Guy Caron

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for his excellent speech.

I know that he is very concerned about the idea of mandatory minimums. I would like to know what he thinks about the fundamental issue of mandatory minimums. In 2012, the Ontario Superior Court invalidated some provisions regarding mandatory minimums in the case of two sentences for firearms possession. The Canadian government will in all likelihood go to the Supreme Court to defend its version of the facts.

Nonetheless, the Superior Court of Ontario, the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec all believe that mandatory minimums could well be unconstitutional. This is an argument that came up in committee when Bill C-10 was being studied.

I would like to know what the member thinks about the Superior Court of Ontario's ruling and about the constitutionality of mandatory minimums, as proposed in this bill.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Churchill for her excellent speech.

I would like to talk about a corollary. On this side of the House, members have introduced bills to toughen animal cruelty laws. We are not talking specifically about service animals such as law enforcement animals, but all animals, be they pets or the animals around us in the waters and elsewhere. My colleague from Parkdale—High Park introduced such a bill.

I would like to hear what the member for Churchill has to say about the dedication and commitment of the official opposition to adopting tougher animal cruelty measures.

[Canada Revenue Agency, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we all knew that the Conservatives were conducting a witch hunt against charities whose philosophies are not in line with their own.

A new report suggests that they are also deliberately ignoring the political activities of right-wing organizations. They are turning a blind eye to the political activities of the Fraser Institute and the Montreal Economic Institute, but they are attacking environmentalists and ornithologists.

Can the minister explain this double standard? Why is the Canada Revenue Agency targeting progressive groups but not bothering the government's ideological allies?

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the only French-language library at Fisheries and Oceans, which was at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, shut down. This shows how little importance the Conservatives attach to scientific services in French. The Commissioner of Official Languages harshly criticized plans to dismantle the library and asked the government to reverse its decision. It was clear to the commissioner, as it is to us, that this closure flies in the face of the Official Languages Act. Why is the government ignoring the needs of francophone scientists and shirking its responsibilities regarding official languages?

[Employment Insurance, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, fortunately, ridicule never killed anyone, or else we would be having a bunch of byelections in the next few months. This morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer showed the extent to which the Conservatives' economic approach is a total fiasco. Their EI premium credit for businesses will cost $550 million and will create only 800 jobs; not 8,000, but 800. I understand that each job is important, but with $550 million, we can do a lot better. Creating so few jobs by spending over half a billion dollars smacks of amateurism.

While the Conservatives burn through this money without guaranteeing benefits for workers, the Liberals are boasting about a plan using the EI fund, but the numbers do not add up. One economist even referred to the Liberals' plan as an election gimmick.

It sounds as if the old parties are fighting over who will have the worst plan. It is time we had a government that puts in place real job creation measures. Canadians deserve better. They deserve an NDP government with a real jobs plan.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party was in fact in my riding on September 3, and more specifically in Rimouski. He was asked about the project. I have a quotation from Le Devoir in which he said the following, after the first injunction: “I think that with the judgment of the Court [in favour of the drilling] and with the support of the provincial government, we should go ahead.”

Shortly after that, during the interview, he was informed that there was controversy about the environmental aspect of the project. At that point, he changed his mind and said that a balance would have to be struck between the environment and the economy, that the transportation would have to be done responsibly, and that the Liberals were concerned about climate change. However, what he needed to understand was that there were serious problems relating to the environment and that there was a major controversy. For the moment, the statement by the leader of the Liberal Party is, as the title of the article says, that he “supports the Energy East pipeline project”.

In the midst of such a controversy, he should have been better informed, because the question was extremely important for the region and for our two ridings.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is a strange question. I'm not sure I know where the hon. member is going.

What is clear is that, yes, we are open to assessing the merits of each situation, as in the case of international trade agreements, for example. Here, what is clear is that one of the elements that I haven't had the chance to mention is driving us to also oppose the Cacouna oil port project. We want these projects to yield benefits for Canada, not only for production purposes, but also for processing. In the case of the oil port in Cacouna, there is clearly no plan for a refinery. What motivates us to study the issue of the terminal in this project is the fact that there are processing possibilities at refineries in Saint John, New Brunswick. Accordingly, our position in that regard is completely consistent.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

I think that he has misunderstood our leader's statement. Our leader mentioned that we were open to the possibility of a pipeline running from west to east. He never said yes to this specific project, just like he did not say yes to the Enbridge Line 9 project either. We are open to the idea, and we examine projects on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, we are examining the project, and we haven't made a decision on the pipeline itself, which should end at an unloading terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick. We will notify you when we see the project. However, in the case of the oil export terminal itself, since there will be no refinery in Cacouna, the NDP's response is no to a port in Cacouna. We will assess the rest of the project once we have had the chance to see it in its entirety.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say how pleased I am to speak on this issue, as I represent the beautiful riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, which is about 15 minutes up the road from Cacouna. The issue is therefore very important to me. I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

I would like to thank the member for Drummond, who introduced this motion, as well as the member forMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, with whom I have had the pleasure of working on this issue, because it has been of great concern to our two ridings for a number of months already. We have worked diligently to find out what is involved in the project and learn about the economic and environmental issues associated with the Cacouna terminal.

All of this work has been carried out with the people of the area. We have communicated with the people, the media, the businesses concerned and environmental groups. Both of us have held eight information sessions on the energy east project, some of which dealt specifically with the Gros-Cacouna terminal.

The reason why I fully support the motion is that there will be environmental consequences that could be extremely serious, although I would not necessarily claim there will be extremely serious damage.

