Guy Caron

[Natural Resources, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on last night's Tout le monde en parle, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois invited Quebeckers to follow his lead and contribute to a fund to support public opposition to the TransCanada pipeline.

Since last evening, more than $165,000 has been collected. This shows that Quebeckers are concerned and that they do not feel they are being heard by this government, which has watered down the environmental assessment process.

When will the Conservatives admit that they are responsible for this whole mess?

[Regional Economic Development, November 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that Cliffs Natural Resources is no longer able to do business with this Conservative government. Every investment it has made here was a disaster. The Conservatives mismanaged the situation so badly that the company is now saying that it wants to walk away.

People are losing their jobs in Quebec and job opportunities are disappearing in Ontario.

Where is this government's strategy to secure and support investments and jobs?

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there is a question that those of us on this side of the House regularly ask the government. We have already said that we will support this bill at second reading, but we still have not settled the question of resources allocated to prevention.

Obviously, the government is focusing on repression, not prevention, which is not a bad thing once an act has been committed. However, preventing people from committing such acts will take quite a lot of resources for police forces and organizations that can do a good job of fighting sex crimes, for example. We have repeatedly asked the government what resources it is prepared to make available to organizations such as police forces and civil society organizations to create a solid foundation for the prevention aspect.

I would like to know what the member who just spoke thinks of the current resources allocated to prevention. I would also like to know how much he thinks the government should contribute to ensure that we are not just punishing acts that have been committed, but also preventing most of those acts from being committed in the first place.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment in relation to my colleague's question.

When legislation on serious crimes is introduced, as is the case here, it is important to invest the necessary resources to ensure that the amendments are effective.

We know that the administration of justice falls under the responsibility of the provinces, which are overburdened given the minimum sentences imposed in these bills—a practice that other jurisdictions are gradually moving away from. The various levels of government need to invest in order to have the resources necessary to focus on prevention.

Could my colleague from Compton—Stanstead elaborate on the resources that are currently being invested and the federal government's failure to allocate sufficient resources to the police and other organizations that work to prevent such crimes?

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting that. I thought I would have at least 10 minutes to speak about the matter at hand, namely, the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I will stick to the key points.

I asked the member of the government party questions about a fundamental issue, namely the ability of our farmers to compete with European farmers on their own turf. Of course, the government talked about opening markets. We are going to open our own agricultural markets to European producers. At this point in the analysis, my understanding is that there will be no subsidies to compensate for European products being exported here to Canada.

However, our products, whether we are talking about dairy, beef, pork or grain products, could and should be sent to Europe but will have to compete with products that are subsidized. We are not talking about small subsidies. The direct and indirect subsidies that the European Union gives its farmers represent 40% of the European Union's budget or 39 billion euros.

When we talk about supply management, about protecting it and about opportunities for other products to reach the European market, we have to consider the fact that our products will not be competing on a level playing field. I agree that our producers can handle the business-related challenges of exporting their products, but they need a chance to do that in a fair competitive environment.

This problem underlies the issue of protecting supply management. The pillars of supply management will not change, but the new foundation, especially in terms of new import quotas, will be a game changer for dairy producers.

Different parties speak out in favour of supply management. We strongly support supply management, and we have proven it time and time again. While columnists, politicians and commentators have said that we should eliminate supply management, institute a free market and bring in American and European products, I remind members that our agricultural subsidies were practically eliminated under the Liberal government.

I was in Cancun in 2002, I believe, when the Liberal government was all set to completely eliminate supply management until the Doha Round was cancelled because developing countries were reluctant.

However, supply management remains a key issue in the NDP's assessment of this agreement, and that is why I was very pleased to second the subamendment proposed by the member for Pontiac, which would give us a fundamental answer to a fundamental question: where is that compensation for this agreement that the federal government promised to dairy farmers?

I do not see how we could support the terms of this agreement without having the information that the government promised us a long time ago.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me a few minutes to share my thoughts.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I have served with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts a few times. I know that he is very knowledgeable about this file, and I also know that he worked very hard on this report.

I have one main concern. As he mentioned, I have no doubt that our farmers can do very well from a trade standpoint and that they can develop their markets in the European Union. The question is whether they can be competitive given the subsidies, and the amount of the subsidies, that the European Union gives its own producers, for example, in support of market price. The issue is not whether our beef or grain producers are efficient and productive, in the sense of productivity, but whether they are efficient and productive enough to compete against European agricultural products in Europe.

I would like to know why there is practically no mention of the issue of subsidies in the committee report.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, like many members in the House, I represent a region whose economy depends largely on agriculture, and particularly the dairy industry. Therefore, I welcome this subamendment.

I hear many concerns expressed by dairy producers, because they do not have all the information at this time. Yes, there is a free trade agreement with the European Union, and farmers know that there will be changes; however, the government promised countervailing measures, but we know nothing of the details of those measures.

I wonder whether the member for Pontiac, who did an excellent job talking about this file, could discuss how the government seems to be dragging its feet regarding an announcement on compensation. The issue of compensation is not just relevant for agriculture and dairy producers. It also applies to intellectual property, pharmaceutical companies and the provinces. We need to know why the government has been slow in making an announcement. Dairy producers are very concerned and are anxiously awaiting such an announcement.

[Natural Resources, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, TransCanada's strategic plan to promote its pipeline to Quebec surfaced today.

The leaked documents show that the corporation is considering using aggressive tactics to move its project forward. The oil company has tremendous resources at its disposal to promote its project, while the people of eastern Quebec, who are worried about their environment, have the impression that their voices will never be heard.

What will this government do to ensure that the citizens and municipalities concerned are heard?

[Ethics, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, a month ago, the Prime Minister invited some European senior officials to go to Toronto with him for the evening. The Prime Minister requested that they be given the royal treatment, which included flying them back to Europe on a government Airbus. We now know the cost of that royal treatment: $450,000, including $120,000 for an extravagant evening.

How can the Prime Minister justify wasting $450,000, especially since the agreement with the European Union has still not been concluded?

[Natural Resources, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if we are to have a healthy debate on pipeline projects, people must have access to relevant documents in the official language of their choice. As has happened in the past, the National Energy Board released much of the 30,000 pages of energy east documentation in English only. A unilingual farmer from Quebec City's south shore felt shortchanged by this and complained to the board.

How can the government say that people will be consulted if they cannot read the documents about the energy east pipeline?