy wine from B.C., even if they do not live there, or to buy other goods or partake of services that are available in other provinces that may be different from what is available in their own province. This is sensible. This is consistent with freedom and is conducive to the growth of wealth and well-being.

I want to talk quickly about the social and cultural impact of trade. Trade is not just about economic exchange. It is about allowing commerce between people in different regions of this country and between people in different countries and that commerce creating greater community between people and leading to increased cultural sharing and understanding. The ability to buy goods that come from other provinces or other countries allows people, in a sense, to access parts of that distinct culture or community and to learn and build community with the people involved.

Generally speaking, trade has been recognized as a way of enhancing community at an international level and even of reducing conflict. In Canada, we could understand internal trade as an important way in which we build national unity, in which we enhance our national cohesiveness. That speaks to the importance of doing this.

I want to mention the great economist John Maynard Keynes, because he was outspoken in the context of the First World War settlement. He was not supportive of the Versailles agreement, which he described as a Carthaginian peace. It was far too harsh and was reminiscent of the Roman treatment of Carthage during and after the Punic Wars, when it was really more about punishing the former enemy than about creating a durable peace. He advocated instead for a policy of free trade in Europe. He thought that if after the First World War countries worked together for free trade, there would of course be an economic benefit, but the social, cultural, and international cohesion that would result from prospering together, from becoming more interdependent economically, would be an important check against the possibility of future hostilities arising.

This was a visionary idea from John Maynard Keynes and one that was very much ahead of its time. He understood the economic benefits of trade, and the respect for individual freedom, but also the social and cultural benefits.

We can harness that insight in the Canadian context as well and use internal trade as a tool for national unity as well as economic growth.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from the Prairies spoke eloquently about the freedom of trade.

We focused primarily on beer and liquor in much of this debate. I wonder if the member would like to reflect on the managed trade, which is what real free trade is. It is managed trade. It is not free. There are rules and regulations to virtually every trade agreement. That is why they are so thick.

However, one of the most interesting pieces of interprovincial-managed trade, to the exclusion of other provinces, is the trade agreements around milk in the prairie provinces; the fact that, if they are selling milk from Quebec, they cannot actually sell into the prairie provinces without significant trade barriers being put in place. I wonder if his party is advocating the end of the milk quotas and the management of the milk trade in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia? Is that is the position that he advocates and his party now advocates?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not all about alcohol, although that is of course part of it.

I trust that the member meant to take all the fun out of it by talking about managed trade.

There has to be some degree of pro-competitive regulation in every marketplace. We know that, in order to prevent the emergence of monopolies, there has to be some element of pro-competitive regulation. However, I would not agree that the purpose of trade agreements is to sort of micromanage trade relations. It is simply to establish that kind of basic, fair groundwork.

In terms of issues around the milk quotas and these sorts of things, I think this is a discussion we have had before, and that is somewhat of a separate conversation. I certainly would not endorse all of the policies undertaken by the current Alberta provincial government. I think the point is very much that we need to have some degree of regulation, yes, but regulation that encourages competition. That has been the groundwork of our trade agreements, and that should be the way we manage internal trade, as well.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I agree that we need to work on internal trade issues, I find it a little unfortunate that the Conservatives are proposing to refer this matter to the Supreme Court. For years, the Conservatives stalled on this, despite the many proposals brought to the table.

Does my colleague have any ideas on the right strategy to be pursued? The challenges will be around harmonizing the regulatory regimes regarding the distribution of alcohol in Canada. A number of provinces will probably want to discuss it, but the negotiations are no simple matter. Does my colleague have any suggestions for the House today regarding how to overcome those challenges?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we are quite clear in the motion, in terms of what we are proposing; that is, first and foremost, to get some clarity in response to the Comeau case, to get some clarity about what our constitutional requirements are. That arises from the specific court decision. It is something we have to respond to, and I think getting clarity for Canadians for Canadian business right away on that is very important.

