OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 105 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, June 17, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 17, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 105 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 105 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 105 (Version officielle) 147 105 17 06 2014 2014/06/17 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings (1005) [ Translation ] James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2008-09 and 2009-10 annual report on the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.

[ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 26 petitions.

Digital Privacy Act Hon. John Duncan (for the Minister of Industry) Bill S-4. First reading. moved that Bill S-4,

An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act , be read the first time. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time) Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent for travel motions for committees. The first is in that, in relation to the annual conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees and the Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors' annual conference, ten members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to St.

John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, in August 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. Second, that in relation to the pre-budget consultations, 2014, ten members of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia and Montreal, Quebec in the fall of 2014 and the winter of 2015, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

Third, that in relation to the pre-budget consultations, 2014, ten members of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Toronto, Ontario in the fall of 2014 and the winter of 2015, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. Fourth, that in relation to the pre-budget consultations, 2014, ten members of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Winnipeg, Edmonton, Yellowknife, and Vancouver in the fall of 2014 and the winter of 2015, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

Fifth, that in relation to its study of the defence of North America, ten members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Winnipeg, Yellowknife, Cambridge Bay, Resolute Bay, and Iqaluit, Nunavut in the fall of 2014 and the winter of 2015, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

Sixth, that in relation to its study of the defence of North America, ten members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Bagotville, Quebec; Gagetown, New Brunswick; and Halifax, Nova Scotia in the spring and fall of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. Seventh, that in relation to its study of the defence of North America, ten members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Trenton, Ontario; Thule, Greenland; and Alert, Nunavut in the spring and fall of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

Finally, that in relation to its study of northern and Arctic fisheries, ten members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to Whitehorse and Dawson City, Yukon; and Inuvik, Hay River, and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories in the spring and fall of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Speaker: There does not seem to be consent.

Petitions Pan-Canadian Concussion Strategy Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present eight petitions regarding concussions. The signatures were collected by two extraordinary young women in my riding, Sandhya and Swapna Mylabathula, who are doing their Ph.D. in concussion research. They have spent almost three years working on a bill proposal for a pan-Canadian concussion strategy. Concussion can deeply impact individuals psychologically, neuropsychologically, socially, and economically. Those living with this brain injury deserve comprehensive action and support.

The petitioners call upon the government to enact a pan-Canadian concussion awareness week; a pan-Canadian strategy for prevention, diagnosis and management; and a centre of excellence in concussion research.

Canada Post Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first petition calls upon the government to reverse its recent cuts to Canada Post services and look instead for ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking.

Public Monuments Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the government to withdraw its support and endorsement for the construction of the Never Forgotten memorial monument in Green Cove, Nova Scotia.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. From residents of Salt Spring Island within my riding, I present a petition calling for this House to protect and ensure stable and predictable funding for the nation's public broadcaster, the CBC.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I also present petitions from residents of my riding and beyond, from Qualicum Beach and Campbell River, calling for the Conservative government to refuse to approve the Northern Gateway pipeline as long as there are so many significant scientific questions that have not been resolved.

Animal Welfare Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to present petitions from almost 18,000 people across Canada. Members might ask what the issue is that has generated such enthusiasm from Canadians. There is a desire to strengthen our laws to protect animals. These petitions are in support of two bills to strengthen our laws against animal cruelty. Animals are not just property and they are not just working animals. Animals are sentient beings capable of thinking and feeling pain.

They should not be treated as property and they should be better protected under our animal cruelty legislation. We need significant penalties and a greater likelihood of conviction in the case of an offence. On behalf of the almost 18,000 people who have signed these petitions, and on behalf of the many other Canadians who support the well-being of Canada's companion animals and other animals, I do submit these petitions. I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to support our bills to strengthen our animal cruelty legislation.

(1010) Falun Gong Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today and present a petition on behalf of many Albertans who are calling upon the government to act to stop the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.

Canada Post Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has struck at the heart of many Canadians across the country. I am presenting one of some dozens of petitions that have been presented by the NDP, the official opposition, decrying the cuts to Canada Post that have come at the hands of the Conservative government. Small towns across rural Canada rely on their post offices.

Therefore, people from Smithers, Houston, Telkwa, and the surrounding areas are asking the government to reverse its draconian cuts to Canada's postal service, return it to its once proper service, and to in fact expand service to allow Canada Post to continue being viable and strong into the future.

