“I do not want this bill to pass as it is. It makes huge changes to labour laws without asking the workers who will be affected, and it rushes those changes into a 250-page bill. It does nothing to help the thousands of auto workers facing layoffs in Windsor. It also gives one minister too much power over international bridges without enough oversight.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I almost always do, I want to thank my Lord and Saviour for the opportunity to stand in this amazing place and to serve. Before I get into Bill C-39, I want to say happy birthday to my eldest son, Jagger. His birthday was yesterday and I was not home to celebrate it, but I am awful proud of him. Happy birthday to him. I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the wonderful, hard-working people of Essex to talk about Liberal omnibus bill, Bill C-39. This bill is almost 250 pages long, addressing everything from supply chain and transport corridor management to changing how collective bargaining would work. This massive bill proposes changes to 21 different pieces of legislation. My Conservative colleagues and I continue to examine every line of this bill, judging it on a simple, foundational standard. Would it protect Canadian jobs and save working families money? I will recognize that there are very serious changes being proposed to the Labour Code in part 3 that will require extensive study at committee. They would affect federally regulated sectors like railways, ports and banking. Why did the government choose to hide these major labour provisions inside a 250-page omnibus bill instead of presenting them in dedicated legislation for proper committee scrutiny? It is tough for me to wrap my head around why the government is trying to rush these significant changes in an omnibus bill instead of allowing them to be properly and thoroughly studied at committee. Major concerns have been raised about these proposed changes to the Labour Code, yet there were no consultations with key sector representatives or affected workers before this bill was tabled. The Liberals used section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to order flight attendants back to work, effectively sending them back to work unpaid. Having previously used section 107 to order flight attendants back to work unpaid, the government should not be making further unscrutinized changes to section 107 behind closed doors. What is most staggering about this massive, 250-page bill is not what it contains, but what it leaves out. While the government addresses unionized workers in federal ports and airports, there is absolutely nothing in this bill for the Windsor auto workers at Stellantis. As we sit in the House, Stellantis is facing an upcoming three-week production layoff at the Windsor assembly plant this month. This means that approximately 6,400 auto workers in or near my riding are facing layoffs right before Christmas, and there is nothing here for them. The government has offered them zero support. These auto workers need certainty. It seems that Stellantis is perhaps getting ready to leave Canada when it comes to auto production because of U.S. tariffs, among many other things, but the Liberal government has already left it behind. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to negotiate for these workers? The Prime Minister promised that he would have a deal with the U.S. by July 2025. The Windsor auto sector is getting hollowed out because of the Prime Minister’s incompetence and his failure to lower his elbows and shake hands. The Conservatives will continue to fight for policies that defend our auto workers and protect these vital Canadian jobs. Finally, I must highlight the government’s proposed changes to the International Bridges and Tunnels Act in Bill C-39. Previously, structural or operational alterations to an international bridge required full federal cabinet approval, but this bill would strip that authority from the federal cabinet and give it directly to the Minister of Transport. That would give a whole lot of power to the Minister of Transport to make some pretty significant changes without proper checks and balances. If my memory serves me correctly, the Gordie Howe bridge, near my riding, which borders one of the biggest international border crossings in Canada, was clouded with secret backdoor conversations about its opening. My colleague from Windsor West publicly raised concerns about the urgency of finding answers and getting clarity on when the bridge would be opened, and specifically asked the Minister of Transport for answers on multiple occasions without a response. If I also recall correctly, the Prime Minister claimed that the debts Canadians incurred to build the Gordie Howe bridge would be fully repaid before we began sharing tolls with the United States, and we know now that that was also false. Do Canadians really want to give more authority or decision-making power to the Minister of Transport given the track record with the Gordie Howe bridge? Under Bill C-39, the Minister of Transport would not be subject to the same parliamentary oversight that would apply to Governor in Council orders and regulations. With decision-making power resting in one minister, that would make the minister more accessible to private bridge operators or regional interests. If my memory serves me correctly, the Liberal government held private meetings with Ambassador Bridge lobbyists ahead of the Gordie Howe bridge opening, yet the Liberal government is now proposing to remove parliamentary accountability for international bridges through this bill. Why should we give the Minister of Transport more authority to make decisions when his government’s track record already shows that it does not have the best interests of Canadians in mind? I could speak for a long time on Bill C-39. There is much in Bill C-39 that requires rigorous study and much that remains deeply concerning. What I can promise the automakers and families of Essex and Windsor is that Conservatives will never stop fighting for their jobs, for their economic certainty and for a fair deal with the United States, because at the end of the day, Essex residents have made enough sacrifices at the hands of the government.”

