Bill C-39

Building Canada Strong Act

An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy

Part 1 implements certain measures in relation to project evaluations.
Division 1 of Part 1 amends the Impact Assessment Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is to conduct the impact assessment of a designated project that includes activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act ;
(b) authorize the Minister of the Environment to grant certain federal authorizations that are required in respect of a designated project at the same time that the Minister issues a decision statement in respect of the project;
(c) ensure that a decision statement in respect of a designated project for which the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conducts the impact assessment is issued within one year after the proponent provides the required information or studies;
(d) provide for the coordination of the impact assessment of designated projects and the review processes for certain federal authorizations that are required in respect of those projects; and
(e) provide for the coordination of consultations with Indigenous groups.
Division 2 of Part 1 amends the Building Canada Act to, among other things,
(a) establish, for certain types of projects located within a region of national interest, a similar framework to the one applicable to national interest projects;
(b) allow the minister designated under that Act to add, remove or amend any condition in respect of an authorization that was granted for a national interest project before the name of that project was added to Schedule 1 to that Act;
(c) ensure that obligations to make information public associated with decisions made under that Act are administratively feasible; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to add the name of a region to a new schedule to that Act if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the designation of that region is in the national interest.
Division 3 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Energy Regulator Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure decisions in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects are issued within one year of receiving the required information and studies;
(b) provide for the coordination of consultations with Indigenous peoples of Canada in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects;
(c) provide for the coordination of federal authorizations in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects with federal authorities;
(d) provide that the Commission is the sole assessor of applications in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects;
(e) provide authority for the Commission to
(i) make decisions in respect of applications relating to pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects, unless otherwise specified in the Act,
(ii) exempt certain pipelines or branches of or extensions to pipelines from the application of certain provisions, and
(iii) integrate a detailed route hearing into an ongoing hearing; and
(f) provide that the Governor in Council is to determine whether certain pipelines and designated power lines are in the public interest.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Federal Courts Act and the Northern Pipeline Act .
Division 4 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to require the Minister of Transport to, among other things, take into account the feasibility of the terms and conditions in respect of an approval relating to certain works. It also transfers to that Minister the power to exempt bodies of water from the application of certain provisions of the Act if that Minister is satisfied that it would be in the public interest. Finally, it allows the Governor in Council to make regulations to exclude structures, devices or other things from the definition “work” to avoid duplication with other Acts and regulations.
Division 5 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things,
(a) ensure that environmental protection compliance orders may be issued with respect to any thing to which that Act applies and to non-continuing offences, including with respect to contravening imports;
(b) broaden the scope of such orders by permitting an enforcement officer to direct a person to take additional measures, such as managing contravening imports in the manner specified in the order, returning them to their place of origin or removing them from Canada; and
(c) provide that certain permits issued under that Act may, in certain circumstances, be valid for more than one year.
Division 6 of Part 1 amends the Species at Risk Act to, among other things, require the competent minister to take into account the feasibility of the terms and conditions in respect of certain agreements and permits.
Division 7 of Part 1 amends the Fisheries Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the fish habitat bank regime to allow for the use of habitat credits by third parties;
(b) authorize the making of regulations respecting the circumstances in which a person who is authorized to carry on a work, undertaking or activity may pay a fee to offset adverse effects on fish and fish habitat and provide for these fees to be credited to the Environmental Damages Fund; and
(c) transfer certain regulation-making powers from the Governor in Council to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Part 2 implements certain measures in relation to supply chains.
Division 1 of Part 2 amends the Department of Transport Act to provide the Minister of Transport with the power to establish a transportation project office that coordinates review processes for federal authorizations and consultations with respect to transportation projects.
Division 2 of Part 2 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Minister of Transport may designate geographic areas as trade corridors and establish the National Trade Corridors Council, whose mandate is to monitor the movement of goods in trade corridors, analyze disruptions that may affect trade corridors and make recommendations and provide advice to that Minister;
(b) provide that Minister with the authority to make regulations to give effect to international standards or ensure compliance with Canada’s international obligations;
(c) expand the purposes for which that Minister may request that federal departments and agencies provide information that has already been provided by regulated entities to those federal departments and agencies;
(d) clarify the application of the requirement to notify that Minister of proposed transactions involving transportation undertakings;