More broadly, I would disagree very much with the premise of the question. The member may not be aware of all the work that was done under the previous government, with respect to internal trade, but our government held regular meetings, was moving forward, was working with the provinces to try to negotiate sort of the next generation agreement on internal trade that would respond to the new and emerging situation in our economy today. It is not an either/or. We do not have to choose between working through negotiated mechanisms and referring this to the court.

It is important for us to get clarity around what our constitutional requirements are, but it is also important for us to continue that negotiating track that was started and pushed forward under the previous government. We need to continue that, as well.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. I appreciate the motion that has been put forward by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and the ensuing discussion that we are having today on internal trade.

It reflects the concern that we all share for middle-class Canadians. We agree that middle-class Canadians need to work in an environment where good internal trade is important for growth of the economy and growth of their careers.

My concern is the approach that this motion is suggesting, but also what is being excluded from this motion. The motion does not include labour as a key element of building our economy and the difficulties experienced by those whose work requires them to go across multiple provinces.

That is why our government is working actively with provincial and territorial counterparts to address the barriers to Canada's internal trade. There is good will and commitment to get this job done. We look forward to achieving a renewed agreement in the near future, as was mentioned by our minister this morning.

I am happy to participate in today's debate because it allows me to speak to an important issue related to internal trade, and that is labour mobility. We believe that Canadians should be able to work anywhere they want in Canada. That is why we are making it easier for people to move and work. We want to give Canadians the freedom to work wherever there is an opportunity in Canada.

We are working to open doors for Canadian workers. We want to save them time and money, and we are supporting them in different ways. Our government has programs that help Canadians locate jobs and learn more about specific provincial and territorial requirements for their professions. Some of our programs even help workers pay for moving expenses, and we all know that moving can be expensive.

One of the challenges we face is that some occupations are regulated differently in some provinces and territories. Accountants, architects, carpenters, lawyers, electricians, and welders are just a few opportunities. As a certified engineering technologist based in Manitoba, I was working across Canada using my certification as credentials when automating equipment. However, upon moving to Ontario, I was required to recertify.

Providing easy access to employment opportunities is also an opportunity that has to be addressed. To help Canadians navigate the job market, we have helpful online tools and services available from our job bank website. These provide Canadians with valuable information about occupations across Canada and by region, including job opportunities, requirements, wages, educational programs, and employment outlooks. Users who are often excluded from working within their profession due to local regulations can also access job market trends and news reports. These tools allow Canadians to explore careers and find out whether their chosen occupation is regulated in the province or territory where they need to work but often the barriers are not indicated.

In 2015, the Government of Canada also launched a new labour mobility portal that provides comprehensive information to Canadians who wish to move to obtain employment. Anyone can explore these possibilities, including skilled trades workers, who also need our support.

In Canada, a mobile certified skilled trades workforce with up-to-date skills is critical. That is why we are working with provinces and territories to support the interprovincial standards red seal program. This program makes it easier for tradespeople to have their skills recognized across Canada, and to move to other provinces or territories to work. The red seal program is recognized as Canada's standard of excellence for the skilled trades.

To further support the mobility of apprentices, we are working with the provinces and territories as well as industry to harmonize apprenticeship training in red seal trades across the country. This will make it easier for apprentices to move to another province or territory, while pursuing their training.

Often there are ratios that do not act in our favour and, in fact, compete for jobs across the country, where British Columbia has a different standard from Ontario and can draw workers from Ontario.

Let us talk about apprenticeship training for a moment. Apprentices rely on a dynamic training system that includes on-the-job learning and in-class technical training. This training is provided by colleges, polytechnics, union-based training centres, and other training providers.

To strengthen the role of union-based training providers, we will provide $85.4 million over five years to develop a new framework. This framework will incorporate greater union involvement in training, support innovative approaches, and enhance partnerships with stakeholders and employers. In addition, the government offers a number of supports to help apprentices complete their training. This includes apprenticeship grants and the Canada apprentice loan.

We owe it to hard-working Canadians to provide supports that allow them to build and grow their careers, and I am proud that our government has measures in place like these to help them, but there is more. I could not talk about labour mobility without mentioning the Agreement on Internal Trade.