“The government claims it gets things built, but that is not true. It funded an electric vehicle battery plant in Windsor, but the plant has not produced a single battery. The government spends money without getting results.”

“Mr. Speaker, do I not recognize it? There is a funny thing called the battery plant in Windsor that was designed for electric vehicles because of the government. Not one electric vehicle battery has been sent out of that plant. If we are going to invest in something, we should at least follow through with the investment. I find it a bit shallow for the member across the aisle to talk about getting things done when the government has had nearly 12 years to get things done, and nothing has gotten done after money is put forth.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“This bill lets ministers approve early construction work on projects even when local communities are against them. The government has already given the Alto train project the power to take people's land. I want the member to say if he thinks rural communities in Quebec and Ontario are being respected, and if the government should explain why it needs these powers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Essex for not only his speech but also his constant steadiness at the transport committee. His community is well served by him. I would like to ask him about something that is causing a lot of ruckus in Ontario: the Alto project. Bill C-39 would allow ministers to authorize early works. We saw in the Liberals’ last omnibus bill that they basically gave expropriation powers, incredible bulldozing ability, to the Alto project to expropriate lands. Now they are going to have it where a minister can direct early works so they can get a project started, despite opposition in the communities, particularly in the rural areas of both Quebec and Ontario. Could the member comment on whether he feels those people are being respected and whether the government could be more transparent about what it wants these powers for?”

“The government is not open enough. It blocks our requests for studies, and it does not give good answers to the people we represent. My party will keep pushing for more transparency.”

“Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, my very dear colleague, quite frankly, no, there is not enough transparency from the government. We continue to fall short. Every time we ask for a study, it is usually blocked at committee. When we get answers from the government on behalf of all of our constituents across many ridings in Ontario specifically, they always fall short. The answer is that we need way more transparency. We are here as the official opposition, and we will continue to work for that transparency.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Over the next three weeks, 6,400 people in Windsor-Essex will lose their jobs right before Christmas. National projects never get started, and I care about those workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, there was a bit of a delay, but I believe I got the majority of the question from my colleague down the aisle. I will do my very best to answer it. Over the next three weeks, 6,400 people in Windsor-Essex will face being out of work right before Christmas. That is 6,400 people who can forget about a Thanksgiving dinner, because that is long gone, and who are going to have to figure out what it will look like under the tree. We can talk all day long about the national projects that, quite frankly, never get started, and I respect my colleague, but I am really concerned about those 6,400 workers.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 10 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The member says we need to change how we do things to fix the economy. Why did it take the Liberal government over 10 years to realize that?”

“Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague say that we cannot keep doing things the way we always have and that the goal is to improve the Canadian economy. My question is this. Why did it take the Liberal government over 10 years to realize that we cannot keep doing things the way we always have?”

“The government makes a lot of announcements but does not deliver results. How will they measure the results of this bill, and what happens when they fail?”

“Mr. Speaker, the government has made great fanfare of announcements and more announcements. With the future implementation of the legislation, I wonder how the Liberals propose to measure results. What happens when they repeatedly do not deliver?”