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Agricultural Growth Act The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18,

An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-18. Second reading Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it truly is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-18 ,

an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food. I am sure many in the House are scratching their head and wondering why the MP for Sudbury, whose community is known for mining and being a hard rock city, would speak to this legislation. We have a lot of farmers in my community, and agriculture is important. This is an important bill for us to debate in the House and I am honoured to speak to it. I also want to thank my hon. colleague, the MP for Welland , for his hard work on this file. He is our excellent critic for agriculture. It is important for me to say that we support this legislation.

We want to ensure that it gets to committee but we do have concerns. This is once again another Conservative omnibus bill. I guess I could merge those two words together; “consermibus” is what I was trying to say a minute ago. This legislation would make changes to nine different pieces of legislation. As with previous omnibus bills, there are measures that we support in Bill C-18 and there are those that we see as posing significant concerns for the agriculture sector. Many of the proposed changes requested by various stakeholders deserve thorough debate and consideration.

As I mentioned, we support the bill going to committee but we may not support it at further stages. We hope we can make some amendments. We hope to be able to bring forward some of the changes requested by stakeholders as well as some of their concerns. It is important to recognize that when it comes to plant breeders' rights, New Democrats believe that we need to look at a balanced approach. A balanced approach to this is essential. We want to protect Canada's farmers and the public researchers who are involved in this. We understand the role of intellectual property rights.

We understand it is important to encourage innovation. We want to ensure that all Canadians can access and benefit from our agriculture legacy. We need to ensure that the bill is studied in more detail so we can find out how producers would be impacted by some of the proposed changes. There are concerns about safety controls over seeds, plants, and animals. The CFIA would likely require additional resources. The cuts made by the Conservative government in the past to CFIA are concerning.

We want to ensure that this is addressed and that there would no longer be any gaps in enforcement, especially when it comes to some of the safety measures that are involved in this. We would all agree that farmers are the backbone of Canada's food system. It does not matter ultimately the colour of one's tie, such as the one I am wearing today, as to how we perceive our farmers. Members of all parties want our farmers to earn a decent living and produce quality food for Canadian families. We have a great organization in my riding of Sudbury called Eat Local.

Approximately 30 to 40 local producers provide food to Eat Local in Sudbury. Let me just talk about a few of them. Les jardins Blondin specializes in ecologically grown greens, radishes, and assorted produce. Rowantree Farms, Heart and Soil Gardens, Piebird and Soggy Creek Seed, Ouelette et Fils, and Mountain Lake Bison Range are other producers that provide food to Eat Local. Many of these great organizations in my riding are doing great work when it comes to ensuring that we have local produce.

It is important for us to ensure that farmers and companies like those that I mentioned in my riding and those right across the country continue to prosper. Many of those I have met at Eat Local are modern farmers as well. As parliamentarians we need to ensure that we link them to cutting-edge research and technology. Canadians deserve practical policies that can grow our rural economies and foster sustainable agricultural communities. As I mentioned earlier, when it comes to plant breeders' rights, the official opposition believes that balance is essential.

(1015) However, we do have some concerns when it comes to public research. We want to ensure that the incredible contributions that are being made by our agriculture sector remain competitive and benefit all Canadians. Therefore, it is essential that the federal government support publicly funded research, especially for farmers. I am going to talk a bit now about some of the specifics of the bill. Bill C-18 would protect the rights of researchers to use patent materials for non-commercial uses.

However, given the government's defunding of public research and its focus on public-private funding partnerships and linking research to commercialization, it is our opinion on this side of the House that it is unclear if the provisions as written would effectively protect research. Public plant research has made numerous contributions to the Canadian agriculture community, and it is our opinion that it is essential that support for public research be maintained.

Therefore, one of the things we want to ensure is that the government will continue to support public research and it would not be hindered in the bill at all. Canada is moving toward ratification of the 1991 model law of the international union for the protection of new varieties of plants, UPOV '91, which expands the rights afforded to plant breeders for varieties they develop and increases the places along the value chain where plant breeders can collect royalties.

Bill C-18 includes the following new exclusion rights for plant breeders: reproduction, conditioning, sale, export or import, and repeated use to produce commercially another plant variety if the repetition is necessary for that purpose. It also includes stocking for the purpose of any other protected acts. The term of the grant of plant breeders' rights would also be increased from 18 years to 20 years, or 25 years in the case of a tree, vine, or any other category listed by the regulations. This also includes a new clause that would grant farmers' privilege.

