Philip Lawrence
Northumberland—Clarke, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“When everyone else said that they were not going to get the sale or the business was not going to grow, Ziad would always find a way. If members have had the honour and privilege of meeting Lebanese Canadians, they know that, bar none, there are no better business people in this country or anywhere in the world.”
“They have been there, making those breakthroughs, making our world literally a better place, including saving lives with medical breakthroughs. Canada is more independent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will get to the punchline because I do not want to keep the member waiting. We have always needed the type of entrepreneurship and innovation that has been led by Canadians of Arabic origin. I want to tell members a story about a Lebanese gentleman who I got to know. His name is Ziad. He is not the member in the House.”
“He supported other Lebanese members of his community within Canada. His daughter went on to be a very successful lawyer. That is the type of entrepreneurship innovation that Canada is increasingly in need of.”
“It makes all the sense in the world to acknowledge that diversity with a spirit of inclusivity so we can allow all Canadians to achieve the economic dream that, unfortunately, because of 10 years of Liberal mismanagement, has increasingly become more difficult to achieve.”
“Our inflation is still within range of 2.8%, but is creeping up. We have the highest food inflation. A quarter of the population is food-insecure. While we have always been highly dependent on Canadians of Arabic origin, we are even more dependent right now, because we need their entrepreneurial spirit.”
The complete record
Every one of 217 lines we hold for Philip Lawrence, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“However, the government refused to support it and eventually it died on the Order Paper, which is unfortunate. This is always about a conflict of rights. There are very few cases where one person is right and one person is wrong, so when we are dealing with different rights, we need to act like a surgeon. We cannot just go in with a cannon and blow things up. Why not be surgical about our approach? Instead of putting in these massive restrictions, these dragnets around past transactions, let us be surgical. Let us look at the details. Let us make sure that we are not, for example, as a member stated earlier, accidentally bringing in gurdwaras, temples, mosques, churches and synagogues, where often cash is part of transactions.”
“Once again, I will get back to my original point. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Why would we not have legislation to put that in place? Then there are restrictions on cash. As I said, there are definitely areas where cash is misused in our economy. It can be used for crimes, such as extortion, blackmail and drug dealing. If someone can name it, it is used for that on the black market. As legislators, we have to be cognizant of this. We want to protect Canadians from being victims of crime. (1825) Canada is known as a haven for money launderers. There is actually a term for it: snow washing. We need to fight money laundering. My colleague, the member for Simcoe North , put forward a great private member's bill that sought to fight money laundering.”
“As a parent of a 10-year-old and an 11-year-old, I want to make sure, to the fullest extent possible, that my children and all Canadian children are protected from the predators who are out there. I am open to discussions on that, but why not have a narrow piece of legislation that is focused on that? Why not use age verification, as in Bill S-209 , which would protect children from some of these predators who are online? The scope of data that would be available to the government is incredible. I do not think the member for Winnipeg North would have gone on a dating app recently, so this is probably not a concern to him. However, millions of Canadians have. I think they would be shocked to know that a border security bill would give the government the ability to access their Tinder profile. What a digression that was.”
“My team and I worked personally and closely with the minister 's team to work with that legislation to make it better. Conservatives passed over 20 different constructive amendments to improve that legislation and ended up voting for it. I do not understand why the Liberals did not adopt the same model for Bill C-2 . Instead they decided to digress on a number of strange paths. I will talk first of all about the ability for the government to obtain documents and important, critical information, such as medical information, from ISP providers, from banks and from other institutions without a warrant. That is dangerous. That is not the type of power the government needs. I agree that the member made an excellent point.”
“We know that the men and women at the CBSA work hard every day. However, we also know that, over the last 10 years in this chamber, the Liberals have not given them the tools they need for maximum success. Instead of talking about various issues, why do we not have a laser-focused piece of legislation that focuses on some of the core mandate issues, things we can all agree upon, and pass the legislation? I will talk about why these things are concerns to us. I will give an example of how we could do this. Bill C-5 is deeply flawed. It is meant to be a band-aid solution for the past 10 years of terrible legislation, such as the cap on oil and gas and Bill C-69 . I could go on. It is a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card for certain projects. We saw that at least it would get some projects done.”
