“Madam Speaker, in regard to the interswitching provisions of part 2 of Bill C-39, the whole idea is to give certainty and predictability, yet farmers and shippers, particularly in the natural resource sector, who would depend on that competition created by the interswitching measures, would have it for only 48 months. Does the member believe this should be made permanent? This has been tried under the Harper government. It has been tried under the Trudeau government. Why would we not be putting that and making it a permanent program? Second to that, many Liberals have talked about the transportation project office as if it were something that would add to this, but like the Major Projects Office, it would not have any authority. In fact, the minister of transport would be given the discretion to open said office. Does the member think that putting forward offices that may or may not happen and putting forward provisions that are simply temporary and, again, subject to good U.S. relations, would be creating certainty and predictability in the transportation sector?”
Statement grade
B+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 83. The grade is held to 80, 30 above Clarity.
80 / 100, held down by Clarity
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 45%Promise 40%Thanks 14%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Madam Speaker, Claims · 35 wordsI certainly believe it would increase certainty within all those sectors.What I would put back to my colleague is that, just as under Harper and just as under Trudeau, these rules would be provisional.1Promise · 31 wordsThere are challenges we want to work through in the longer term, Vague promiseand we want to make sure we can get to a transportation sector that is stable and well working.Vague promiseThanks · 11 wordsI certainly welcome the member’s additional commentary at the committee stage.Thanks