Canadians want to work. They do not want to be held up by differing standards from one province or territory to the next. This is not something they should have to worry about. A dentist qualified to work in one province or territory is as capable of doing a good job in another province or territory. Under chapter seven of the Agreement on Internal Trade, once someone is certified in one province or territory, that certification will be recognized by all other provinces and territories that also regulate that occupation.

The Agreement on Internal Trade is the result of a great partnership with provinces and territories, one that we want to continue to build. Through this agreement we promote the free movement of goods, services, investments, and labour within Canada. The goal is to make the domestic market open, efficient, and stable. We are working actively with provincial and territorial counterparts to address the barriers to Canada's internal trade. This partnership with provinces and territories is essential to delivering real, positive change as we work together to foster a strong and more innovative economy.

Another example of that collaboration is the recent release of a best practice checklist by the forum of labour market ministers. This checklist, designed for regulators, outlines guiding principles and best practices for requesting information from certified workers to certify them in another province or territory. Each province and territory is unique. Each of them has its own demographic and economic situation, but we can all learn from each other and find common ground. By working together, we will maintain a competitive workforce for our country.

Our government is growing our economy, strengthening the middle class, and helping those who are working hard to join it. I am sure that everyone in this House wants what is best for hard-working, middle-class Canadians, but we are looking at different approaches. We are looking at legislation and Supreme Court challenges versus working together in a collaborative way.

Let us continue to give them opportunities by working collaboratively, and I am sure we will achieve real and positive results.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Guelph for his speech and contribution today. I understand that a motion will not suit everyone's unique taste, but he has actually expressed an interest by saying that if there were the inclusion of labour mobility, he would be more apt to support this.

In a report that was tabled yesterday in the other place, “Tear Down These Walls: Dismantling Canada's Internal Trade Barriers”, it actually talks about a reference to the Supreme Court, and it says that any such reference should focus on two questions: whether sections 91 and 92 must be read into the context of section 121 and whether section 121 applies to internal trade and services.

I think that is an excellent question. If the member is really serious about supporting labour mobility, he or a member of his party could put forward a potential amendment. I would be happy to discuss it with him, and maybe we could find some resolve to bring these issues to the Supreme Court within that context.

I would like the hon. member to respond to that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, not only for his question but for bringing this forward today for discussion.

We are talking about two different approaches. We could continue to go down the rabbit hole of Supreme Court challenges, constitutional adjustments, and connections between sections of the constitution, or continue the good work our minister is doing in his department in delivering a collaborative result for all Canadians.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member wanted to elaborate on how he sees more value in the process under way now than in the process that is contemplated in this motion.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I did indicate that the collaborative approach is the approach that I am favouring and that our government is favouring. I am concerned that we would make a move that might undermine existing discussions that are under way. There is a saying that when all one has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. We are hitting a problem right now with a hammer that really is not a nail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the member how sending this question to the Supreme Court, asking for more certainty around it, would exclude a program of collaboration and negotiation with the provinces and other interests.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to hear from the Okanagan Valley on both sides. I am starting to think of wine all of a sudden. If only we could get that wine in Ontario, we would be in a different position than we are today.

I do not think that having a collaborative discussion with the provinces and all of the ministers across Canada excludes working with the Supreme Court. I am sure that part of the ministers' discussions will be to ensure that whatever is being discussed will meet any Supreme Court requirements.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak on the motion from the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I am honoured to speak against the motion today, as we have heard from other colleagues of mine from this side of the House.

Internal trade is an important priority for the government. It is a key platform for long sustainable economic growth. As the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development said earlier today, our government is working actively with provincial and territorial counterparts to address the barriers to Canada's internal trade. Our government believes that we need to continue to be focused on collaborating with our partners to achieve an agreement as opposed to antagonizing them.

I would like to focus my time by bringing to attention the very important issue within internal trade, and that is what our government is doing to lower trade barriers internationally, including the involvement of the provinces and territories.