(e) reduce the threshold for the requirement to notify that Minister and the Commissioner of Competition of proposed transactions involving transportation undertakings situated in a “port”, as defined in section 5 of the Canada Marine Act ;
(f) provide that that Minister may, for any purpose related to transportation security or safety, to the integrity of the national transportation system or to public safety or for any purpose specified by order, grant, suspend or cancel security clearances;
(g) authorize, for the purposes of administering and enforcing the security clearances regime, certain individuals or entities to collect information from and disclose information to each other;
(h) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting security clearances;
(i) expand the exceptions to the requirement to obtain the Canadian Transportation Agency’s approval for the construction of railway lines; and
(j) establish, for a period of four years, a zone in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in which any interswitching that occurs is subject to the rate determined by the Canadian Transportation Agency.
Division 3 of Part 2 amends the Canada Marine Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to allow a port authority to enter into joint-liability arrangements and to create entities other than wholly-owned subsidiaries to undertake activities within or outside the limits of the port;
(b) authorize the Minister of Transport to appoint certain directors of a port authority;
(c) add principles that a port authority must observe when fixing port fees and expand the grounds on which a fee-related complaint may be filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency;
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to appoint, in certain circumstances, an administrator for a not-for-profit corporation that has entered into an agreement in respect of the St. Lawrence Seaway;
(e) authorize that Minister to terminate such an agreement or any part of one and provide for a dispute resolution process to deal with any disputes arising from the termination; and
(f) authorize that Minister to require that any of the following persons take measures to prevent or mitigate certain threats or stop any activity that would contribute to such threats:
(i) a port authority,
(ii) a person in charge of a port facility,
(iii) a person responsible for the management and operation of all or part of the St. Lawrence Seaway or for any works, undertakings or property used in the operation of the Seaway,
(iv) an occupier or person in charge of any federal real property, or any federal immovable, that is subject to being administered under Part 3 of that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Port Authorities Operations Regulations .
Division 4 of Part 2 amends the Marine Liability Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the definition “receiver” to refer to the person who physically receives bulk hazardous and noxious substances carried by sea as cargo and discharged at a port or terminal in Canada; and
(b) harmonize the inspection and enforcement provisions relating to that person.
It also makes related amendments to the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act .
Division 5 of Part 2 amends the Coasting Trade Act to allow foreign ships or non-duty paid ships to engage, without a licence, in activities in response to a declared emergency.
Division 6 of Part 2 repeals the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act .
Division 7 of Part 2 amends the International Bridges and Tunnels Act to allow the Minister of Transport to make certain decisions that were previously made exclusively by the Governor in Council.
Division 8 of Part 2 enacts the Enabling Digital Trade Act which, among other things,
(a) sets out the rules for the use of electronic trade documents as the functional equivalents to paper trade documents that are related to trade in goods;
(b) eliminates the requirement to provide information to the Government of Canada in physical form in relation to the importation or exportation of goods; and
(c) permits a federal minister, or an officer or employee of a department or agency of the Government of Canada, to disclose information that is related to the importation or exportation of goods if the receiving minister, department or agency of the government is permitted by law to collect that information.
Part 3 implements certain measures related to the work force.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) establish new requirements and timelines related to collective bargaining;
(b) provide for the transfer of certain rights in the context of certain contractors being replaced by new contractors;
(c) establish new requirements and authorities in relation to entering into first collective agreements;
(d) provide that the Canada Industrial Relations Board may certify a trade union as the bargaining agent for existing bargaining units in certain industries in certain geographic areas on application of two or more employers, on referral of the Minister of Labour or on that Board’s initiative;
(e) confer on the Minister of Labour the power to appoint a special mediator to assist parties in settling a dispute that arises in connection with the entering into, renewal or revision of a collective agreement; and
(f) establish new requirements for that Minister to direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to take measures under section 107 of that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to certain regulations.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Head of Compliance and Enforcement to issue a settlement enforcement order requiring an employer or director of a corporation to pay any outstanding amounts that are to be paid under a settlement with an employee; and
(b) permit an order to debtor to be issued, in certain circumstances, before a settlement enforcement order or payment order has been issued.
Division 3 of Part 3 provides that Division XIII of Part III of the Canada Labour Code does not apply to an employer and employees who are parties to a collective agreement that confers rights and benefits at least as favourable as those conferred by that Division XIII with respect to medical leave of absence with pay.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to, among other things, define the term “former employer” for the purposes of that Act and to specify that the Minister may confirm, vary or rescind a determination of eligibility even without a request for review.

