Debates of Oct. 7th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again this evening to speak to Bill C‑39, which, I would remind the House, represents a crushing setback for workers' rights, the environment and democracy. In short, it weakens workers' rights, limits the right to strike and represents a major step backwards, as I said, for workers' rights. It pre-approves projects by turning the environmental assessment process for pipelines and nuclear power into a mere afterthought. It centralizes more powers in the hands of the executive branch, that is, ministers, while diminishing the role of Parliament. In addition, regardless of what some people might say, this is a mammoth bill, a nearly 250-page omnibus bill that further weakens democracy.

It feels like the Liberals are using the tariff crisis to pursue an agenda that sets society back significantly. When it comes to the environment, it is clear that these are setbacks that we will never be able to undo. However, the Bloc Québécois is resilient, and we will continue to fight for workers' rights and ensure we can leave behind a healthy environment for future generations.

I will speak more specifically about the setbacks to workers' rights, then the environmental setbacks and, lastly, the democratic setbacks.

First, I want to talk about the issue of workers' rights, as a number of trade unions have expressed concerns. Last week, I received a letter of objection by email from the Seafarers' International Union of Canada. Just yesterday, I met with representatives from the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada, the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress, who are deeply concerned about workers' rights. Today, I received confirmation that members of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec are concerned and are therefore keen to participate in the work on Bill C-39.

The Liberals deny it, but a red line has been crossed regarding workers' rights to strike and to collective bargaining. There is, in fact, a consensus among the country's trade unions that this is an affront to workers' rights. If the amendments set out in part 3 of Bill C-39 are implemented, the proposed section 107 of the Canada Labour Code would allow the minister to consider potential economic or even social impacts when deciding whether to intervene under a vague and unrestricted criterion known as the “national interest”. This is an entirely subjective criterion. It is worth noting that, under this bill, we would be the only G7 country in which the executive branch could bring an end to the entirely legal right to strike.

For example, according to the proposed section 107 set out in Bill C-39, the same general power to encourage understanding and conflict resolution is there, but it is framed by the new subsection 107(2) for ending a work stoppage.

It gives the minister the express power to make an order providing for the resumption or continuation of operations, extending the term of the collective agreement, or imposing a binding method of resolving the issues in dispute. As a trigger, yes, a legal strike or lockout in progress requires a special mediator's report to be considered, but only the minister's opinion of the national interest counts. The problem is that the concept of the national interest has not been defined, and certain factors are not exhaustive. There is still no prior vote, but the administrative route is now explicitly codified. Concerning any potential disputes, the text would provide an express statutory basis that could undermine challenges that are based on the current interpretation. In short, this weakens the right to settlement, and the mediator is not independent, because they are appointed by the minister.

The unions have a few questions. They want to know where the balance of power is in Bill C-39 because, no, it does not contribute to social peace and economic security. Unlike in other countries, there is no longer any accountability to the House of Commons or to elected officials. The United States was even cited as an example, where Congress has a say in a strike. Basically, the bill does not abolish section 107, but it does sharpen the government's weapon.

The Minister of Jobs, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and all the Liberal members keep saying that the bill does not weaken the right to strike, but that is not true. Nothing could be further from the truth. The unions are confirming that the opposite is true and maintain that, no, there are no safeguards.

I would also like to return to one provision regarding section 107, which is the worst attack on the right to strike and to bargain collectively. It is one of the most serious attempts to roll back decades of labour struggles in this country's history. The right to strike is a fundamental right that is recognized by the courts and protected by freedom of association. The Bloc Québécois believes that this right must never depend on the political goodwill of a federal government. In May, I spoke about Bill C‑247, which would repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. We thought that bill was interesting. I would like to quote a few of the things we said about it. We said that section 107 “gives the Minister of Labour extremely broad powers to intervene in labour disputes in the federal jurisdiction. The minister can go so far as to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to intervene or impose any measures the minister considers necessary”.

We also said that “the existence of section 107 directly alters the balance of power between employers and workers. It encourages employers to stick to their guns rather than bargaining in good faith. The Bloc Québécois believes that disputes should be resolved at the bargaining table first, not in ministerial offices”. That is what we said about the bill in May. We did not want premature political intervention.

We also said that, since 2024 alone, “Ottawa has used section 107 to intervene in at least seven major labour disputes.” I will give some recent examples: WestJet, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, Air Canada, the Port of Montreal, the Port of Québec, the Port of Vancouver and Canada Post. What was supposed to be an exceptional power has effectively become a standard tool for managing labour disputes. More than 55,000 workers were affected by the dispute at Canada Post.

Lastly, we said that “when a government limits a fundamental right, it should always do so openly, in front of Parliament. For a long time, when a government wanted to end a strike, it had to introduce special back-to-work legislation. This entailed a public debate, a vote by elected officials and political accountability. Section 107 circumvents this debate, this democratic process, by employing a much more low-key administrative mechanism.” A right that cannot be exercised is not a right.

Let us get back to Bill C‑39. We said, “If the bill remains unchanged, it will harm non-unionized workers. Compromises between employers and unions establish acceptable norms and standards across many economic sectors. Stifling the unions' right to strike is tantamount to stifling negotiated agreements and reasonable compromises”. In short, it is more of the same. All the government is doing is releasing the minister from his responsibilities.

