Guy Caron

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, which gives me an opportunity to touch on an aspect of the bill that I did not address in my speech.

This is a matter of externalities, the polluter pays principle and the responsible development of our natural resources. We also need to talk about social acceptability. The government needs to ensure that it has the support of the residents and the first nations of any community where a pipeline will be passing through and jeopardizing the economic activity in the community that is not necessarily related to the pipeline or to the general transportation of hazardous materials or petroleum products.

When we hear that 67% of the population of British Columbia and basically every first nation in the province oppose the project, it is clear that the government did not do the work required to achieve that social acceptability. This is a reflex that all good governments should have but that the Conservative government seems to be lacking, the reflex of consulting with people and responding to their concerns. Given the current lack of support for this project, we can see that this work was not done.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments.

I also respect him. I have had the pleasure of working and talking with him on a regular basis, and I am pleased to be able to return the compliment to him.

Indeed, on this side of the House and as far as our leader, the leader of the official opposition, is concerned, we clearly do not want oil sands or their development to be eliminated, despite what people often say. We are looking for something geared toward development that is sustainable in the true sense of the word. People often gloss over the meaning of the words “sustainable development”, but we want to see development that is truly sustainable, both economically and environmentally.

All too often we see that the environmental aspect is swept under the rug. One of the things some people forget is the polluter pays principle. This has to do with external factors, the costs that all of Alberta or even all of Canada might have to bear. TransCanada's Energy East pipeline project, with the pipeline that would go through my riding, is a telling example.

The oil port project is well received by a segment of the population because people see the potential economic spinoffs. However, this still jeopardizes the tourism industry, and many opponents and people questioning the project say so. Beluga whale watching brings significant tourism and economic spinoffs. Some people say the benefits are even more significant, in absolute terms, than the potential benefits of the oil port.

This is therefore a very complex issue, and the costs and benefits of every project must always be assessed. This is the type of development we want, development that is responsible when it comes to the oil sands.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sudbury for giving me a few minutes to talk about Bill C-3, which is about an issue that really matters to me. It is about safety and amendments to the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

I am concerned about this issue and it is a personal one for me because there is a big debate about it right now. Our colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley and several others have talked about a number of things, including the northern gateway pipeline. However, TransCanada has a project called energy east. They want to build a pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to Saint John, New Brunswick. The pipeline would go through my riding, Témiscouata, and through the lower St. Lawrence. They would build an oil port in Cacouna, which is not in my riding, but which is nearby. Cacouna is about a 45-minute drive from Rimouski.

This is important because some parts of this bill, if it is passed, would result in the construction of an oil port where there is currently a commercial port.

In addition, Part 5 of this bill amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. It introduces new requirements for operators of oil handling facilities, which is what an oil port is, including the requirement to notify the minister of their operations and to submit plans to the minister.

I will not go into detail about this because I do not have much time, but I wonder why this has not always been the case. This bill seems to be a hasty response on the part of the Conservative government to implement measures that will reassure the public, particularly with respect to the northern gateway project, which has been on the agenda for a very long time.

Before the election, I worked briefly on the pipeline and oil transportation file in British Columbia. I picked up on people's concerns about security measures and navigation problems and risks along the British Columbia coast. This bill sets out to reassure people, but does not completely succeed.

We will vote in favour of this bill because it is an improvement over the status quo. However, I highly doubt that the bill has addressed everyone's concerns.

The reason is that the government's actions in the past—and I am not just talking about this bill, but also its decisions, particularly since 2011—have not really responded to the need for additional protection. Environmentally, these actions have not ensured that the work was done to protect Canadians and their livelihoods.

The people on British Columbia's coast still remember an incident that happened 40 years ago, the wreck of the Exxon Valdez. They were affected, and they now want to ensure that the coast is well protected, specifically the coast of the islands off British Columbia.

What have the Conservatives done since 2011, before we started discussing the bill? They have reduced Coast Guard service, including closing the Coast Guard station in Kitsilano.

They have made cuts to the marine communications and traffic services centres, including the centres in Vancouver and St. John's, Newfoundland. They have closed the British Columbia regional office for oil spill emergencies. Why? Why are the Conservatives not cancelling these closures?

There have been cuts to the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research, as well as to the main environmental emergency programs, including in the event of oil spills in Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia.

All the decisions made in this matter, before the bill was discussed, fly in the face of the need for additional protection under this bill. No one really knows where the Conservative government is going.