Building Canada Strong Act

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want more housing, robust infrastructure, energy projects and trade corridors. Bill C-39 is specifically designed to reduce delays and enable projects of national interest to be completed more quickly, while, of course, maintaining the consultations and safeguards provided for by law.

My question is simple. Does the Bloc Québécois actively support the objective of building faster here in Canada? If so, which specific measures would it like to see fast-tracked in Bill C-39?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as tackling the housing crisis is concerned, quite frankly, there are other solutions than those set out in Bill C-39. There are more options than simply passing laws that will undermine other laws. My colleague from Joliette—Manawan asked some excellent questions today about the homelessness crisis.

I would like to draw a connection to another question raised by the Bloc Québécois today: What is the national interest? Frankly, investing money in programs that will help build housing and support organizations working with people experiencing homelessness would be a social project that would do far more to advance the national interest.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C‑15, the government granted Alto new powers to expropriate privately owned land. In Bill C‑39, the government is granting itself new powers to allow preliminary work to benefit the Alto project.

What does the Bloc Québécois member think about that? Did the Bloc Québécois support these proposed new powers for Alto, or did it oppose them?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for making an effort to ask his question in French. When it comes to the government giving itself new powers, that is exactly what it is doing with Bill C‑39. That is also what it did with Bill C‑5. As I have shown, power is being centralized within the executive branch. The government is giving itself new powers. There is no longer any accountability. We see this in the government's approach to workers' rights, for instance. The government is effectively eliminating the opportunity for debate.

Too often, in the interest of expediting projects, it is clear that the government is more interested in giving itself new powers than in genuinely consulting communities.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been telling us all evening that we might need to reduce the impact of regulatory constraints to promote trade corridors and infrastructure projects. However, the only infrastructure project they have mentioned so far is a pipeline that would cost at least $44 billion.

I am sure my colleague can tell us everything we could do with $44 billion to help people who are struggling with an affordability crisis and perhaps even seniors who are having trouble making ends meet. Increasing the old age security pension might be a good idea.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in any case, that $44 billion would not be used to enrich U.S. interests or bolster U.S. energy security. Instead it would be used for projects that are truly in the national interest here. With $44 billion, we could easily increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74 so that they get the same 10% increase as seniors aged 75 and older.

Someone was just talking to me about construction. I think that with $44 billion, without violating any other laws, we could easily invest more in organizations working on social housing and homelessness, in projects that are much more promising and much more helpful to the people here. That would also help people.

Everyone is talking about inflation—all the more reason to help the people here get through this difficult time. There are countless examples we could give.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening. It is quite late, and we are debating this important bill, Bill C‑39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy. It will come as no surprise to learn that the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes this bill as introduced by the Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

Let me be quite clear: We are not opposing it just for the sake of it. I can confirm that we would all be happier to be able to put our energy and time into serving our constituents rather than spending another evening in the House debating this bill, before a government that refuses to listen and pushes forward as though it were free to do whatever it wants. We oppose it because the proposed changes are simply unreasonable and unjustifiable to the public and our constituents.

That is what Liberal-style democracy under the Prime Minister looks like right now. The government is using a temporary trade crisis as an excuse to impose legislative changes that will be permanent. These changes are likely to follow us for decades, long after the end of the crisis that served to justify them. The government is exploiting a trade dispute to further centralize power in Ottawa. They want to allow themselves to circumvent certain environmental laws, they want to weaken workers' rights, they want to open the door to the privatization of our ports and airports, and above all, they want to compromise independent scientific analyses, even while infringing on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces when it comes to natural resource management.

Let us start with a first example: workers' rights. The bill contains amendments to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. These amendments are intended to authorize the Canada Industrial Relations Board to limit workers' right to use necessary job action in a labour dispute. A minister would be allowed to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to impose a binding settlement during collective bargaining when the minister determines that a strike or lockout would have a negative national impact or cause serious social disruptions. It is a roundabout way of telling employers that they can take a hard line during negotiations, that they should not worry, that there will be no strike. That is essentially what it does legislatively.