That would allow farmers to save seed and condition seed for purposes of production and reproduction on their own farm. We see that as important. This privilege would not be extended to the storing of seed, or to the sale of harvested material from protected seed. Bill C-18 would grant CFIA the ability to make changes through regulation to which circumstances and classes of farmers and varieties would not be covered under the farmers' privilege.

It would also protect the rights of researchers to use patented materials as the basis for developing a new variety or another research use, and it would enhance the public accessibility to the registry of plant varieties. This is a major change from the previous act. One of the benefits we see in the bill is that granting farmers' privilege, to allow farmers to save and condition seed for use on their own farms, really would promote access.

That is one of the important things for Canadian farmers, especially if we are looking at the results of private breeding research in Canada and other countries through effective intellectual property rights. This is an important bill for all of us, all parties and all members, to stand up and speak to and debate. Even though I come from what many perceive as a mining community, we do also have some great local producers.

I also tip my hat to Eat Local Sudbury, which is doing such a great job of promoting local produce and local foods and making sure that, if we needed to, we could survive on what we are growing in northern Ontario. I look forward to questions and comments.

(1020) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, first, I must recognize that the member did coin an interesting word, “Conservabus”. That is a word we might be able to use on several pieces of legislation. It is a valid point in regard to the number of pieces of legislation that would actually be changed within this one piece of legislation. Bill C-18 would amend nine separate pieces of agriculture-related legislation, affecting plant breeders' rights, feed, seed, fertilizer, animal health, plant protection, monetary penalties, agriculture marketing programs, and farm debt mediation.

It is a fairly all-encompassing piece of legislation. Given the members remarks in regard to the importance of our farmers—and I think we underestimate the valuable contribution they make—it would have been more appropriate to have had several pieces of legislation brought in so that the farmers and other stakeholders would have been afforded the opportunity to have more direct input on those aspects of the legislation that are of critical importance to our communities. I wonder if the member might want to add to that? Mr. Glenn Thibeault : Mr.

Speaker, my little stumble did create a new word that I think we will all be able to use moving forward. We do not like omnibus bills. We in the opposition would be in agreement that it is important to be able to bring bills forward, have debate, and be able to hear from stakeholders when we get these bills to committee. We are supporting this to get to committee. However, that is where the support may end, because we need to ensure we are doing what we believe is right for our farmers.

I will tip my hat to my hon. colleague from Welland for the work he has been doing with farmers through the Prairies and up in Sudbury. He had the opportunity of meeting with the folks in Sudbury at Eat Local. We need to find ways to ensure that we are helping him with new technology and research. This bill has some of those, but we need to ensure that, once it gets to committee, we are able to see the advancements move forward. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by my friend from Sudbury. We need to look at Bill C-18 in the larger context of trends.

I am concerned with what we have seen happening under this administration, which is a steady trend away from publicly funded research into new seed varieties. That is how we got canola and Laird lentils. There was public investment in coming up with new varieties of seeds, which were then available to everyone. We are shifting to private breeders only and moving more toward Monsanto and less toward Agriculture Canada. The Conservatives call it the agricultural growth act. They might as well call it the agriculture concentration of corporate ownership act. I am concerned with the specifics of the bill.

I know it will go to committee, because the Conservatives have the votes; but the agricultural community is split on this, and it would help us all if we were to look at the larger question. Since budget 2012, we have seen a reduction in available funding for public research into better seed varieties, and we see through Bill C-18 the opportunity for the Monsantos of the world to keep collecting royalties over which the farmers would have no say as to how that money is spent. It is not an agricultural growth act; it is removing the rights of farmers.

(1025) Mr. Glenn Thibeault : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is hitting the nail on the head when it comes to the specifics of the bill. While we do see that there are some positives in this bill, and while there are a few aspects that we think are good, there are many that raise some warning flags for us. I will talk about my farmers in Sudbury, the folks who are providing the food and the produce to Eat Local Sudbury. These are the folks who we need to ensure can continue to grow and continue to prosper.

If what we are seeing in this is the slow elimination of the resources that farmers could utilize and the support of the larger farming corporations, then that is heading in the wrong direction. I will rely on great MPs like my colleague from Welland, who is working on this file, to make sure we get this right. [ Translation ] Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am not my party's critic in this area, but I do have an interest in this bill because Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is a large riding with many farmers.