As an economist, I am very sensitive to externality issues and issues related to the principle we support, the polluter pays principle. This bill contains elements that are not in line with that concept.

Let us take a look at part 4, which has to do with liability in the event of a spill involving noxious and hazardous substances or oil.

In committee, specifically at second reading where I had the opportunity to speak, we proposed that public funds not be used in cases where a disaster is caused by a private company. The bill caps that compensation at $500 million. Beyond $500 million, taxpayers could end up being forced, through the government, to pay the cost of the cleanup and compensation for the people who lose their livelihood or source of economic activity. This makes no sense.

It is the company that should take responsibility for this. When it comes to externalities, if the company had to take more responsibility or even full responsibility for the cost of an oil spill or a spill of hazardous and noxious substances, then it would take measures to ensure its own survival.

Currently, oil companies have a profit margin of tens of millions of dollars for every shipment of oil. If they have limited responsibility for a spill, then they have no incentive to take the protective measures they need to take. Their main incentive is their reputation, and their ability to maintain good public relations to minimize the hits to their reputation.

That is not enough incentive. A greater share of the responsibility for compensation should be taken by the private corporations that ship oil and hazardous and noxious substances.

This bill does not go far enough. We announced amendments at second reading and we proposed them at report stage. Many witnesses supported the opposition on this. In fact, that is what the Conservatives are grappling with on this day when the decision on the northern gateway pipeline will be announced.

Many people from British Columbia, and not just citizens and first nations, are talking to the Conservatives. We know that the Conservatives are not used to negotiating with the first nations or acknowledging their concerns on these issues. Even witnesses who work at port authorities and others who work in the field told the Conservatives exactly what needed to be done. In fact, their comments were often consistent with those made by the official opposition. However, these demands have been ignored. No amendment was accepted. The current bill is the same as it was when it was introduced at second reading.

A responsible government that wants to be known for good governance would realize that it does not have all the answers and that the bill has weaknesses that must be corrected so that it can be true to its objective. Instead, the government is turning a deaf ear. It is refusing to listen and to accept very pertinent comments that address the concerns raised about the environment and liability when it comes to the transportation of noxious or hazardous substances that could be detrimental to the economic activity of much of the community affected.

We find it difficult to understand why the government is remaining silent and intransigent. I do believe that we were all elected by our constituents, in my case the people of the lovely riding of Rimouski—Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. We have the duty to debate and improve bills.

The government members are remaining silent about this bill. No one is rising to debate it and to justify the proposed measures. We have pointed out this bill's weaknesses, and we will continue to do so.

As I mentioned, this will not prevent us from voting in favour of the bill at third reading because it is still better than what is currently in place. However, I mentioned that I do not understand why the measures proposed in part 5 have not been implemented already. They seem to be very reasonable.

In short, we will be supporting the bill. However, we are very disappointed with the Conservative government's silence and refusal to listen at every stage, including study in committee.

If the Conservatives were to ask me a question about this bill, I would be very pleased to answer.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague's passionate speech irritated some of the Conservative government members. They will either have to make a decision or accept the decision that is going to be made because it will have a major impact on the future of this country, and the west coast in particular.

I would like to ask a question. It is not about transporting oil specifically, but it is about the Conservative government's previous decisions to eliminate or cut resources at the Coast Guard, search and rescue centres and oil spill monitoring centres.

All of those cuts will have a major impact on future decisions, including the decision that will be made later today regarding the northern gateway pipeline, and on the future of marine transportation of oil.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the impact not only of these decisions, which he already addressed, but also of the cuts that have been made to organizations that monitor marine disasters and protect our coastlines and the people who live there.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a rather simple question for my colleague, who likely remembers the history of agriculture.

The topic of seeds is a very sensitive one. Since humans have participated in agriculture, producers have held the historic right to save their seed.

We definitely want this bill to be studied at second reading. However, we are concerned about the fact that farmers could be held responsible if their fields are contaminated because of the existence of seed registration, where a company owns the intellectual property rights to a seed. They are not personally responsible, but they could ultimately end up being legally responsible.

I remind members of the case of Percy Schmeiser, who was accused by Monsanto. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court and Mr. Schmeiser had to compensate Monsanto for the contamination of his field, even though he had not planted those seeds.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that situation, about the scope of the bill and about what potential impact it could have on similar situations.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi. There is indeed cause for concern. That is why the committee must be especially careful when examining this bill.