As outlined in the mandate letter of the Minister of International Trade, the government is developing a new Canadian trade and investment strategy with a focus on working actively with Canadian companies to help them grow. This strategy will include a strengthened “investment in Canada” office to support Canadian jurisdictions in attracting foreign direct investment; plans to help Canadian businesses take advantage of international trade agreements; a targeted strategy to promote trade and investment with emerging markets, with particular attention to China and India; and improved support for Canadian companies looking to export and Canadian communities looking to attract investment.

Canada has always relied heavily on international trade and investment for its economic well-being. We are a large country with a relatively small population and a high standard of living. We produce more in terms of goods and services than our population consumes. As such, we sell our goods and services internationally. This is one factor that contributes to maintaining a strong economy. Exports of Canadian goods and services in 2014 were just under one-third of our GDP, and one in five Canadian jobs is related to exports.

In order to provide international trade opportunities for Canadian businesses, we work to maintain and increase access to international markets. Against a backdrop of slowing global economic growth, it is important for Canada to continue to expand our trade network and to strengthen our competitive position.

Companies in Canada have improved access to markets through a network of FTAs, air transport agreements, and foreign investment promotion and protection agreements. With our international trade policy initiatives, Canada seeks to maintain a level playing field with our competitors, and to open new markets for Canadian goods and services through a range of trade policy tools, some of which include multilateral negotiations at the WTO, and bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements.

Canada is competing from a position of strength due to factors such as our strong economic fundamentals, our envious position as one of the most attractive countries for investment and doing business, and the extensive trade agreements Canada has negotiated with key trading partners in recent years.

Canada's trade is heavily weighted to traditional partners. We know that our relationship with the U.S. remains essential. However, despite the recent strong economic performance of the U.S., emerging markets as a whole are growing faster and are expected to see continued growth in the long run. This is why we are working to bring our recently concluded agreements with the Ukraine and the European Union into force, and to ratify updates that we have made to our FTAs with Chile and Israel.

Canada is also actively consulting Canadians on the trans-Pacific partnership, as members will have recently heard. Furthermore, the Government of Canada is looking at opportunities to enhance trade relationships with emerging and established markets, including China and India.

While the negotiation of international trade agreements is an exclusive federal responsibility under Canada's Constitution, provinces and territories are important partners in developing and delivering on Canada's international trade negotiations agenda.

The Minister of International Trade was mandated specifically to work with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to engage with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to ensure our strategies, to the greatest extent possible, are aligned to strengthen the overall Canadian brand and to reduce complexity and administrative burdens for foreign investors and Canadian companies engaged in international trade.

In this regard, the federal government closely collaborates and consults with provinces and territories through a variety of effective federal-provincial-territorial consultative mechanisms, some of which include FPT meetings of ministers responsible for international trade; FPT meetings of deputy ministers responsible for international trade; long-standing working-level, issues-based meetings of the FPT committee on trade, also known as C-trade; ongoing consultations and exchanges of information through a dedicated FPT website; regular meetings and teleconferences with the provincial and territorial heads of delegation consultative group dedicated to softwood lumber issues; ad hoc FPT consultations to address specific issues as required; invitations for provinces and territories to attend real-time briefing sessions with the chief negotiator and lead negotiators during certain negotiating rounds; and FPT international business development networks to discuss issues related to trade promotion, including the promotion of concluded FTAs and how to best position Canadian exporters and investors to take advantage of the benefits of FTAs.

Regular dialogue with provinces and territories ensures that the broadest national perspective on priorities and interests is reflected in Canada's international trade agreements and provides Canada's international trade negotiators with timely, well-informed input on areas of key provincial-territorial interest and sensitivity in various negotiations.

In the case of the negotiation of the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic trade agreement, or CETA, more direct, and provincial and territorial involvement in the negotiation process was unique and unprecedented, due to the specific circumstances of the negotiation. In particular, provinces and territories were expected to make binding commitments in areas that fall under their jurisdiction, such as the sub-federal government procurement, which is unique to CETA. For this reason, provinces and territories were closely involved in the negotiation process.