“Madam Speaker, I will start out with a very simple principle that I think all of us would agree with. Certainly, science would agree with it: The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Extending grace to those on the other side, I think we all want to get to a point where we have safe, secure borders, borders where we do not have fentanyl flowing, where we do not have the flowing of illegal guns and where we do not have illegal products crossing our borders. I think we would all agree on that. My question is, why has the government decided to obstruct its own legislation by putting through a number of things that are spurious and really do not have anything to do with the core mission I talked about? We all want to get to the same point. We want to get to a destination where Canada has safe, secure borders.”
“Madam Speaker, in my community, I have certainly seen issues with the bail reform that has been put in place by the Liberal government. We have had individuals commit assaults, be out on the street the same day and commit those types of awful crimes again. I am wondering if the member has seen any of the impacts of the terrible, Liberal criminal legislation in his riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, the dream of home ownership is becoming a nightmare in Canada. The Prime Minister promised to double the pace of home construction. Now the Liberals are spending $13 billion to build just 4,000 homes, and yes, the math is $3.2 million per home. This will blow up the deficit and not impact housing starts, which are actually down 16%. Taxpayers cannot afford to build $3.2-million homes, but we know the minister can afford to live in one. Will the new homes be as luxurious as his condos?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the member believes deeply in rail transportation and having affordable transportation for all folks. Would she perhaps grant me that one of the national projects that could be approved is additional rail? It would help all Canadians and is really the reason Canada exists to begin with.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very important question. What I would say to the hon. member is that Conservatives worked with other opposition members to put additional protection in for indigenous rights. A number of amendments were made, including eliminating the Indian Act from schedule 2. Schedule 2 would allow the government to exempt projects from legislation. We did not think that was right, and we will continue to push for indigenous rights in everything we do.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, but honestly, I do not know whether it will or not. However, I can tell the member one thing: If the Liberals do that, we will be there to help them and support them to get that national energy quota up. If they do not, we will be here to hold them accountable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for working so well together with Conservatives at committee to put in safeguards on accountability and transparency. Projects like building a pool in one's backyard will not happen, but I would like nothing more than to work with the Bloc or any other members to fundamentally change, instead of having an end-around on the morass of regulation and burdensome taxes, to actually put in place the foundation, the environment. That way, all projects can get built as opposed to having an end-around. Unfortunately, we have not had the support of the Bloc or any other of the radical left parties in the House to eliminate things like Bill C-69 , the oil and gas cap and the industrial carbon tax.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have many great union workers and unions within Northumberland—Clarke, and I salute them, as the other member talked about. What we really need, and what unions are, quite frankly, clamouring for, is the reduction, as the Minister of Transport said, or elimination of a thicket of regulations that is slowing economic growth and projects. If we want to get more quality union jobs, we need to make sure that not just some projects but all projects are allowed to go forward, in order to build pipelines, build roads and get more great union jobs.”
“We had to get somewhere, and the Liberals brought us a car; that car came in missing a tire and half an engine, polluting all over the place. It was terrible. Conservatives spent the last two weeks working our tails off to make this bill palatable, to prevent Liberal corruption, to prevent Liberal cronyism and to, hopefully, get some projects built here.”
“Conservatives said we were not going to let that happen. We want national projects to be built, but not at the cost of Canadian taxpayers' dollars going to Liberal insiders. We have seen 10 years of that. We do not need any more. What we did was put in place amendments or safeguards around that to prevent Liberal cronyism, because we had the crazy idea that the government should not be able to exempt itself from the Criminal Code, the conflict of interest law, the Lobbying Act and the Investment Canada Act. By the way, the Investment Canada Act is a particularly important one, I might add. The Investment Canada Act controls the impact of foreign investment within Canada. The disclosure rules in there are absolutely critical to protecting our economy, especially in a difficult geopolitical situation. Here is the reality.”