It is important to understand that a farmer's right to reuse his own seeds is not only an ancestral right but a truly historic one, dating back to when farming became a human activity. There are changes happening in the industry, and some of them are positive. I do not think that we need to abandon all of the progress made by the industry in improving our crop productivity and yield. We must not abandon everything and say that it is all bad. However, we need to make sure that farmers who want to can continue farming and we need to preserve the ancestral rights that they have been exercising since the beginning of human history.

I know that there are a lot of concerns about this. I do not want to be like the Conservatives and dismiss these concerns out of hand. They must be taken into account. Contamination is an important issue. Why should someone have to pay for accidental contamination of fields, for example? If people are using patented varieties of seeds, then those who paid to develop those seeds must be compensated. If that is not the case, these farmers need to be protected. Personal choice must take precedence. I hope that the committee will have a chance to hear from witnesses on this.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there is an issue with interpretation, but that is not what I said. I did mention that there were family farms. The 12% of the Lower St. Lawrence economy that depends on agriculture is made up exclusively of family farms. I know full well that there are family farms in this country; there are some in my riding. There are family farms everywhere and we must protect them and be sure to help them be productive so that they can survive. I did not say that there are no family farms, on the contrary.

However, I did say that we have to be vigilant and ensure that these farms can continue to be productive and competitive.

Moreover, I did not say that we were opposed to this bill, on the contrary. We have said many times that we would vote in favour of it at second reading and that we wanted the committee to do its job and take into consideration the concerns that will be brought forward, because there will be some.

Seed is one of the main concerns that were raised. For example, I mentioned a case that had to do with contamination. Farmers could end up being responsible for crops that they did not seed, but that were contaminated in their own fields. This is not something we can ignore. On the contrary, we must address this and I hope the committee will do its job.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île

I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, which, as members have mentioned in previous speeches, is an omnibus bill.

This is an issue that is important to me, my riding and my region. Agriculture accounts for 12% of the Lower St. Lawrence region's economy. Agriculture is an important part of the region's economy.

I frequently consult with farmers in my riding, members of the Fédération de l'UPA du Bas-Saint-Laurent. Some aspects of this bill are similar to previous legislative measures that raised concerns, and they are raising the same concerns as before.

As my colleagues mentioned in their speeches, we are going to support this bill at second reading so that it can be thoroughly examined in committee. That is the purpose of second reading. Since this is an omnibus bill, we are in favour of some provisions, but we may be opposed to others if they remain as they are right now. That is true of the seed issue, among others.

The ratification of the 1991 accord on seed intellectual property raised many concerns, which is not a bad thing when it comes to intellectual property protection. The provisions regarding patents and intellectual property rights allow for research and development. They also make it possible to promote investments in this area and provide a certain amount of protection for investments made by companies that want to improve seeds and various farming techniques.

However, we must always ensure that there is a balance between the protection of intellectual property provided by patents and the protection of farmers' historic rights, rights that have existed since farming became a human activity. According to these rights, farmers and producers can freely reuse seeds that they have saved from previous harvests. However, Bill C-18 does not afford such protection. There seems to be an imbalance. Far more importance is being placed on the protection of intellectual property provided by patents than on the historic rights of farmers.

There is one case in particular that I think illustrates this imbalance and the danger it represents for farmers. A Saskatchewan farmer named Percy Schmeiser, who farms canola, had organic plants, meaning that he did not use a product from Monsanto, which produces herbicide-resistant seeds called Roundup Ready. Mr. Schmeiser did not use these seeds. However, Mr. Schmeiser's field was contaminated by canola plants from nearby fields when those seeds spread. He found canola plants from nearby fields in his harvest.

Monsanto took Mr. Schmeiser all the way to the Supreme Court to demand that he pay for using the seeds. Mr. Schmeiser, who did not use these seeds, had not paid Monsanto for them. Monsanto demanded that Mr. Schmeiser pay the company, even though Mr. Schmeiser's field had been accidentally contaminated. Mr. Schmeiser lost in the Supreme Court as a result of the provisions in the current legislation.

These are the concerns shared by farmers who want to retain the power to choose their own seeds, which they have saved from previous harvests. They could have to pay for seeds that accidentally contaminated their field against their will and despite any safeguards they may have put in place. Unfortunately, Bill C-18 does not provide this kind of protection for farmers. We are very concerned about that.