When negotiations between employers and unions break down to the point where one of the workers' only remaining options is to exercise their right to strike, we believe the very purpose of that right is to create economic and social repercussions that will encourage the employer to return to the bargaining table. To claim that these changes do not weaken the right to strike shows a striking misunderstanding of the history of the social movements that fought to secure that right in the first place. It took decades of social struggle to make progress on workers' rights and environmental protection, but with this bill, the government would like to be able to sweep away these gains in a matter of minutes.

Then there is the issue of environmental assessments and major projects. I think that is a pretty important part of this bill. I would like to focus on division 1 of Bill C‑39, which would impose a maximum one-year time limit on the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada for completing its reviews of so-called projects of national interest. Again, it is one thing to want to speed up the assessment process, but it is quite another to not even wait for the recommendations of those assessments before approving major projects.

If there is one thing I quickly understood as the Bloc Québécois critic for public accounts, it is that, when a political decision is made too quickly and needs to be reversed, the price to be paid is much higher than if the government had taken the time to do things right from the start. When it comes to the environment or biodiversity, the price is not always calculated solely in dollars.

Let me give another example. Changes to the Fisheries Act would allow proponents to pay money to third parties to offset habitat loss caused by their project. The government is making decisions that could have long-term consequences on the environment without even taking the time to consult the experts within the government itself.

I am referring to the chief science adviser.

I have sat as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research since it was first created. The chief science adviser came to see us a few months ago when the government introduced Bill C-5. She described it as a disaster, and said that the government was circumventing laws, especially legislation related to the environment and other measures, without even consulting scientific experts. The chief science adviser confided that neither she nor the other members had been consulted in any way about the selection of major projects said to be of national interest.

This is a government that simply wants to do things its own way, or listen only to people who share its views and want the same things it does. That is what we have come to. Once a decision is made, it has to be owned. Sometimes, by the time it can be reversed, it is already too late.

Certain things simply cannot be repaired. Concerning Bill C‑39, we understand that the government wants to fast-track the new Alberta pipeline project. It could be approved even before environmental assessments are completed.

What is the plan if we have to reverse course? The government pre-approves a project, does not even know if it will be good, and then it is too late to backtrack. If the final recommendations from the experts were negative, would it really be possible to make changes to the project when it is already under way?

I think the answer is obvious.

Let me give an example. We build the foundation of a house and then realize that the ground is unstable and we have to rebuild somewhere else. Imagine the cost. That is for a house, but let us draw a parallel with a pipeline.

That is precisely the problem with this bill. Right now, the government before us has exhausted its political arguments to persuade the public. It says that there are major projects of national interest and that it wants to create pathways and mechanisms by concentrating power in the hands of a single minister who could, by the government's own account, designate a project as being in the national interest, amend the Impact Assessment Act, weaken environmental policies and even permanently eliminate them.

Instead of continuing discussions in a democratic manner, bringing together the relevant stakeholders and the various levels of government around one table, the government decides to introduce a bill that is over 250 pages long and imposes the vision of just one man or maybe a few people in the Prime Minister's Office.

They want to build Canada strong, and that is the slogan the Liberals keep spewing every day. I do not really agree that undermining accountability and weakening the decisions made in Parliament is the way to build Canada strong.

Power is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of the executive. The government wants to limit the ability of elected officials to hold it to account.

Where else in any modern, industrialized country is this kind of legislation being introduced? If the Liberals can come up with an example of this, I would be curious to know. I checked. No G7 country has brought forward this sort of legislation. They are no worse off than we are. They too face challenges when it comes to the economy and assessment processes. What we are seeing today is more of an authoritarian drift than the application of sound economic and mathematical reasoning to projects said to be in the public interest.

I want to be clear for those watching at home. This government is not introducing these changes in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians. Its goal is to concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals or even a single individual.

Quebec's motto is “Je me souviens” or “I remember”, and I can guarantee that we will remember this Liberal government's authoritarian abuse for a long time to come.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague said that we were using a temporary crisis as an excuse to take action. I worked in the business world for over 25 years. I was involved in corporate financing, and I can say that the lack of predictability is hindering investment and growth. I challenge him to name any major projects that have been carried out in Canada in the past 20, 30 or 40 years. Large-scale projects are no longer being undertaken. Why? It is because the process takes too long. People no longer want to invest in these sorts of projects. The investments are going elsewhere.

I would like my colleague to tell me what he would do to find a way to finally get large-scale projects going again and think big for our country, Canada.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a great pass from my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. I will remind him.