Following the conclusion of trade negotiations, provinces and territories remain key partners in promoting the benefits of concluded agreements and ensuring Canadian companies are aware of new market access opportunities.

Provinces and territories also play a significant role in the softwood lumber trade file with the United States, given that forest management practices, timber pricing methodologies, and forestry programs administered at the provincial level are at the heart of the issue.

The federal government consults extensively with provinces and territories when developing and implementing strategies related to negotiations, as well as litigation where necessary, as well as in the implementation of any agreement relating to softwood lumber. Consultative mechanisms, such as the softwood lumber heads of delegation consultative group, are in place to promote collaboration and ensure regular engagement among federal, provincial, and territorial governments. Provinces and territories are also involved in defending Canada's interests when one of their measures or a joint federal-provincial measure is challenged under NAFTA's chapter 11. In some circumstances, they contribute financially to the associated legal costs.

Global trade has evolved. Barriers to internal trade can impact our ability to take advantage of the benefits of international free trade agreements. The more Canada signs international agreements, such as CETA, the more important it becomes for our internal market to be as open and efficient as possible. Undertaking domestic reforms to our internal market will in turn enhance Canadian competitiveness on the world stage.

We agree the current Agreement on Internal Trade needs to be renewed. However, we strongly believe that we need to work with our provincial and territorial partners to reach that agreement. Negotiations only work when all partners are at the table and respect each another. Moving this to the judicial system would only hinder our current negotiations and add additional barriers to reaching a renewed agreement, which is the fundamental flaw in the member opposite's motion.

We need to continue with our current approach and reach a negotiated agreement with our territorial and provincial partners. That is why I am against the motion. I would encourage members on all sides to vote against it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I certainly welcome robust debate in the House, it seems that the Liberal members continue to use the same structure over and over. Every time we talk about the constitutional right of Canadians to trade, they decide to talk about the Agreement on Internal Trade. The motion is about the constitutional right for a Canadian to trade with a Canadian. Does the member recognize and support that right?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, along with all of my colleagues on the government side, support all of the rights and freedoms that are enshrined in the Canadian charter.

As I alluded to toward the end of my remarks, the flaw we see in the opposition motion is that it would seek to circumvent the natural course of litigation that is being undertaken. We are working closely with the province of New Brunswick. The province of New Brunswick has considered and, I believe, is seeking leave to appeal that decision. However, fundamentally, the way forward is to work with provinces and territories to strengthen the internal trade agreements.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard my colleague talk about the need to consult the provinces. We heard the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development say that internal trade is a priority and that the government is in a consultation process. However, as with many other issues, we never hear about any results from the Liberals' consultations. We never know what course of action will be taken, what the timelines and deadlines are, or what strategies will be adopted.

If it is such a priority, and if we really want to work on internal trade, eliminate some tariff barriers, and help small businesses continue to grow and develop, what sort of results are the Liberals' current consultations producing?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to pre-empt the outcome of the negotiations, however, I will provide a general update.

As members may have heard earlier in the day, negotiations on the internal trade agreement have been progressing well. They have been ongoing since December 2014. In the final analysis, here is what we hope we will achieve from a revised AIT: expansion of the AIT's coverage will apply economy wide; it will be subject to target exceptions; and there will be fair procurement rules. These are just some of the examples which we are endeavouring to make progress on and which will benefit the Canadian economy in the long run.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate a bit on this. We were talking about constitutional rights. As a fellow lawyer, perhaps the member for Eglinton—Lawrence would shed some light on the rights of the provinces, the rights that are protected by the province, and the right for a province to raise its own funds through taxation. Could he comment on those rights?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to the fact that I am a lawyer. Hopefully, that will not count against me. I am looking across the aisle at some of my colleagues who were also called to the bar in the same province as I was.

We respect the rights enshrined by the Constitution to provinces to collect certain taxes. As I have said before, this is the subject of ongoing litigation. The proper course for this litigation is for it to take its path to the Supreme Court of Canada. If that is what the province of New Brunswick wishes to do, we will continue to support it.