I think that it is important to review the bill and take a look at the laws it will affect. The bill proposes amendments to laws that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA, is responsible for enforcing. The laws affected are the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

As my colleague said, the government has introduced yet another omnibus bill and is taking an unbalanced approach. When the government combines an omnibus bill with limited debate, it is easy to lose sight of some very important aspects that will negatively impact farmers and producers as well as the government. That is why the government often finds itself before the courts. We have seen this government go to court many times to defend measures it has put in place; it keeps losing. That is not an effective way to be spending the money it collects through our taxes.

When the government wants to introduce legislative measures, instead of wasting taxpayers' money, it should ensure that its legislation will be accepted and do everything in its power to ensure that it is good legislation. (1030) [ English ] As I said, this piece of legislation in particular would change nine different acts. One of them is the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. There are some positive changes in the bill; however, sometimes we have to see if the benefits actually outweigh the concerns and look at the impact they would have.

This particular piece, amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, would actually ensure that a variety of developers are able to see a return on investment for their plant breeding research efforts, providing incentives for an important sector of Canadian agri-business. It would grant farmers' privilege to allow farmers to save and condition seed for use on their own farms, and promote access for Canadian farmers to the results of private breeding research from Canada and other countries through effective intellectual property.

There are a few other benefits we can see: to protect researchers from infringement on plant breeders rights, enhance public accessibility and transparency when it comes to plant breeding, and maintain the existing compulsory licence system, providing some assurances that varieties can be made available at reasonable prices, widely distributed, and kept at high quality. However, when we look at the concerns that the farmers have raised, we have to take those seriously, and that is why we have a concern.

Yes, we want to move this to committee, and yes, we are supportive of having a good debate on this here and making sure that our piece of legislation will be a proper one. However, we have a big question mark when it comes to sending stuff to committee as well. We do not know whether or not the government would be supportive of changes that would actually strengthen the bill, because over and over again we have seen a government that wants to push everything forward and not take any suggestions into account—really good suggestions, changes, and amendments,.

Here are the concerns about the amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. People have raised concerns on this particular piece of legislation and this particular area, even in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. I hear about it in Manitoulin Island and along the Highway 17 corridor, including from people in the agricultural sector in Thessalon. Here are some of the concerns. There are a few major concerns regarding the clauses on the farmers' privilege. The farmers' privilege does not include the stocking of propagating material for any use.

Even if farmers are able to save seed for the purpose of reproduction, it appears in this legislation that they may have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate the privilege. Farmers' privilege does not extend to the sale of harvested material. This means that farmers will likely still be required to pay for the sale of the crops grown from farm-saved seed. It also means that plant breeders could potentially generate revenue on a farmers' entire production rather than just on the seed purchased to grow the crop. This could have significant impacts on the profit margin of farmers.

Farmers are already having a tough time, especially when it is not a good season. To add another risk would be very detrimental to them. Bill C-18 also includes amendments that would allow the CFIA to make changes through regulation, not through legislation, to farmers' privilege. This means that the government could significantly hinder these rights at any time, without parliamentary oversight. We know how the Conservative government is about parliamentary oversight. Obviously it is not very good. We have to take that into consideration.

Allowing for farm-saved seed is an optional exception under UPOV 91, meaning that Canada could disallow farm-saved seed and still fulfill its international obligations under the agreement. There are other concerns raised here regarding the potential legal burden for producers. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has called for protections for producers from claims of patent infringement with respect to natural, accidental spreading of patented plant genetic material. However, these protections are not included in Bill C-18 .

Given the expansion of plant breeders' rights under Bill C-18 , it is likely that farmers will face increases in expensive litigation. As I said before, a lot of these farmers are already experiencing some tough times. If we want to encourage new young folks to take on farming, we need to make sure that there is no such hindrance in place, or we have to limit them. While our producers may well be on an extremely uneven financial playing field in relation to plant breeders, there are no provisions in Bill C-18 to ensure that legal fees do not impede a farmer's defence in such cases.

Other changes in this bill, as I mentioned, were the amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payments program. Again, there are some benefits, but we also have to look at the concerns. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has called for an increase to the maximum amount in advances to address rising farm expenses. Unfortunately, such increases are not included in Bill C-18 . This is exactly why the government has to be open to amendments.

When we look at the amendments to the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, and the Plant Protection Act, one of the key concerns is that the amendments to the FDMA may require additional resources from Agriculture Canada, as the minister will now be involved in mediation cases. The government has yet to address whether it currently has the resources it needs to fulfill this new duty. Under Bill C-18 , the minister will not be required to review the operations of the FDMA as often.