“I like the idea of cutting red tape so we can build things faster, but I want proof this bill will actually work. I want to know exactly when the one-year timeline starts. I also worry the rules about labour disputes might take away workers' right to strike. I will only vote for this bill if committee work proves it cuts red tape, protects workers, and gets projects built.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Windsor West. I want to start by saying something fairly simple. I am encouraged by the direction of the bill. The government is finally acknowledging something Conservatives have been saying for years: Canada has too much red tape, building takes too long, there is too much duplication, there are too many government departments involved and investors certainly do not like uncertainty. If the bill generally makes it easier to build in Canada and if it saves Canadians money, protects Canadian jobs and gets investment moving, I will support those measures. However, there is another principle I learned during my three decades of a policing career: Trust but verify. I wrote tickets for people not because I only thought they had broken the law. I checked. I looked at the evidence. I verified the facts. That is how I intend to approach Bill C-39. I am not going to oppose something just because the Liberal government has introduced it, but I am also not going to take the government’s word for it. Show me the results. There is something about the bill that should be pointed out. This is not exactly a new idea. In fact, much of what we are hearing today sounds pretty familiar. The Harper government understood that Canada had a problem with duplication and delays. It moved toward one project, one review. It introduced timelines. It reduced the number of federal organizations involved in major project reviews. The basic idea was pretty simple: Get the right people around the table, do the work, make a decision and get on with it. That is not revolutionary. That is common sense. I think Canadians would understand that. What is different today is how big the problem has become. Over the years, governments have added regulations, agencies, assessments, consultations, forms and processes. One layer gets put on top of another, and eventually we get to the point where the process becomes the problem. The government now comes forward and says it is going to coordinate all of this. It is going to establish timelines. It is going to make it easier to build. That is good. I am encouraged. However, I have a couple of questions. Why did it take so long? More importantly, will it actually work? There is a difference between making the bureaucracy easier to navigate and actually removing the bureaucracy. We can put better signs in a maze, and we can open an office to help people get through the maze, but at the end of the day, we still have a maze. That is where I have some concerns with Bill C-39. If we are serious about cutting red tape, then let us cut red tape. Bill C-39 would not repeal Bill C-69. It would not repeal Bill C-48. It would not remove every regulatory barrier that businesses and investors have been telling us for years is making it harder to build in this country. My question is pretty straightforward: Would we actually be removing obstacles, or would we simply be creating a better system for navigating them? Those are two different things, and Canadians deserve to know the answer. Let us talk about the one-year promise. One year sounds pretty good. Every Canadian understands “one year”. Here is the question I keep coming back to: one year from when? That is the important part. Would the clock start when a Canadian company says it wants to build, or would it start after the company has completed the studies, provided the information and satisfied all the requirements necessary to get the application moving? If I tell somebody that I will get back to them within a year, they reasonably expect that year to start when I tell them that. They do not expect me to say that the clock does not actually start until I have finished asking them questions. That is the concern. If someone is investing a billion dollars, they need to know when the clock starts. They need to know who is responsible. They need to know what happens when the deadline is missed. They need to know whether that one-year promise is actually a deadline or simply an aspiration. They do not want a one-year headline. They want a one-year deadline that means something. We heard a similar promise when Bill C-5 came forward. We were told that Canada was going to move at speeds not seen in generations. Eighteen months later, we are back here with another major piece of legislation. Some people are calling it the big beautiful bill from Canada again, telling Canadians that this time, things will be different. That is fair enough. Let us check. How many projects have actually moved? How many permits have actually been issued through the new major projects bureaucracy? What has actually been built? An announcement is not a project. A designation is not a project. A memorandum is not a project. A project is when the shovel goes in the ground. It is when the crane goes up. It is when the factory starts running. It is when a Canadian worker gets a paycheque. That is what I am interested in. I come from Windsor, and we understand this pretty well. We are an industrial city. We have manufacturers and skilled trades. We have tool and die companies. We have automotive suppliers that are tied into supply chains running across Canada, across the bridge and throughout North America. When a decision gets delayed in Ottawa, the consequences do not stay in Ottawa. They show up on the shop floor. They show up in the lunchroom. They show up at the kitchen table. For government, six months can be a line on a calendar. For a small manufacturer, six months can mean six months without an order. For a worker, it can mean six months without a job. For an investor, it can mean taking an investment somewhere else. This is why speed matters, but certainty matters just as much. I also want to make something clear. Cutting red tape does not mean throwing out every rule. Canadians expect us to protect the environment. They expect projects to be safe. They expect indigenous rights to be respected. They expect taxpayers’ money to be protected. This is reasonable. The question is not whether we have rules. The question is whether we have the right rules: rules that protect what actually needs protecting, rules that do not duplicate each other, rules that have an end point and rules that allow a responsible project to actually get built. That is what good government should do. There is one part of this bill where I think we need to slow down, and that is part 3, the labour provisions. Workers are not the problem. Workers are people who build Canada. They operate the cranes. They weld the steel. They drive the trucks. They run the machines. They build the roads. They keep our factories running. Most importantly, they are taxpayers, so we have to get this part right. The government says these provisions deal with exceptional circumstances and the national interest. Well, maybe that is true, but whenever Parliament gives government additional powers to intervene in labour disputes, we need to understand exactly what those powers mean. We have already heard these concerns. CUPE has been very clear. On September 23, its national executive board unanimously resolved that it would defy Bill C-39 if it passed unamended, arguing that the bill would limit the constitutionally protected right to strike. CUPE’s national secretary-treasurer, Candace Rennick, said, “Governments cannot legislate labour peace.” Those are CUPE’s words. I am not going to stand here and tell the House that CUPE has settled the constitutional question, because it has not, but I am not going to ignore its concern either. We should hear from the unions. We should hear from employers. We should hear from constitutional experts. We should hear from the people who actually work under the Canada Labour Code. What threshold has to be met? When can the minister intervene? What safeguards are there? How do we make sure that exceptional powers stay exceptional? These are fair questions. That is why we are continuing to review part 3. Canadians expect us to read this bill. They expect us to understand it. They expect us to ask questions. That is what we are here to do. Yes, I am encouraged by the direction of this bill. I am encouraged that the government finally recognizes that Canada has to build. I am encouraged that we are talking about reducing red tape, but I am not going to confuse a good signal with a proven result. My test is pretty simple. Does it save Canadians money and save Canadian jobs? Does it bring investment back? Does it actually remove red tape? Does it make government more accountable? Does it get projects built? If the answer is yes, I will support it, but I will not support it because somebody tells me to trust them. I will support it because we have done the work, we have read the bill, we have heard from Canadians and we have heard from workers. Canada has everything we need. We have the resources, entrepreneurs, skilled trades and manufacturers. We just need to get out of our own way, and the government should start doing that sooner rather than later. It is about time we start doing what we promised Canadians we would do for them, not just show up and gum up the works as the Liberals have done for the past 11 years.”