One project I completely disagreed with was the Trans Mountain pipeline, which the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau bought with nearly $40 billion in taxpayer money. Are we any richer? Are we more prosperous? Are we more independent? That is what the Prime Minister likes to claim when patting himself on the back, but the answer is no. Gas has never been as expensive as it is now. Affordability has not improved much over the past few years either.

I want my colleague to think about what he just said. His government managed to buy a pipeline with taxpayer money without passing a bill that would allow it to sidestep laws or fast-track major projects of national interest. Now the government wants to buy another pipeline, but it wants to do it faster and without any accountability.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very tired. Could the Bloc Québécois member attack the government for me, please?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned what a nice pass I got from my colleague, but this one is a slam dunk.

I believe I summarized things quite well in my speech. The situation we are facing today is historic. First there was Bill C-5. That was the bill that allowed projects of national interest to be identified. Broadly speaking, the government, or even the minister, could bypass all laws, except the Criminal Code, for a period of five years. Then, people on the other side of the House realized that five years might not be enough, so they decided to introduce another bill to allow them to bypass laws permanently.

I just gave an example. The Liberals managed to secure a pipeline using $40 billion of public funds without having to bypass environmental impact assessments. Now they want to secure a second pipeline and are trying to make us believe they need to bypass those assessments. Clearly, this is hypocrisy. They are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by claiming that, ultimately, they have our best interests at heart.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about things that are historic. What is historic is a government that was elected just 18 months ago and that has already started delivering on its promises. During the 2025 election campaign, we were very clear that we wanted to get building quickly. In addition to building and moving forward with the Major Projects Office, we also launched the electrification strategy, the nuclear strategy, the strategy to protect nature and Build Canada Homes. We are building.

I would like my colleague to tell me a bit about his solutions for helping Canada get through these times and really lay out a vision for Canada's future.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have plenty of solutions. We can support the industries we have here, including lumber, aluminum and renewable energy. We already have that in place. We can invest in modernization. We can invest in innovation. These are all things that are possible. We can improve secondary and tertiary processing instead of selling our resources at a discount on international markets. These are all things that can be done.

I understand what my colleague is trying to argue. It is quite difficult. Once again, I would like the government members to explain how they managed to buy a pipeline without having passed the bill currently before us. They want to buy another one, but they just want to do it faster. It is utter nonsense.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be closing out the evening on Bill C-39. Let me start with some great literature:

We have all some experience of a feeling, that comes over us occasionally, of what we are saying and doing having been said and done before, in a remote time—of our having been surrounded, dim ages ago, by the same faces, objects, and circumstances—of our knowing perfectly what will be said next, as if we suddenly remembered it!

That is from the great author Charles Dickens's work David Copperfield. Members will understand that he is describing that sense we have when the present moment feels like it has already happened. That is what it feels like tonight. More commonly, people might refer to this as déjà vu.

Déjà vu is what I have tonight because I remember being here in June 2025, when the Minister responsible for One Canadian Economy said, “The time for resolute action is now.” He said, “For far too long, major projects...have been stalled by assessments, challenges, and overlapping and duplicative regulations.” He said, “[Bill C-5] would introduce a new tool, a process for identifying, prioritizing and advancing transformative infrastructure and development projects.” The government House leader came out and declared, “It is time to build.”

The Prime Minister himself said:

The process to build in this country has become too arduous, it takes too long, and it is holding us back. With every year that a proposal to build a port, wind energy farm, or highway sits on an official's desk, we are leaving investment, prosperity, jobs—people's careers—on the table.

Well, I hate to inform members, but it has been 18 months since the Prime Minister spoke those words, and we have not seen a port, a wind energy farm or a highway approved, let alone built. It remains on desks or not even proposed.

Bill C-5 was supposed to give the government the powers that it said it needed, including some very significant King Henry VIII powers to allow ministers to go around existing laws in Canada. At the time, following the election, which the Liberals won, they said this was what their mandate was. We saw some merit in that proposal, and we supported it. We supported it in haste because that is what the government asked. Then we waited, and we waited some more. What did we get for waiting? What did Canadians get for waiting? We got nothing.

We have seen nothing. We have seen no projects, no ports and no wind energy farms, nothing. In fact, almost as if the Liberals knew they were going to get challenged on this, they had to approve at least one project through their new Major Projects Office and just two weeks ago had to say something about that with respect to a pipeline.