“We have worked with the Bloc Québécois to set up a parliamentary committee that will have to be reviewed on a regular basis. We are going to get transparency and accountability on those projects. Who is building this project? Why is it being built? How much public money is going to it? This is so we know what is going on and when. The most nefarious parts of the legislation, in total, were clauses 21 to 23. The operation of these three clauses was absolutely mind-blowing. They call these Henry VIII clauses, actually. That is a fitting name, because the operation of these three clauses would have allowed the government to exempt any national project from any legislation passed since 1867. That includes the conflict of interest laws, the lobbying laws, the laws on income tax and the laws on the Criminal Code.”
“Conservatives were stuck, leading into committee, with a situation, a very flawed bill but a bill that would, perhaps, at least allow some projects to go forward. What did Conservatives do? We got to work. We rolled up our sleeves. We went to work. We did not simply say no and allow projects to just die on the drawing floor. We decided to work with the Bloc Québécois, quite frankly, to put in place the amendments we needed to ensure accountability and transparency. The member for Lakeland , particularly, did a great job of drafting and leading the charge on accountability and transparency amendments that would make sure the government could not do what it does best. Liberals are going to Liberal, quite frankly, which is to engage in corruption and cronyism. What are some of the things Conservatives have done?”
“I have an easy one for them. Repeal Bill C-69 . Get rid of the oil and gas cap. Get rid of the industrial carbon tax. No, the Liberals' solution is to do an end-around on all of those regulations they have put in place. Why not just fix them fundamentally? Conservatives are stuck here. We are sitting here saying, well, we want national projects to be built. We do not love the fact that they have this discretion, but we need pipelines built, we need roads built, we need railroads built, not just to grow the country economically but to unite us together. Quite frankly, the country is more divided than I can remember in my lifetime because of 10 years of Liberal government. We need to bring it together.”
“(1245) What the government is basically saying is that over the last 10 years, the old Liberal government, which is the same as the new Liberal government, put so many barriers in the way that it was impossible to build national projects, projects of national significance, projects that bring our country together. John A. Macdonald was able to build an entire railroad from coast to coast in the 1800s. We cannot seem to build a simple pipeline that goes across a provincial border. We cannot build roads. According to the former minister of environment, we do not even need new roads. We have put in Bill C-69 . We have put in the oil and gas cap. I should say that the Liberals have. They have also put in place the industrial carbon tax. They have so tainted the ground that it is impossible to get these projects built. What is their solution?”
“I extend an olive branch here, as I would love to work with the government over the coming months or years, however long it stays in power, to work with the provinces to get substantive work done to remove those interprovincial trade barriers and capitalize on the much-stated $200 billion in economic flows we can benefit from with the actual reduction of interprovincial trade barriers. The second part of this bill is the building Canada act. The building Canada act is the greatest admission of failure by a government in recent history. Let me say that again: It is the greatest admission of failure by any government in recent history.”
“He has the ability to provide financial incentives to provinces, like my own province of Ontario, where provincial leadership has torn down some of these barriers. Why not provide a financial incentive, additional federal funds, for those provinces that have the vision to reduce their interprovincial trade barriers? The best part about this is that it likely would not cost the treasury a dime. The reason is that tremendous amounts of economic flow can be generated by reducing these interprovincial trade barriers, allowing for greater tax revenue, which is likely an offset to the reduction of these trade barriers. Instead, the government has chosen to miss the moment, which is a real shame and a challenge.”
“Oftentimes, as members of the opposition, Conservatives are accused of just providing critiques without solutions. We have solutions too. As the government has seemed adept at stealing Conservative ideas, I am hoping its members are listening. We have the blue seal program, which would allow nurses and doctors to work from coast to coast without the need to get accredited again and again, which, after this legislation passes, sadly, will still need to be done in many cases. The other thing is that many of these are in provincial jurisdictions, which we heard brought up over and over again by the other side. The reality is, though, the Prime Minister has tremendous power, the power of moral suasion and the power of vision, to bring provinces together. If nothing else, the Prime Minister also has the power of the purse.”
