The New Brunswick government is being accused of adopting Donald Trump-style protectionism in violation of an internal trade agreement among Canadian provinces and territories.
A lawyer for an Ontario construction company made the accusation on the first day of a hearing convened in Fredericton under the 2017 Canadian Free Trade Agreement.
Julmac Contracting Ltd. alleges the province discriminated against it as an out-of-province contractor in favour of local companies on four bridge projects.
“New Brunswick has committed itself … that it will in fact walk the talk” on open trade between provinces, Julmac lawyer David Outerbridge said at the outset of the hearing.
“The question for the panel this week is: did New Brunswick honour that promise?”
Outerbridge compared the province’s treatment of Julmac to U.S. tariffs imposed on Canada by the Trump administration in 2025 — both of them “variations on the same wrong-headed idea,” he said.
Outerbridge called New Brunswick “a well-known violator” of internal trade principles, noting it has scored poorly in an annual Canadian Federation of Independent Business report on interprovincial barriers.
The most recent report gave the province a C grade and ranked it ninth out of 13 provinces and territories.
Julmac’s complaint revolves around its work on the Anderson Bridge replacement in Miramichi and the refurbishments of the Mactaquac Dam bridge, parts of the Centennial Bridge in Miramichi and the Nashwaak Bridge in the Marysville area of Fredericton.
The company’s lawyers said last year it was kicked off three of those projects after it filed the trade complaint.
Julmac alleges the province waived some requirements for New Brunswick companies but not for Julmac, costing it millions of dollars more than local contractors and putting it at a competitive disadvantage.
N.B. government faces scrutiny in internal trade case
It argued in filings the department forced it to use costlier materials, was less flexible on penalties for missed deadlines and took longer to review and approve plans compared to local companies.
On Monday, Outerbridge asked Darren Colford, a senior DTI engineer and the hearing’s first witness, to confirm that the department forced Julmac to resubmit “shop drawings” — technical blueprints — multiple times for departmental approval.
“I’ve heard that,” Colford said.
But the engineer hesitated and claimed to not understand several followup questions about how frequently that happened.
“I would have to check the record to find out exactly how often,” he said.
Outerbridge and Colford then spent part of the morning haggling over technical aspects of concrete pouring as the lawyer probed whether DTI treated Julmac “less favourably” than New Brunswick companies.
Outerbridge also tried to get Colford to admit that Julmac was required to have fuel spill containment trays under its equipment “all the time,” while a local company was exempt from what is a mandatory requirement.
“I can’t answer that for every piece of equipment that Julmac had in this province,” Colford answered.
Later, another Julmac lawyer, Shalom Cumbo-Steinmetz, quizzed DTI engineer Rémi Jalbert about documents showing an engineering firm hired by the province directed Julmac to change its design drawings.
Jalbert said he didn’t know why those changes were ordered.
“I’m not sure about the entire story,” he said. “There might be a reason why.”
The hearing is the first ever held under the current version of the internal trade agreement.
Ryan Manucha, a research fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute who writes about internal trade, said this gives the process “massive significance.”
“It means the internal trade court is alive and well and it’s being used as intended,” he said. “It means there’s a vibrant internal trade apparatus for recourse when there’s an internal trade barrier.”
A panel of three trade lawyers from Ontario and British Columbia is hearing the case over five days this week. Three other provincial governments, Ontario, Nova and Saskatchewan, are intervening in the hearing.
Julmac is not seeking damages in the case.
The company is asking for a finding that New Brunswick violated the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and a recommendation that it treat out-of-province contractors the same as local companies.
Otherwise, the 2017 agreement to reduce trade barriers between provinces is meaningless, Outerbridge said.
“The CFTA was created for a purpose, and that purpose should be realized.”
Manucha said the hearing is also important because the panel’s ruling will be the first time many key concepts in the agreement are interpreted.
“It will give other workers, businesses, and governments clarity as to how their cases might unfold,” he said.
That could encourage more use of the complaint process, he said.