“The Liberals move too slowly and do not keep their promises. I will only support this bill if they add a one-year deadline and protect workers' right to strike.”

“Mr. Speaker, we heard these promises with Bill C-5. If I were a policeman and saw the Liberal bus in front of me going at the speed the Liberals are moving rather than the speed they claimed it would move at, I would pull it over and give them a ticket for impeding traffic. The Liberals have not moved at the speeds they promised us. That is the challenge. If the Liberals amend the things that need to be amended and there is a one-year timeline or deadline, yes, we will support it, provided they also have the provisions that labour needs in order to ensure they have the right to strike when they need to. It is not something workers want to do willy-nilly. They do not want to go into a work stoppage because they feel like somebody looked at them wrong. It is their last option to gain leverage to do what they need to do.”

“I oppose this bill's labour rules. Workers need the right to strike so they can bargain for fair pay, safe jobs, and security. They pay taxes and deserve our respect.”

“Mr. Speaker, I received an email from an OSSTF district, from Ms. Erin Roy, who is the president of the union. She expressed serious concerns regarding the Canada Labour Code provisions that are introduced in Bill C-39. She wrote that workers and families are facing real challenges in their daily lives because of the high cost of living, and their right to strike remains as the last leverage that provides them the ability to negotiate fair wages, safe work conditions, secure employment and meaningful solutions for workplace concerns. I totally agree. This is the challenge that our friends across the aisle perhaps do not get: These workers are also taxpayers. We need to show them the respect they deserve and recognize the hard-earned dollars they contribute to the government, as well as what they do for all of us.”

“This bill has not led to any major project being finished. Big energy projects like the Pacific oil pipeline and the LNG Canada expansion are still not done.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was looking at Bill C-5 and what it has produced. ChatGPT, which we have heard an awful lot of in the House lately, had this to say: It has produced some concrete regulatory changes in projects, but ChatGPT could not establish that it completed a major project. Then I looked up the Pacific oil pipeline, and it had this to say: The pipeline has not been built, and its final conditions remain outstanding. LNG Canada phase two does not establish that the expansion is completed. The Coastal GasLink construction is scheduled to begin next year, and the federal trade mobility—”

“The government makes promises about major projects, but it does not deliver any results. People cannot trust the government if it does not actually do the work.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is the challenge we have. If we want people’s trust, we have to act and deliver on promises. Simply making promises is like someone’s son telling them they are going to get an A, promising that and then never studying to get that A. We have to see the result at the end of the day, and there are no results that we can see from that side of the aisle.”

“Other countries built major landmarks in 18 months. I want the member to tell me what has been built here in the 18 months since this fast-tracking law passed.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was looking up things that had to do with Bill C-5, and I am wondering if there is any change here. Things that were built in 18 months are the Space Needle in 1962, the Empire State Building in 1930, the Pentagon in 1941, the Alaska Highway and the Crystal Palace in 1851. I am wondering if my colleague can tell me what has been built in the 18 months since Bill C-5 was passed.”

“This bill affects workers' rights, which are protected by the Charter. By law, the Minister of Justice must give us a report on how this bill affects Charter rights, but we have not seen it yet. I want to know if the member agrees that the government must give us this report before the committee studies the bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I know this is an issue that the member cares deeply about, and so should we all, because we are talking about workers’ rights. Last I checked, workers’ rights fall under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in section 2(d). Another section that is particularly relevant to this conversation tonight is section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, which says that the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. Liberals like to say they are the party of the charter. So many Liberal members have said they are all about workers’ rights, yet the House and the special legislative committee that is going to be set up to examine Bill C-39 have not yet seen this. Does the member believe that the government has the obligation to give the people that charter statement before we start deliberating this at committee, yes or no?”