My time is running out, but I could go on for a while. I want to touch on the fact that this bill is a brutal setback for the environment. Greenpeace is even accusing the Liberal government of bulldozing nature.

Last week, I attended the general meeting of Appalachian Corridor, an organization with many environmental concerns. This group needs renewed funding for land protection organizations, not a law that could lead to long-term ecological damage, higher rehabilitation costs or literally impossible repairs, and irreparable damage to our land. The government needs to stop greenwashing. If the mandatory deadline for environmental assessments is shortened to one year, it will not be possible to guarantee the quality and scientific integrity of the assessments. This is a disaster for the environment.

This bill is a setback for democracy. In a liberal democracy under the rule of law, laws passed by Parliament and elected officials are essential, particularly for determining what the national interest is. In Canada, laws will now be made to be suspended and circumvented. As my colleague asked earlier, what is the national interest? We get the impression that this has become more of a personal interest for the Prime Minister. With Bill C-39, as with Bill C-5, the laws passed by Parliament over the past decades will no longer apply equally to everyone. While some development projects may continue to be subject to formal environmental assessments conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency in accordance with the Impact Assessment Act, others, such as oil, gas, or nuclear projects, will be exempt from these assessments.

In conclusion, I would like those affected by the bill to have a say. Several environmental groups feel that the government has not taken their comments into account. For example, the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement is calling for Bill C-39 to be scrapped entirely.

Here are a few questions that organizations are asking. Will the one-year environmental assessments examine the impact these projects will have on greenhouse gas emissions? Will they really address climate change? I doubt it.

The west coast oil pipeline could affect over 100 indigenous communities. Fourteen indigenous communities, the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement and several unions are challenging the legislation in court because they believe that the government is infringing on the right to strike.

I would like to say one last thing about democracy. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has criticized the Liberals for stripping my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères' amendment out of Bill C-39 to get rid of the five-year sunset clause on the minister's powers.

This is starting to be a bit much. The alternative facts, disinformation and misinformation have got to stop.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy having a discussion with my colleague from the international trade committee. I think he was one of the only other members of Parliament who touched on division 8 of this bill. I applaud him for taking his portfolio seriously.

The government has created so much uncertainty. The biggest portion of uncertainty right now is that we have no deal with the United States, so maybe the Liberals should put their elbows down, get back to the table and figure out that problem to give us some certainty.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the member for sharing his desire to see the free trade of Canadian wine across this great nation. Okanagan wine should be available to every province and every consumer who wants it. Canadians should be able to support and buy Canadian.

Are there any amendments the member would like to see when it comes to division 8, specifically on limiting privacy, particularly on data exchanges, whether it be between businesses or governments, that he thinks are missing in this piece of legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy a glass of Okanagan wine, and it should be flowing freely across this country. We were promised that it would flow freely across this country. In fact, we were promised it by Canada Day 2025. It is another broken promise.

To answer the member's question, there are two things I would like to see. I would like to see greater protections for companies' proprietary information, and second, I would like to see a real, ambitious proposal from the other side to deal with the half of the equation that is missing, which is the provinces. The Liberals say that this is about the provinces and it is not our problem. No. They are the federal government, and they should exercise leadership, use their constitutional powers and get the job done.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from York—Durham very much for drawing attention to division 8. I am going to put this to him bluntly. As I see it, in a couple of pages in an omnibus budget bill, not just a section of Bill C-39, they have created a separate piece of new legislation, the enabling digital trade act. Can the member see any reason we would not have had a separate piece of government legislation called the enabling digital trade act, with time to study it as a stand-alone piece of work, not part of an omnibus bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very perceptive question. There is no reason I can see that this should have been in Bill C-39. This has been talked about since 2021. In fact, the Liberals agreed to do this back in 2021. My math is not too good, but we are five years later, and they are ramming it through in an omnibus bill. Why? There is no reason. It does not have anything to do with building major projects or pipelines. It has to do with moving goods across borders.

Maybe the government can explain why it chose to ram that through in here. It is actually not a bad idea. It could be made better. It should be a stand-alone piece that is presented to the House. It should go through the normal process, including to the trade committee and perhaps other committees, to be studied, made better and then passed. Why did the Liberals not do that? Only the government can answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to a response he received from our colleagues on the government side. They say we need the bill so we can ensure predictability. Let me just go over what happened. During the last election, the Prime Minister said that he would resolve the tariff crisis. He imposed tariffs, then removed them, arguing that he was doing it to strengthen our negotiating position, and then he imposed retaliatory tariffs. These are the kinds of problems that do nothing to provide predictability.

Does my colleague agree that, for our businesses to truly have predictability, we need to reach the best possible agreement with the U.S. as soon as possible?

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually completely agree with my colleague from Quebec. We need certainty with our largest trading partner. In fact, the government's rag-the-puck strategy has created 18 months of uncertainty, and that is why we are seeing companies choose to invest outside Canada rather than inside Canada. They need certainty that this issue will be put to bed, and the government is failing to do that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.