Now we are hearing the very same things. All this week, I have heard the exact same refrains from the government. It is teaching me that execution is just as important as the legal structures we change. Bill C-39 does have some new parts, and some good parts too, and I will get to one of them that I want to talk about. In fact, there are some parts of Bill C-39 that would make a member of the Conservative benches blush.

I have been pondering something for some time. I have been pondering whether the Liberals will actually show up. Will the real Liberals please stand up? In fact, I got my answer yesterday afternoon when the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country got up and, while he tiptoed around the issue, quite effectively I will say, broke ranks with his party respecting Bill C-39. He described some of the serious concerns he had about a lack of guardrails on environmental concerns, indigenous consultation and a host of other issues.

I bring that up not to drive a wedge within their party. They can do that themselves. I actually do not want to criticize the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for that. He should be applauded for engaging in independent thought on the other side of the aisle.

I am a big believer that members of Parliament should get up and say what they believe, even if it is different from what their party thinks sometimes. I applaud him for that. I am glad that a real Liberal showed up on this bill. I will remind my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country that I share his perspective on that. He may recall that I was one of four members of the Conservative caucus to vote for his private member's bill. I read it and I thought it was a good idea, so I voted for it.

I do want to talk about one part of the bill that I think is a good idea, but in true Liberal fashion, it only goes halfway and it has some serious problems. It points out that this bill, and this specific part, really need some study but it will not get it, unfortunately. I am talking about division 8 of the bill, the enabling digital trade act. We can go through Hansard but I think only three or four people have mentioned this division because we are talking about a bill that is 300 pages long and being rammed through Parliament. Therefore, not all the sections of this bill have received their just due.

The digital trade act seeks to enact the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records. UNCITRAL is the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and this model law was actually prepared in 2017. For everyone at home paying attention, electronic transferable records are commercial documents in electronic form that govern things like the payment of goods, the ownership of goods or terms of delivery. We might know them more commonly, or through their historic names, as things like a bill of lading, a promissory note or a bill of exchange.

This proposal seeks to allow, business to business or business to government, use for import and export purposes or commercial arrangements, electronic documents. That is a good thing, one that I support. In true fashion, we actually agreed to this in 2021 in the G7 digital and technology ministerial declaration. I guess it is better late than never.

The bill follows a familiar pattern of the Liberal government: talk a big game, make wild claims, but when we peek under the hood, there is much less than meets the eye. It is very Trumpian, I would say. When we look at this proposal, there are some serious pieces missing and a few problems. These are problems that could probably be solved in committee and with study, but that will not happen with this. Let me describe two of the problems.

First, let us look at what is missing. The proposal for the digital trade act only goes halfway because it only applies in federal areas of jurisdiction. I understand Parliament cannot change provincial laws, of course, but without a plan from the government to address commercial documentation at the provincial level, like a sale of goods is a provincial responsibility, the proposal is incomplete. It is very much like the internal trade issues with a big promise: free trade by Canada Day 2025, yet I still cannot buy great wine from the Okanagan in Ontario. A big promise, but a failure to achieve.

The second problem with the digital trade act is an important one. It is the disclosure of company information. If we read the act, it abrogates pretty much every information protection that exists in Canadian law for customs and other proprietary information that is exchanged to government during the course of importing or exporting.

For example, with the Customs Act, when we import or export something, we provide proprietary information to the government and the government says, “I will keep that secret.” If we look at this proposal, it actually says that the Customs Act will not apply and the government can give that information out as it sees fit. That is not much comfort for those who are dealing with the government.

We have a decent proposal, one with two glaring errors, and no time to fix them because of the government's haste. We tried this 18 months ago and we got nothing for it. I feel a bit of déjà vu, being here and having to receive a request to do the same thing again. I think we know the old phrase of doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. What I have learned is that all this change, all this talk, does not mean anything if we cannot execute it. We have had 18 months and no execution.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really enjoy working with him at the Standing Committee on International Trade.

I would like to understand something. He talked a lot about major projects, projects of national interest. I think he is aware that projects of this scale take longer than 12 months to complete. I think it is important to keep that in mind. He sits with me at the Standing Committee on International Trade, and he knows very well that what we have heard most often is that businesses need predictability to invest, to move forward, and to ensure growth. They need certainty.

I would like to know if my colleague believes that Bill C-39 will provide businesses with the predictability they need to invest.