“I support parts of this bill, but it should do more for farmers. Rail delays hurt producers in my riding when they try to ship grain to port. The government should let farmers choose which rail company moves their products, and make that rule permanent.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can tell members that there is some stuff in this legislation that we can support. I represent a large farming area in Manitoba, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, and I have an agriculture background. I can tell members that the grain and oilseed producers in my riding have always had a lot of concerns about how sometimes their products do not get moved quickly; sometimes there are disruptions in rail and at the ports. We lose the confidence that we need as a nation, as a reliable supplier of our agri-food products. There are three main parts in this bill. There is one section in here under the transportation side that talks about interswitching. Why has the current government not put permanently in place the interswitching of rail so that our grain farmers, our oilseed producers and other commodities producers can use whichever rail company they want, to get their products to port?”

“The government promised to get big projects built quickly, but 500 projects are still waiting for federal approval. We are reviewing this massive bill to see if it actually speeds up approvals or just adds more red tape. We want faster decisions, lower costs for Canadians, and permanent rail rules to help farmers move their grain.”

“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to send congratulations to my son and daughter-in-law Melody on the birth of their first son and our first grandson. I am happy to report that mom and baby are home and everybody is healthy. I love them lots and look forward to meeting Evan this weekend. Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, the Prime Minister promised that Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, and his new Major Projects Office would get projects built at a speed not seen in generations. Liberals are back with a massive bill that amends the Building Canada Act that the government passed last year. Thirteen months after promising projects built at speeds not seen in generations, they are once again telling Canadians that another announcement will finally make the difference. Talk about not seeing something for generations. Canadians have heard this promise before, and Conservatives are waiting on the 500 projects collecting dust while sitting on the Prime Minister’s desk waiting for federal approval. In fact, we have already watched major projects disappear under the last decade of Liberal mismanagement. This includes energy east, northern gateway, Pacific NorthWest LNG and the Frontier oil sands mine, just to name a few of these shelved projects, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars in value. Although 20 projects have been referred to the Major Projects Office, it is important for the government to understand that a referral is not a shovel in the ground. When the government needs another law to fix its first one from last year, questions need to be asked. While the government keeps announcing new processes, Canadians continue waiting for projects to be approved and construction to begin. Bill C-39 is nearly 250 pages long, and my Conservative colleagues and I are continuing to review whether the legislation cuts delays or creates more bureaucracy and photo ops. Conservatives have consistently called for six-month project decisions because businesses need certainty. It is no secret that lengthy approval processes delay investment and prevent construction, but this is just one part of the problem when it comes to getting things built. Conservatives have also called for a repeal of Liberal antidevelopment laws such as the “no more pipelines” law, Bill C-69. We also called for the repeal of the tanker ban law, Bill C-48, which blocked routes for shipping Canadian resources overseas. Conservatives have advocated for one project, one review system so major projects can face one coordinated federal assessment instead of multiple overlapping reviews and approvals. If this bill gets projects approved faster and gets Canadians’ goods to market sooner, it does deserve credit. However, if it does not, it is another example of the Liberals mistaking a press conference for a project. Bill C-39 is also to be judged by what it means for the cost of living in Canada. The minister has not guaranteed that this bill will not raise the costs of energy bills for Canadians. Our position is simple. Conservatives oppose policies that increase the cost of living on Canadians. We are laser-focused on making life more affordable. If a policy lowers costs, we support it. If it raises costs, we oppose it. The Liberals should also tell Canadians whether they have completed an independent cost-benefit analysis of Bill C-39 and what the bill is expected to mean for businesses across Canada. Before my first election to Parliament, I had served as president of Manitoba’s largest general farm organization, Keystone Agriculture Producers. I am also a lifelong farmer. That is why I was very attentive to the interswitching change proposed in Bill C-39. The concept of interswitching is to have a business use an alternative railway even when only one railway serves the facility directly. The purpose is straightforward. Giving more shippers access to alternative railways can increase competition and more transportation options. Conservatives have supported that approach before. In 2014, the previous Conservative government passed the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, which enabled regulated interswitching to be extended from 30 kilometres to 160 kilometres in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Now, nearly 10 years later, Bill C-39 proposes to bring back a 160-kilometre extended interswitching regime in the same provinces for four years. If extended interswitching helped move commodities to market 10 years ago, why did the Liberal government allow the earlier 160-kilometre expansion to expire, and why bring it back for only four years? Farmers and businesses that transport their goods plan several seasons ahead and invest based on rules they expect to face. They need certainty. Conservatives will watch closely to see whether the Liberals allow this temporary regime to lapse again. Failing to provide certainty and predictability in Canada is not putting Canada first. Canadian farmers and businesses need more than reliable rail access. They also need ports that can move goods efficiently once they reach the coast and send them to customers around the world. Canada has always depended on transportation infrastructure to connect this country. Sir John A. Macdonald’s vision was a national railway that linked British Columbia with the rest of Canada and helped move goods to market. More than 140 years later, Canada still depends on that same connection to move Canadian products on rail, through our ports and out to world markets. That is why the port of Vancouver is relevant to this debate. The port of Vancouver is a critical gateway for prairie grain exports to the world. When one of the most important export gateways performs poorly in part of its operations, that should concern Canadians. The World Bank’s 2025 port performance index ranked Vancouver 375th out of 400 globally. Farmers and businesses need a whole system to work. Better rail access will only go so far if goods then face delays or uncertainty at the port they are extended through. Canada has experienced repeated labour disruptions at ports and railways, which have impacted the ability to move goods to market. Conservatives respect workers’ right to collective bargaining. At the same time, Canadian producers and businesses need reliable access to ports so they can control freight costs and meet commitments to customers around the world. As parliamentarians, it is important that we balance these matters and further study the labour impacts of the legislation before us today. At the beginning of this debate, I quoted the Prime Minister promising to move major projects at a speed “not seen in generations”. Canadians have now heard that promise more than once. Bill C-39 would give the government another chance to prove that those words actually mean something in practice. For Conservatives, the standard is clear: Projects should be approved faster, businesses should face fewer barriers and producers should have more competition to move their goods to market. If this bill helps deliver those results, Canadians will see it. However, if it only adds another layer of process in Ottawa, Canadians will see that too. Speed “not seen in generations” should mean shovels in the ground, goods moving and investments staying in Canada. Results, not promises, should be the standard by which Bill C-39 is judged.”

