Bill C-39 Committee on Oct. 26th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Ms. Harrison.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

Quickly, I'm going to pick up from the comments of my colleague Mr. Gourde.

What difference has extended interswitching made for producers?

[Scott Ross]

I can speak to that briefly.

At the end of the day, what extended interswitching does for farmers is give them a competitive option in terms of service delivery. Even when not used directly, the very existence of extended interswitching provides farmers with the ability to hold railways accountable to shipping standards and delivery obligations. It's not necessarily about how often it's used but rather about its very existence, which allows an individual farmer to move away from a monopoly environment to, at least, a duopoly, where there is some degree of competition.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

I don't think I can overemphasize how all infrastructure is important to farmers across Canada. It's not just transportation. It is water. It is climate adaptation.

I would like to focus more on what the transport office would do under Bill C-39 for agriculture and farmers. How will this approach help build the rural infrastructure farmers rely on?

[Scott Ross]

I think, at the highest level, what we see in this is that it provides the support for coordinated planning. This is a space in which investments need to be made with significant lead time and significant vision as to the system you're building over time, so certainly the planning function is an element, as is transparent performance measurement, which is a critical need.

Farmers often lack information on how the system is working in real time, and I think things like export sales reporting could be an area where farmers could gain considerable benefit if that were something considered. From our perspective, I think it's critical that agriculture itself have a voice at that table because there is a fear that the unique needs of our sector would not otherwise be reflected and understood.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

To follow up on that, what types of nation-building infrastructure would provide the greatest benefit to Canadian agriculture, particularly as producers respond to tariffs and uncertainty in global markets?

[Scott Ross]

I think it's important to note that agriculture is not one industry. It's hundreds of industries, representing significant diversity.

There are, within that, a lot of different elements as to what's needed to move our sector forward. I think that first and foremost is reliable access to transportation. That can take the form of a greater investment in diversifying the options and channels to get to Prince Rupert, for example. Modernization of the Second Narrows bridge is a critical element for the entire western economy, including the Prairies and much of western Canadian agriculture.

On top of that, when we think of infrastructure and agriculture, value-added processing capacity in Canada is critical. Finding tools to make sure we have a tax and regulatory environment that's conducive to investment in value added allows agriculture not only to continue to be a global leader in quality agricultural products but also to do more value creation here in Canada. It also ensures that we are doing some of the significant transformation that can take place here in Canada, instead of moving it abroad to have it processed and potentially even reimported to Canada at that time.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

You've already spoken to this, but I would like to go back if you'd like to further elaborate. How important are reliable transportation corridors and domestic infrastructure to Canada's ability to protect both the agricultural economy and food security?

[Scott Ross]

Over the last number of years, the proliferation of work stoppages and the disruptions to our supply chains are bringing into question the reputation Canada has as a reliable supplier. These markets are predicated on just-in-time delivery. If you are unable to move product when product is needed, buyers are very quick to go elsewhere.

Certainly, Canada is still very well positioned with our innovative farming sector and our resource base, but the longer we see uncertainty in this space, the greater the chance that we lose further ground internationally on our ability to be a reliable supplier.

Canada's reputation is grounded in our rigorous standards, our reliability as a supplier and the quality of our products. While two of those are very much a given, reliability has been very uncertain for years now. Therefore, measures that improve this, such as the special mediator function and things that drive to avoid work stoppages altogether, are critical to the future of our sector.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Quickly, could you speak to the modernization pieces that are in Bill C-39 and what that might mean for producers, such as digitization, when they're moving products across Canada?

[Scott Ross]

Simply anything that streamlines the process for moving products across Canada is a net benefit for farmers. I don't think there's one specific provision in there that stands out. Anything that gives us greater certainty, predictability and clarity around how products are able to move and the regulatory environment they're moving within is a benefit to Canadian agriculture.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Ste-Marie, the last word goes to you.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. St‑Hilaire, have you examined the concept of regions of national interest in Bill C‑39? If so, do you have any comments?

[Maxime St-Hilaire]

In fact, what I see is that it relaxes certain safeguards, making emergency powers even more far-reaching. The requirement for provincial consent is removed, as are the conflict-of-interest and national security review requirements. So it goes further.

What we seem to be gaining, namely, prior regional assessment and compliance with the criteria, isn't really a gain, since we're adding a new pathway that, overall, provides fewer assessment safeguards.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Proulx, in your opening remarks, you referred to a letter of understanding providing that BAPE, the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, would be solely responsible for impact assessments in Quebec. Is that correct?

[Véronique Proulx]

In fact, we recommend that only one agency be responsible for it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Would you like it to be BAPE or does it not matter to you?

[Véronique Proulx]

Our understanding of the bill is that there would be an agreement between the federal and provincial governments, and Quebec would be the one-stop shop.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

As you understand it, Quebec would be solely responsible for the assessment.

[Véronique Proulx]

That's our understanding, yes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Great, thank you.

I don't have much time left to address the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

You're calling for agricultural impact assessments before projects are approved, a bit like what we have with the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec.

Do you feel confident that the Alberta Energy Regulator, which is basically made up of former oil industry lobbyists, is best placed to conduct these assessments?

[Brodie Berrigan]

From our perspective, it's about having a systematic process to review all federal projects and policies from that perspective and that lens of the impact it would have on food production and agricultural production in Canada and our broader food security interests. There are several means with which we could accomplish that objective. There's a review of how we dispose of federal surplus lands, for example, but we could also do it through the cabinet decision-making process and internal decision-making processes within the Government of Canada to ensure that we have a coherent perspective—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm sorry, Mr. Berrigan. I'm going to have to cut you off. We're really running short of time.

We have one member from the Conservatives and one member from the Liberals. You have one minute on the button each.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask you to be quick, Mr. Ross.

Should it be more than 160 kilometres for the interswitching?