Madam Speaker, these transactions seem routine, but they are built upon a foundation of public confidence that when we do business, buy fuel or transport goods, or when oil is shipped through my riding, for example, the systems underpinning our economy are accurate, fair and trustworthy.
The purpose of Bill S-3, therefore, is not simply to protect those standards. It is also to modernize them and how the government is enforcing them. I think the enforcement part really deserves a lot of attention during the upcoming debate. In my view, from my preliminary reading of the legislation, the most significant parts of the bill are found in sections 17 and 19, because they recognize a reality that many Canadians have been pointing out for years: government institutions cannot continue operating with 20th-century tools in a 21st-century economy.
Section 17 is perhaps the clearest example of this modernization effort. Today, businesses increasingly operate through digital platforms. Records are stored electronically, transactions move through complex telecommunication systems, and data is generated and transferred in real time, yet many of the regulatory frameworks that operate under our current laws were designed in an era when inspectors relied on paper records and on-site reviews. Section 17 would modernize our way of doing business, the way of regulating the flow of goods in Canada, and would acknowledge that the world has changed.
It would equip inspectors with the ability to access electronic records, review information contained within computer systems, reproduce digital documents and make use of telecommunication technologies in the conduct of their responsibilities. In practical terms, it would mean that regulators could follow information where it actually exists in today's economy, rather than simply relying exclusively on paper records and physical inspections, which is, frankly, way too common in our economy. It would give the power to inspectors to access and review information in a digital environment where modern commerce increasingly occurs.
This may sound like just a technical change, but it reflects an important principle: Effective oversight requires modern tools. I believe that Canadians understand that principle even more instinctively than government does today. In fact, one of the most consistent criticisms I hear, living in and representing a community on the border with the United States, at the border crossing in my riding, is that our institutions are not modernizing quickly enough. No agency illustrates this concern more clearly than Canada Border Services Agency. Canadians routinely hear concerns about long processing times, increasing trade volumes, evolving criminal networks and the growing sophistication of cross-border threats.
Where I live, we hear many concerns about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at our points of entry. There are concerns with its capacity to examine things such as spent fowl, chicken from birds that were used for hatching eggs, coming into Canada, and whether it is compliant with existing trade frameworks and regulations.
Canadians are concerned that we are not doing a good enough job monitoring the flow of goods in an effective way that upholds our trade agreements and Canadian businesses. This concern is not merely whether government has enough personnel or capacity. It is whether government has applied the right tools to ensure equity, equal terms, in the way we do business.
Canadians expect the agencies responsible for protecting our borders to operate in the digital world. They expect those agencies to use modern technology, modern data analysis and modern inspection techniques. They expect government to identify risks efficiently rather than relying on the outdated processes that, I believe, Bill S-3 is, in good faith, trying to amend.
I should be clear that Bill S-3 would not amend legislation governing CBSA. However, section 17 and other parts of the bill reflect exactly the kind of modernization mindset that Canadians increasingly want to see throughout government. When Parliament recognizes that inspection agencies need access to electronic information, digital records, measuring equipment or telecommunications in order to do their job effectively, it is acknowledging a broader truth that modernization is no longer optional.
This does touch close to home for my constituents. The transfer station for the Trans Mountain pipeline is on Sumas Mountain, just a few kilometres from where I grew up. At that transfer station, 37% of all oil shipped through the Trans Mountain pipeline goes under Highway 1 and across Sumas Prairie to northern Washington state, where it is processed and refined. The Enbridge natural gas pipeline was approved by the Liberal government. It has a transfer station at the Huntingdon border crossing area as well. My constituents expect government to make sure that they have the most modern and efficient ways of regulating the flow of those goods, not only to protect but also to monitor and to know what we are actually doing in our economy.
Government oversight has to evolve alongside the economy it regulates. That same modernization philosophy, I will note, can be seen in section 19. Historically, regulators often operated in a reactive manner. A violation occurred, and the government would respond. Section 19 would move us toward a preventative model by giving regulators tools to require corrective and preventative measures before non-compliance becomes entrenched or there is an accident with the Trans Mountain pipeline, just as an example. In other words, the focus would shift from reacting to violations and toward preventing violations. That may seem like a subtle distinction, but would represent a significant change in our regulatory approach here in Canada.
I will note that Canadians businesses consistently want this regulatory change, so whether we are discussing consumer protection, public safety, transportation or border security, my constituents want to know that the government has the ability to identify risks and to respond proactively. In the same region where the Trans Mountain pipeline crosses Sumas Prairie, there are pumps that regulate water flow. It was those same pumps and our diking system that failed in 2021 and exposed the Enbridge pipeline and the Trans Mountain pipeline to risk. Those pump stations were not up to date and were not working effectively. This legislation might improve our overall effectiveness at doing those tasks.
Going back to discussion about the border, when Canadians express frustration about border management, they are frequently expressing frustration with a system they perceive as reactive rather than proactive. They want government to anticipate emerging threats, whether it is food safety or illegal drugs going north and south on the border. They want systems that identify risk before they reach our communities. They want agencies that leverage technology and intelligence to stay ahead of evolving challenges. The preventative approach, the risk-based approach, reflected in section 19, mirrors those broader expectations and recognizes that effective regulation is not simply about enforcement after the fact; it is about building systems that reduce harm.
Whether Canadians are filling up their vehicles, reviewing their utility bills, purchasing goods at a store or expecting government agencies to protect our borders, they want to know that systems are serving a purpose, that the members of the House are taking care of business in the most real way possible to make sure that people can move goods and do so effectively.
In conclusion, as the bill is scrutinized in Parliament, I hope my fellow legislators will review with a fine-tooth comb the sections that would expand power to, as the bill refers to, the president, who is in fact the industry minister, with new inspection powers, especially with respect to the data and technology components that would be added to the legislation. It is important to ensure that there would in fact be proper checks and balances put upon the use of those powers, and that the use of those powers would be extremely limited to the flow of goods in question that are subject to these existing laws and regulations under the Weights and Measures Act and other applicable bills.
For these reasons, I do believe, with a tiny bit of apprehension about ministerial power, that Bill S-3 is a step in the right direction. I look forward to a wholesome debate, a technical debate, that would improve the way we conduct commerce in Canada.