“There are too many unknowns in this bill, especially about labour. Under this government, there have been far too many strikes and labour disruptions. I want the member to join us in questioning the government on these mistakes.”

“Madam Speaker, I referred to it in my speech. There are still so many unknowns, especially when it comes to labour. If the track record is any indication of how the Liberals are going to perform in the future, my God, we have a long way to go. It is absolutely ridiculous how many labour disruptions we have had under this Liberal regime. Hopefully, the member will stand in unison with us when we start questioning the fumbles that the Liberals are purposely putting in place.”

“Farmers need long-term rail competition rules to have real certainty. This bill only brings them back for 48 months. I want to know if the member agrees that these rail rules should be made permanent.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the member. He is a farmer and is a very hard-working MP, and I give a lot of credibility to what he says. He talked about the certainty and predictability that farmers need from the interswitching provisions, but the government is only suggesting to bring them back for 48 months. Rather than putting in place a regime that has been proven to be successful under both the Harper and the Trudeau governments, the government is simply giving a bit of durable competition for a very short period of time. Does he support making the provisions permanent? Would that bring some certainty and predictability to farmers like him?”

“I support stable and predictable rules for rail shipping. When we set these rules, everyone affected must have a say at the table, including the railways, the shippers, and their customers.”

“Madam Speaker, I support predictability and stability, and that could mean locking them in. Ironically, when I was president at KAP, the main file that I worked on was interswitching. One thing I could not get over was that there was always the issue of the railways and trying to find a balance between the railways, the shippers and the people trying to do business with the railways. As for transparency, any time we are talking about interswitching in the bill, all members and everybody impacted by the bill need to be at the table whenever we are negotiating interswitching.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 41 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The government chooses secrecy instead of openness. When they had a majority on the health committee, they shut off the cameras and stopped debate. If this is how they handle this big bill, I worry about Canada's future.”

“Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to the culture of transparency. Sadly, the Liberal government defaults to secrecy and non-transparency. I know the member and I experienced and witnessed that when the Liberals had a manufactured majority. All of a sudden at the health committee, they shut off the cameras, shut down discussions and went into secretive mode because they could. If this is any indication of how they are going to deal with all the other stuff that is being brought forward in this massive bill, I fear for our future in Canada.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 33 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →