Government Orders ·
Building Canada Strong Act
“The government promised to speed up big projects 18 months ago, but it has not built anything. Now it wants to pass another rushed bill making the same promises. The bill has some good ideas about digital trade, but it has big flaws and does not protect private company information. We should not rush this through without fixing it.”
“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.”
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.