However, more to the point, we need to work with the provinces and territories to improve internal trade, and that is precisely what we are doing right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, is the member opposite aware of what he is saying? He is saying that frameworks that may not be constitutional trump individual rights of Canadians. Does he not agree that section 121 of the Constitution says that products of manufacture and growth shall be admitted free in all provinces? The fact that we are having this debate and the fact that there is a collegial question, does he not agree that the Supreme Court is the one venue where these issues that apply to all Canadian governments, provincial and federal, on issues of a constitutional nature should be settled?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to draw on my professional experience to answer the question.

The short answer is no. The Supreme Court is not the only forum in which that analysis will be rendered. It may very well be the final forum in which that question is answered but, in the meantime, this matter has to follow the normal statutory and common law process. It has to make its way from the trial court to the provincial court of appeal, and then, ultimately, to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is why we are against this motion. This motion would circumvent that process, and that is why we are voting against it.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this important debate today. I will be dividing my time with my friend from Calgary Signal Hill.

I want to take a moment to thank someone who has used his time in Parliament to advocate for an important issue that will actually help all Canadians, and that is the member of Parliament for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. Since his time here, he has helped Canadians and businesses, particularly small businesses in the Okanagan, across the country to sell more product within their own country. These are world-class in the case of wines. The “Free my Wine” and “Free my Grapes” initiative are world-class wines selling around the world. However, there are restrictions about selling them one province over. His advocacy over his years in Parliament, expanding the personal use exemption, allowing Canadians this choice that really should have been provided decades ago, shows that a passionate and knowledgeable member of Parliament can accomplish great things, and we are here debating that today. I thank him for it.

I am following some of my friends on the government side, the members for Eglinton—Lawrence and Newmarket—Aurora, both lawyers, both capable people and friends. As I have joked before, my friend from Newmarket—Aurora was a year behind me in law school. I am quite certain he graduated, but I will leave that to him to talk about. I jest. He is very capable. I know they share our intention here, but their minister has them in a straitjacket, talking about incremental change and agreements on internal trade that have moved at a snail's pace.

In fact, since the war, my friend from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola has advanced the issue of internal trade more than any government, with the exception of perhaps the 1994 Agreement on Internal trade, which set up the rubric that we need to expand here today.

There has been no recognition of what the origins of Canada wanted to see when this young country started in 1867, which was a free flow of goods and services across the country. We have not seen that. I will remind members of the House, and my friends the lawyers who were speaking before me, of section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which clearly says, “All articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any of the provinces shall...be admitted free into each of the other provinces”.

Unfortunately, early interpretation of this intention seemed to restrict that just to custom duties, so duties charged by provinces between one another. However, what built up were walls and silos of a legislative and regulatory nature that effectively limited internal trade within the Dominion of Canada, even though the intention of the country forming was to facilitate that trade.

I will remind the House that the early decision of Confederation put Upper Canada, my friends in the Maritimes still refer to Ontario as Upper Canada, put Ontario and Quebec in a more advantageous position by restricting trade with the United States. Therefore, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, natural north-south trade linkages were stopped by a tariff wall and in return there was the build-up of a competitive manufacturing centre in central Canada. The early decisions to favour some provinces in the Confederation by limiting the north-south trade of other provinces in the Confederation was a policy decision that should have been offset by more interprovincial trade. We did not see that.

In fact, the maritime provinces, and later Newfoundland and Labrador, which is an Atlantic province, had their growth inhibited by the fact that the national policy of Sir John A., who we on this side love, favoured Ontario and helped build up world-class manufacturing and mercantile trade in those provinces at the sacrifice of the others. However, the intention with section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 was that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island could trade westward.

However, what we saw built up was not customs, which were specifically excluded by the courts, but regulatory and other provincial barriers being set up.