“This, in addition to the tax cut, the massive expenditure, the consultant expenditure, is yet another broken Liberal promise. What this bill would do is allow, in certain circumstances, the authorization of provincially regulated products and services to be recognized in the federal context. It would also allow occupations that are authorized by provincial legislation to be recognized by federal legislation. The challenge is that this is an extremely limited scope. The actual number of interprovincial trade barriers that are federal in nature is tiny, perhaps less than 5% of the total number of trade barriers. In addition to that, there would actually be federal trade barriers that remain after the passage of this bill, so we would not even have eliminated all of the federal trade barriers.”
“The member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North was tremendous at committee, pushing for amendments to increase accountability and transparency in this flawed Liberal bill. Finally, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk did an absolutely tremendous job working hard at committee to restore order to this otherwise flawed legislation. Let me now start with where we are right now. Bill C-5 contains two pieces of legislation: one is the free trade and labour mobility act of Canada; the other is the building Canada act. The free trade act, or so it is called, would be anything but free trade. The Prime Minister promised during the campaign that there would be free trade in Canada by Canada Day. We now know, as we are closing the last day of our sitting in Parliament before summer break, that there will not be free trade in Canada by Canada Day.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying the word “pipeline”. I do believe pipelines will be nation building. I would actually like to start my speech by talking briefly about the contributions of some of the great Conservative members who have done a lot to improve this flawed Liberal legislation. There is the member for Lakeland , who has been leading the debate, leading the charge on bringing transparency and accountability to this legislation, and strongly supporting and representing the people of Alberta. The member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna has done tremendous work supporting free trade across our country. Years before it became invoked, he was pushing to free the beer and free the wine, and we all should salute his great work.”
“Mr. Speaker, especially with respect to interprovincial trade, I think we all agree that we need more of it, particularly in the context of the deteriorating relationship with our neighbour to the south. We agree on that, but the vast majority of interprovincial trade barriers will still remain after the passage of the bill. Do you think that things such as providing financial incentives to the provinces and a program such as the proposed blue seal program, which would allow nurses or doctors to work from coast to coast, would be positive?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is correct that the bill does provide the government with discretion to approve projects. I guess where the Conservatives and the Bloc separate is the fact that the Bloc members voted for Bill C-69 . They supported the industrial carbon tax. This is the very reason Bill C-5 is necessary. Will the member vote with Conservatives to eliminate Bill C-69 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today with respect to a petition. This petition is brought to us by petitioners as all Canadians face an inflation crisis. These particular petitioners are petitioning on behalf of seniors, who are facing incredibly high costs, often with fixed income. They are asking for relief, particularly for those who are survivors, or widows or widowers, from the CPP benefit and asking for 100% of the survivor benefit.”
“19, respecting the Species at Risk Act, is adopted, would be that this law may not be added back to schedule 2, should it ever be removed by the Governor in Council at some point in the future. In summary, Motions Nos. 18 and 19 are two separate motions proposed by members from two separate parties concerning very different subject matter and with two different procedural implications. In other words, separate votes on Motions Nos. 18 and 19 would not amount to two votes on the same issue. Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that this is a textbook instance for the Chair to exercise the authority described in Bosc and Gagnon to revisit and revise the voting pattern established for the report stage of Bill C-5 .”
“19, sponsored by the Green member , would seek to add the Species at Risk Act to that same list. One concerns workers' rights, and the other is environmental in nature. These are, I would suspect, very distinct policy fields and merit separate votes. Moreover, on procedural grounds, I would note that the Species at Risk Act is already listed in the building Canada act's proposed schedule 2. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands had proposed a companion amendment in Motion No. 26, which would have removed it from the list, but this motion was not selected for debate today. This means that the substantive effect of the motion concerning the Canada Labour Code, if adopted, would be that this law may never be added to schedule 2. On the other hand, the combined effect of the rulings on Motions Nos. 19 and 26, if Motion No.”