I would like to reiterate that we do not oppose protecting intellectual property, meaning the protection provided by patents. However, we need to strike a balance so that we protect farmers in a sector that is extremely complex and includes many factors that cannot be calculated in advance.

Here, again, we have an omnibus bill that contains a number of different elements. Bill C-18 amends nine different laws. Clearly, we support some of the provisions, but we think that some others are unbalanced or do not serve the common good or, in this case, the common good of farmers.

For example, one aspect that we support is related to the advance payments program. Farmers really appreciate that program. It is a financial loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. Farming is a very unpredictable sector. Good crops depend on the weather and climate conditions. A poor climate will yield far more disappointing crops. The advance payments program allows farmers to reconcile their anticipated income with their expenditures and anticipated expenditures. It is a welcome program, one that is appreciated.

Another aspect of Bill C-18 that we feel is beneficial is the fact that red tape will be reduced in the future. That is good for the industry. It was one of the major concerns with the current program. In this case, we cannot really oppose a measure that will help farmers.

There is another element that was not part of the program in the past but that will be now, namely raising breeding animals. Of course, grain farmers had access to the program, as did beef producers, but not for breeding animals. Now, farmers who raise breeding animals will have access to the program. We think that is worthwhile progress.

That said, there are various elements that will require the committee's attention. I hope that the committee will make good use of its time to move forward with these favourable provisions, but also to respond to concerns. I am certain that the committee members will hear testimony from agricultural representatives, whether at the Quebec provincial level from the UPA or the Union paysanne, or at the national level from the National Farmers Union or the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

I hope that the government will take into account the common good, not just corporate interests. Right now, agriculture is at a crossroads. There is tremendous pressure from the United States in particular. There is currently a tendency in the United States and some other countries toward vertical integration. In Mr. Schmeiser's case, it was not about large-scale production; it was really about a family farm. There really seems to be a movement afoot to make life much more difficult for small-scale farmers and much easier for large-scale producers. Vertical integration is when big agricultural conglomerates or corporations, such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, buy up family farms that are barely scraping by, thereby reinforcing their market dominance.

We need to strike a balance in Canada. One way to achieve that is through supply management. I know that both our Conservative and Liberal friends have repeatedly expressed their support for the supply management system. The system enables us to protect something really important, our agricultural diversity, by protecting family farms, which are guaranteed stable incomes and predictable expenses. Parts of Bill C-18, even though they do not affect the dairy industry directly, are in line with that thinking, and that is why we have to support it. However, I really hope that the government will pay heed to concerns about other elements of the bill.

We will support this bill at second reading, but I cannot guarantee that we will support it at third reading if those concerns are not addressed.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

I am not talking about the process, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about acceptability.

If the government actually had acted as a government should, it would have gone to businesses, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. It would have gone to all of those groups that are worried right now about the impact it will have. Those groups have huge research abilities, and they have done research on this. The arguments the government has given them have not convinced them that it would be a good deal for them.

The government is trying to tell us that the only way to deal with those international obligations—because we signed those treaties—is by the legislation that is presented to us. That is not true. We have a piece of legislation, which can be amended in a way that would alleviate those fears and still respect our obligations.

I do not buy the argument that it is either this piece with no changes or nothing and then we would be in breach of our obligations. It does not work that way.

It is the same for the agreement with the U.S., answering to FATCA and the proposed IGA, where it has to be this way or no way. I do not buy that argument.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the co-operatives issue is largely overlooked by the Conservatives in general. The only good measure, which is one that we requested and on which the Conservatives seemed to agree since they implemented it, was the transfer of powers or authority over the co-operatives to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. For historical reasons, they were previously held by the Department of Industry.

The Department of Industry had a new tool that could have been used for economic development purposes, However, I saw nothing of it. The secretariat was eliminated at the same time as the transfer was made, or even slightly before it. It was not really abolished, but no one works there anymore. That is virtually the same thing. It was a co-operatives secretariat.

Much was made of the International Year of Co-operatives. We had some major gatherings in Quebec City. The minister went there to boast about his work. In the meantime, however, Canada was reducing the co-operatives’ power and influence. Ultimately, instead of assisting them, it took away their tools. In several measures, particularly regarding the caisses populaires, tax rates were increased.

In that sense, the Conservatives give the co-operatives absolutely no support.