As everyone has been saying since this morning, the project is in an area that is a nursery for belugas in the St. Lawrence, a species that is at risk in this area. The work that has been done, beginning with the seismic surveys, has been subject to environmental assessments. Despite what government members are saying, there have been no proper studies or scientific opinions on the drilling activities. I will come back to this later.

Why do we believe the belugas’ nursery and habitat are being unduly threatened? It is because we are well aware that the St. Lawrence Seaway is open to merchant shipping. Ships of this size, that will be travelling along a very tricky route through the Seaway, have drafts that have never before been seen in the St. Lawrence, particularly in this area.

For instance, Aframax tankers have a draft of 14 meters and the Suezmax vessels have a draft of 16 meters. Already, this should be ringing environmental alarm bells. Indeed, alarm bells have already been sounded by a number of beluga whale experts.

The issue of ballast waters must also be considered. These kinds of supertankers have to be empty when they enter the St. Lawrence to be able to take on cargo, so they fill their hulls with water at their point of departure. These ballast waters may be from southeast Asia or the Indian Ocean, we do not know. Ballast waters are used to weigh the ship down so it can sail more safely. Under Canadian law, these waters must be discharged before the ship enters the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence estuary. However, for financial reasons, companies discharge ballast waters while continuing to sail and the ships can never fully get rid of the ballast.

That means that, year in and year out, a good 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes of the total of 60,000 tonnes of ballast water remain on these ships. The water is discharged at the port of arrival, along with any invasive species it may contain. The trip is repeated a number of times per week, per month and per year. There is a cumulative effect and it poses a threat to the St. Lawrence ecosystem.

I am going to talk about the possibility of an oil spill, not because I want to sound alarmist, but because it is a serious issue. Even in the case of small spills or leaks, our response capabilities are limited by factors that are not so much human as natural. They include the strength of currents and tides, which reduce the timeframe within which effective action is possible. Furthermore, I am just talking about the summer and fall, when the weather is good.

In winter, the situation is worse. A number of scientists and experts on the St. Lawrence have estimated that, for technical reasons, our response capability would be virtually zero in the case of a spill or a leak in the St. Lawrence in the winter. For these reasons, the port of Cacouna is not the right port to choose for exporting crude bitumen. Ice cover forms quite early in the year in the St. Lawrence and it melts quite late the following year. For that reason, it is a very risky port. We opposed the Northern Gateway project because of the environmental risks, but also because of the geography of the area in question. The same thing applies here.

We probably would not be here if the government had done its science homework. I have heard a number of debates in the House about the muzzling of scientists and about the confusion spread by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and government members with regard to scientific opinions. What must be understood, and I mentioned it earlier, is that when it comes to the seismic surveys that were carried out last spring, the seismic surveys that did in fact have an impact on the beluga habitat, Fisheries and Oceans Canada did its work by asking the department’s science branch to prepare a scientific opinion. The result was a 20-page scientific opinion drafted by six scientists who are experts on the beluga as an endangered species and on the St. Lawrence River. The work was carried out properly and the report indicated that there were risks but that they could be mitigated if certain conditions were met.

We are now in the drilling stage. Drilling was delayed because of the issue of the provincial permit. TransCanada made the decision following threats of an injunction. Then, exploratory drilling began in the fall. Obviously, Fisheries and Oceans Canada should have provided a scientific opinion for the drilling that would also take place, or was supposed to take place, during a period when belugas are found in that part of the river. However, instead of relying on the same approaches and the same scientists whose expertise it knew and who had provided entirely competent advice on seismic surveys, Fisheries and Oceans Canada decided to rely on a single biologist who was not from the departments's science branch, who is not a beluga specialist, and who provided a scientific opinion that, instead of taking up 20 pages like the opinion for the seismic surveys, took up only two. Furthermore, this scientific opinion provided by a single biologist covered a period when drilling was not even going to take place. Drilling was supposed to occur this fall. The scientific opinion, or what the government likes to call a scientific opinion, covered the period from May 19 to August 21, 2014. It is outdated. However, that is what the department put forward as a scientific opinion. Contrary to what the government says and to what the various members say in their speeches or in answer to questions, the Superior Court decision regarding the injunction requested by the Quebec centre of environmental law focused on the government's refusal to provide a true scientific opinion.

I do not want to spend all of my time on this point because I know I do not have much time left. However, paragraph 53 says the following:

...Mr. Kemp, contrary to the request regarding seismic work, did not see fit to forward the question to the science branch of his department.

That led the judge to note the following in paragraph 106 of her ruling—and this has already been quoted but the members of the government would do well to listen closely:

...the fact that nobody from TransCanada or DFO's science branch answered their perfectly legitimate questions about whether carrying out the work on the dates proposed by the proponent could cause a significant disturbance or have a significant impact on marine mammals...

Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not respond to this question. The department did not do its homework and is at the centre of this fiasco, which is embodied in the injunction granted by the Superior Court.

I will conclude by saying that, clearly, we are in favour of this motion. However, that does not mean that we are opposed to the project itself. The project could well continue without the Port of Gros-Cacouna. We will determine that once the project is tabled.

This is an extremely important issue for us. We did our homework; we did our research. We have looked at the economy and the environment. There is no doubt among those of us on this side of the House that the government is primarily responsible for this fiasco. We are also certain that we need to say no to making the port of Cacouna an oil terminal.

[The Environment, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as early as May 2014, three independent scientists asked that all activity planned in the Cacouna area be cancelled because of the serious risk to the beluga whale population.

Hundreds of residents, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park coordinating committee, the Société pour les mammifères marins and many municipalities also shared their serious concerns, but the minister did not budge.

Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans think it is right that residents of the Lower St. Lawrence are being forced to go to court in order for their opinions about the oil port in Cacouna to be heard?