Discussion · Government Orders
Dan Albas Conservative
“This bill only helps rail shippers get competition for four years. It should be permanent. The bill also creates an office with no real power that the minister might not even open. I want the member to explain how these temporary and weak fixes give our transportation system any real certainty.”
“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?”
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?