“The Speaker informs the House of the motions in amendment that he or she has selected and grouped for debate, the voting arrangements, and, where applicable, the motions in amendment that have not been selected, stating the reasons for this. Speakers have sometimes intervened at a later stage of the debate to revise the selection and grouping for debate of the motions in amendment. It is with respect to this latter point I am now rising. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, you have grouped Motions Nos. 18 and 19. Motion No. 18, sponsored by my Bloc Québécois colleague, seeks to add the Canada Labour Code to the list of laws that are carved out from the scope of clauses 21 and 22 of the proposed building Canada act, the so-called Henry VIII clauses in the bill. Motion No.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to the upcoming votes at report stage on Bill C-5 . Page 788 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, states: When the Speaker selects and groups motions in amendment, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting, that is, the Speaker determines the order in which the motions in amendment will be called and the effect of one vote on the others. The purpose of the voting scheme is to obviate any requirement for two or more votes on the same issue. The Speaker delivers his or her decision regarding the grouping of motions in amendment after the order for the consideration of report stage of the bill has been read.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with respect to the earlier point of order from the Bloc Québécois on the ability to move amendments, the reality is that, at 12 o'clock, amendments were still being voted on. In fact, they were deemed moved, and so there was no inability to have an amendment moved after 12 o'clock.”
“Motions Nos. 21 to 23 moved: Motion No. 21 That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 21 with the following: “Canada, including its prosperity and economic security, assured in part by the pursuit of the objectives” Motion No. 22 That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 21 with the following: “set out in section 4 relating to the development of natural resources, energy products and related infrastructure, shared jurisdiction, public” Motion No. 23 That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 21 with the following: “safety, national and international security, the facilitation of export markets, the quality of””
“Motion No. 15 moved: That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended (a) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 14 with the following: “dissolved.”; (b) by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 19 with the following: “or dissolved.”; (c) by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 20 with the following: “rogued or dissolved.”; and (d) by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 20 with the following: “rogued or dissolved.””
“Mr. Speaker, Ayn Rand once wrote about the way that socialist societies work. On the one hand, they create so many regulations that everyone is in violation, but then, on the other hand, the government will give individuals a “get out of jail free” card if they have preference and benefit from crony capitalism. That is the way that socialism would work. This might be an area of agreement with the member. Does the member believe that we should just reduce those regulations and let everyone build those projects or that we should keep those regulations the way they are and no one should build those projects?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to have free trade in Canada by Canada Day. He also promised that all federal and provincial trade barriers would be gone. That raises the question of whether a nurse from British Columbia would be able to work in Ontario, after this legislation is passed, without re-accreditation?”
“Madam Speaker, we have seen some challenges, of course, economically, and nearly every economist in Canada, if not the world, says we need to build major projects and we need to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. Does the member agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the government could have used the power of the bully pulpit and of the Prime Minister to show true leadership by outlining a vision, to both the premiers and all of Canada, of how we get to interprovincial trade. We knew at the time of the campaign that the Prime Minister misled Canadians when he said there would be free trade in Canada. What he should have done, which is what our leader did, is put out a detailed plan to eliminate those barriers and get Canadians the $200-billion benefit.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberals have been in power for the last decade. They did make a half-hearted attempt with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 2017, but they have not been serious. If they had been serious, they would have, in the decade they had to fix this, brought all the premiers around the table and demonstrated the economic importance of tearing down all interprovincial trade barriers and making sure that Canada was strong. Unfortunately, the Liberals have been focused on legislation like Bill C-69 , the gas cap and other legislation that is meant to weaken the Canadian economy and has left us in a difficult situation, having the lowest GDP per capita since the Great Depression.”
“Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member to hopefully improve this piece of legislation. The challenge here is that this is a baby step; it is a bread crumb. We really needed a major leap. If done right, it could save hundreds of billions of dollars and make the people of Quebec wealthier, but unfortunately, the government has decided to take baby steps when we needed a giant leap.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have, quite frankly, been proud of the way the provinces have moved on this. My problem is that during the campaign, the Prime Minister did not say the Liberals would talk to the provinces and do their best. He said there would be free trade in Canada by Canada Day. He misled Canadians, and that is very troubling. It was a big part of the election campaign and, quite frankly, he misled Canadians. That is just not right.”
“Instead of the Prime Minister rising to meet the moment, to eliminate all interprovincial trade barriers, to bring our country together, to make our country greater and more prosperous, the government decided to take the easy way out and make small revisions to interprovincial trade that will not accomplish it. Instead of saving the Canadian economy billions and creating more prosperity from coast to coast, it will merely be another photo op, another wrong step along the way towards interprovincial trade, towards making Canada a truly free trade zone. Here is to free trade in Canada on the Canada Day when Conservatives have a majority government.”