What we are doing here today, and what my friend is suggesting by asking for a Supreme Court of Canada reference, which is warranted in this case, is we have to, particularly for smaller businesses in Atlantic Canada and other parts of rural Canada, speed up the process, so that 150 years after Confederation, we can say that we barely made it by the 150 year mark in promoting internal trade within Canada. Due to the leadership of the previous government, we were signing record trade agreements with the European Union, with countries in Asia, with the trans-Pacific partnership countries. Yet, we do not even facilitate free trade of goods and services within our own country.

There are two specific legal reasons why I think this Parliament needs to ask the Supreme Court of Canada for a reference. The first is a 2003 Supreme Court case in R. v. Blais. It clearly said that the original intent of legislation was something a lower court could raise if it believed there had been a misinterpretation of the original framer's intent. This is the original constructionism of our Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that lower courts are not bound if they feel the original intention and the spirit of that has not been adopted in Canada.

Recently in the province of New Brunswick, the Comeau case, a Superior Court justice took that initiative, which the Supreme Court of Canada said was proper in the Blais case, to suggest that section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 was not properly interpreted. In fact, we have had over a century of limited free movement of trade within Canada, not just goods and services. We have seen Ontario and Quebec, for decades, struggle over mobility of construction trades and others, when Canada's intent was to facilitate that.

The other reason why we should be going to a Supreme Court reference in this case, particularly before we hit our sesquicentennial, is the chain of precedent established in the Bedford and Carter decisions. In Carter, which we have been debating euthanasia, assisted-dying, the Supreme Court of Canada said that stare decisis, or precedent, should not be a straightjacket upon subsequent courts.

Using the Bedford, the prostitution decision, it said that that precedent could be looked at for two reasons: first, if there was fresh evidence; second, if there was a change in circumstances. In fact, in the Carter decision, the court looked at the societal change in attitudes with respect to assisted-dying, between Sopinka decision of 1993 in the Rodriguez case, and Carter. It looked at societal change.

My friend from Okanagan has shown that Canadians want to free their beer. Canadians want to free their grapes. They want the original spirit of section 121 of the great experiment that is our Confederation to be realized.

It is up to the government now. We have a justice in the Queen's Bench in New Brunswick who took the leadership of the Supreme Court in the Blais decision in 2003 to say the original interpretation had not been followed. Then we have the Gold Seal case of 1921, dealing with intoxicating liquors being sent to Calgary from outside Alberta, in the years of a Temperance Act for Canada. This government is legalizing marijuana. We are way past the Temperance Act days.

The decisions in Bedford and in Carter show that when there is societal change and when there is demand by consumers and producers to fulfill the potential of the Constitution Act, 1867, it is up to this Parliament and it can do so responsibly, allowing the Supreme Court of Canada to use its own precedent to liberalize trade in Canada. I hope we see it before July 1 of next year.

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

Mr. Speaker, a wise man said that negotiations trump litigation all the time. I say a wise man because it is interesting that the member for Egmont is one of the individuals who was a signator to that 1995 agreement on interprovincial trade. I believe that he is right when he talks about how important it is to negotiate in good faith.

The difference between the Conservatives and the Liberal government is that the Conservatives want to fight in court and there was always a vacuum in terms of leadership. Will the member not acknowledge that in fact negotiating is a better way of achieving the types of results that Canadians want, and that this is the type of approach that this Liberal government is taking?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, but it illustrates the problem with the Liberal philosophy of negotiation and consultations. The Liberals are never in a position to make a decision on the long-term interests of the country. They would prefer to debate these things incessantly. We have a window, because of the Comeau decision in New Brunswick and because of case law, which is recent, in the Carter and Bedford decisions, to move forward quickly on internal trade, the original spirit of section 121.

I will remind this House that tomorrow we are going to be celebrating Canadian beer on the Hill, “free the beer”. The original brewers, like that good Conservative, Alexander Keith and the Oland family in Moosehead, the only independent and longest-serving brewery in Canada, were restricted to sell their products into prosperous Ontario and Quebec because of misinterpretations of section 121. I know you appreciate Keith's, Mr. Speaker. It is time for the current government to fix it.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The member knows that I like and appreciate all good Nova Scotia products, of course.

The member will have three minutes remaining when the House resumes after question period.