“We need those national projects both for our economy and also to bring us together, to unite us. Those projects will continue to be extremely difficult in the absence of a repeal of Bill C-69. Quite frankly, although the building Canada act may get more projects built, would it not be more sensible to instead tear down the framework of Bill C-69 ? The last decade has proven the government cannot get major projects in place. Build it down, restart the process, open up with a one-window project, not just for those who are friends of Liberal insiders but for all Canadians, for all proponents who are willing to throw down their hard-earned money in order to build national projects.”
“Some estimates put an increase in freight rates at 8%, affecting Canada's GDP by $1.6 billion. If we were able to get a harmonized or mutual recognition system in the trucking industry, that would literally make almost every product in our country cheaper. At a time when we see grocery prices going through the roof, and an affordability crisis, would that not be something great for Canadians to have? The Prime Minister could have made bold decisions. Instead of these little baby steps along the way, he could have made bold steps, such as repealing Bill C-69 , which would have allowed projects to be approved, which would have allowed those national projects that have forever stitched our country together, a country that started with the railroad that built our country.”
“It continues to walk away from anything that is difficult or hard. The government could have used the momentum it had gathered, worked with premiers who are more than willing. I must say, our premiers have done a great job in many respects to tear down these barriers, but federal leadership here would have been invaluable. However, once again, the government, well, it just does not do “hard”. For example, one thing the government could have done to make major progress was work to eliminate various trucking standards. This may not sound like the fanciest or the most exciting topic in the world, but it is incredibly important, because nearly every product we receive that goes on the shelves goes in a truck at some point. Right now, we have a myriad of different trucking regulations, from different weights to different safety restrictions.”
“It could have included in this legislation that if the provinces tear down x barrier, they will get this much more money from the federal government. The best part about this is that these types of benefits actually pay for themselves. As Trevor Tombe and others have written, the financial benefit of actually reducing barriers, and not just making a press conference or a show of it, is hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal government could share some of the benefit from that with the provinces, but it chose not to. The other part is that the government could have worked with provinces to create that Blue Seal program, allowing nurses, doctors and other health care professionals to work from coast to coast. Instead, the government has sort of gone from elbows up to turn, tuck tail and run.”
“Instead of misleading Canadians during the election, they could have done what our leader, Pierre Poilievre, did and actually have a plan that would work, that would deliver real financial and economic benefits for Canada. The first part would be to incentivize provinces. What is happening here is that the government is failing to meet the moment. We had an opportunity. Often, crises come with opportunities. There was a silver lining. It was creating momentum towards free trade. We saw the premiers working on their own accord to tear down barriers, but the federal government could have had a big role. In accordance with the Conservatives' campaign promise, the government could have provided financial incentive.”
“Most occupations are regulated provincially. For example, if a nurse who was accredited in B.C. wants to move to Ontario, they have to be re-accredited in Ontario. This legislation will not affect that. There will be a very limited impact on labour mobility in Canada by July 1, even going forward. With respect to products and services that is also usually the case. The products are regulated at the provincial level. The barriers then stop interprovincial trade from occurring. I have a spoiler alert to everyone out there: The Liberals have already broken a promise. We will not have free trade in Canada by Canada Day. (1335) There was a much more sensible approach.”
“Free trade in Canada by Canada Day”.On April 21, the Prime Minister said, “And we'll work with the provinces to make sure all our health care professionals can work anywhere in Canada, as part of a drive for free trade in Canada by Canada Day.” It is pretty clear what the Prime Minister committed to. He committed to having no interprovincial trade barriers by July 1, specifically, neither provincial and federal. That is what free trade in Canada by Canada Day means. The reality is that that will not happen even if this legislation gets passed by July 1. The reason is that the scope of this legislation is so very limited. It is limited to products, services and occupations that are federal in nature. The reality is that most products and services, or at least a large portion of them, are regulated by the provinces.”