Given that the proposed changes to the FDMA involve an expanded role for the minister in the mediation process, this review period should not be extended. Again, we cannot ignore some of the significant concerns about the provisions in this bill. I want to finish off by indicating that I think it is important to recognize how important farmers are to our communities and to Canada's food system.

(1035) New Democrats believe that farmers must be able to earn a decent living producing quality food for Canadians. That is why the government needs to make sure that when it introduces legislation, it takes the time to listen to the farmers, the opposition parties, and the professionals, whether it is the researchers or the farmers themselves, to make sure we get it right. Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have to say that Bill C-18 is one of the most sought after pieces of legislation by the agriculture community. I come from farming.

I live in a farming riding, which is very diverse. It has livestock, grains and oil seeds, horticulture, and greenhouses, and I have not yet come across any farmers who are not waiting for this bill to get to committee, because it means so much to them. We have to remember that 45% of breeding rights applications are from public breeders. The rest come together because there is an incredible advantage. We have been able to increase the production level and the quality level of our products. Not only are they public but they bring with them public-private partnerships.

That is why the farming community is so interested in this bill and in the flexibility of advance payments and being able to save seeds, which is something that was not there before. We want to make sure that still exists. I would ask the member if she would encourage everyone to get this bill wrapped up and get it to committee. Does she support that? Mrs. Carol Hughes : Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the member was not listening. I said that New Democrats are prepared to move it to committee. However, we need to make sure that there is proper debate. Canadians send us here to be their voices.

When we look at this particular bill, we need to make sure we protect Canada's farmers and public researchers. While we understand the role of intellectual property rights and encouraging innovation, we need to ensure that all Canadians can access and benefit from our agricultural legacy. We know that the government has tabled many bills that have been problematic, and it has found itself before the court.

Will the Conservatives actually allow us to debate this bill properly, bring witnesses to committee and not rush them through, and make the proper amendments, even if those amendments are the bright ideas of the opposition, because that is where they come from?

(1040) Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her informative comments. She raised some questions in her previous answer about whether the government would do this or that. As a former member of the agriculture committee, I can advise the member that hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars have been cut from public research, particularly on the breeding of seeds. I am truly alarmed by it. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands brought to our attention the fact that now we are moving public research away from the public and into private industry.

It is clear that the intention of the government is the corporatization of this kind of research, which is enhanced by parts of this bill that basically restrict the right of farmers to keep and save their seeds. I am wondering, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the government, if the member is as alarmed as I am by the tenor of this bill. Mrs. Carol Hughes : Mr. Speaker, again I agree that the government's direction might not be the right one, and that is why we need to make sure it goes to committee. However, we need Conservatives to be open-minded.

Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to get an open-minded Conservative at committee. The Conservatives see the summer coming, and they are trying to get as much under their belts as possible, but at what risk? We need to have proper debate on this bill. I can say that people have raised concerns. [ Translation ] According to Dominique Bernier of AmiEs de la Terre de Québec, this bill considerably weakens farmers' ancestral rights by forcing them to pay compensation to agro-industrial giants on the entirety of their harvest.

However, the marketing of new crop varieties by the big breeders rests on a world heritage, the patient selection, over thousands of years, of crops by succeeding generations of farmers. We heard from many witnesses on the changes that must be made to this bill, and when it is examined in committee, I hope that the Conservatives will listen to people's concerns and make the necessary improvements to the bill. Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, in my riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, farming is a long-standing tradition that spans many generations. The Institut de technologie agroalimentaire, for example, has been teaching young people who want to become farmers about leading-edge technologies in the industry for generations. Biopterre's Bioproducts Development Center, which is extremely successful and innovative, supports companies as they innovate and develop products related to agriculture— The Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development . [ English ] Mr. Mark Strahl : Mr. Speaker, I believe the standing orders clearly indicate that the member should be wearing a tie if he wants to speak in the House. The Deputy Speaker : Of course, the parliamentary secretary is correct. [ Translation ] We are going to wait a few seconds so that the member can put on his tie. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup .

(1045) Mr. François Lapointe : Mr. Speaker, the Bioproducts Development Center supports companies as they innovate and develop agricultural and agroforestry bioproducts. We are still debating a government bill, but we are all suited up this time. Another gag order has been imposed. The reason why I had to run into the chamber to debate this bill is that no members on the government side want to speak. The only government speakers who are in the House rise on points of order that are rather minor when compared to the importance of the bill that is before us. On this side of the House, we are debating Bill C-18,

An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food . This is yet another an omnibus bill because it seeks to amend nine laws associated with agriculture. This morning, we heard some relatively good news, and that is that the nine laws that will be amended by the bill all deal with agriculture. With that, the government is taking a step in a more reasonable direction. Previous omnibus bills that addressed elements of this bill were even broader and pertained to areas other than agriculture. Among other things, this bill protects plant breeders' rights and strengthens border controls.

It also expands access to the advance payments program. I will not have time to talk about all nine of the laws amended by this bill so I will focus on just two of them. I will talk about the amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. This is probably the most important part of this bill. If this bill is passed, plant breeders will have new exclusive rights. We will support this bill at second reading. I would like to explain something for those watching on CPAC to ensure they understand the legislative process. Supporting the bill at this stage does not make it law.

It will be sent to the relevant committee, which is the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in this case. MPs who are members of the committee will be able to ask witnesses questions about the bill, and they will be able to convey the main concerns of several farmers' associations in Canada. At third reading, the final voting stage, we will see if we support the bill. We are ready to participate in the committee process at second reading to see if there is a way to turn the material in Bill C-18 into something that will work for Canada's farmers.

This bill talks about new exclusive rights for plant breeders to protect them. These include the right to reproduction, conditioning, sale, export or import, repeated use to produce commercially another plant variety if the repetition is necessary for that purpose, and stocking for the purpose of any of the other protected acts. The term of the grant of plant breeders' rights has been increased from 18 to 20 years, or 20 years in the case of trees, vines and other categories listed by the regulations. I will be consulting with my constituents about this.

In my riding, there is an organization called the UPA de la Côte-du-Sud, which knows these amendments and is 100 years old too. I will be sure to find out how these people and the people at Biopterre see this bill. They might like the fact that the patent is a little stronger. I will be talking to them before we get to third reading of Bill C-18 . There is one thing that I find interesting. A new provision gives farmers a privilege, in that they can save seeds and condition them to produce and reproduce plants on their farms. If that is properly presented, it might be a good thing.

Selecting seeds is an ancient occupation, but it is recognized as being a trade. Someone who naturally encourages the genetics of a wheat or barley plant to improve it is carrying on a trade that has been recognized since the 19th century. There is a long history there that dates back to well before people started talking about intellectual rights and living product rights. This has been around for a very long time. We need to thoroughly and carefully consider the potential impact of this legislation on thousands of years of tradition and acquired rights for producers who must not be affected by our decisions.

(1050) This point may seem worthwhile. It is a provision that gives farmers a privilege, in that they will be able to save seeds and condition them in order to produce and reproduce plants. It gives them rights so that they can continue that tradition. We will protect the rights of researchers to use patented materials to develop new varieties or do other research. We are getting into Biopterre territory. This may be good for people from my region and for the industry in general. The increased public access to the registry of plant varieties is a major change from previous suggestions.

We need to ensure that with all these changes, access to these great innovations will still be easy. We do not want to end up with monster over-regulated industries because the rights holders would make agricultural production extremely difficult. As currently drafted, the bill nevertheless has some advantages in that regard. It would ensure that those responsible for developing varieties will profit from their investment in research. Once again, I am thinking of Biopterre. That is an encouraging element for an important agri-food sector in Canada that is innovative and conducts research.

The bill would also maintain a compulsory licence system, providing some assurance that varieties are available at reasonable prices, are widely distributed and maintain high quality. There is one further point that concerns the notion of high quality. People must not be able to claim, even indirectly, that they have created a new category or new species when it is on all accounts similar to what already exists. That would lead to a producer being prosecuted for the use of a species that already exists. We must do our due diligence with this element to prevent such a disastrous scenario from occurring.

Innovations must be easily accessible, but not to the extent that they can be used in an underhanded way to impose fees on existing species and varieties. There is a very delicate balance to be struck and we must be very careful about that. There are concerns. This privilege does not include the stocking of propagating material for any use. Even if farmers are able to save seed for the purpose of reproduction, it appears they may have to pay to store it. The bill does not resolve this issue. An individual can store seeds and use them the following year, and even help with natural selection to improve the variety.

However, will the breeder of this variety be able to charge that person for keeping seeds in his possession? This is another issue that must be examined. I must speak to another of the nine laws that are affected by the changes in this bill. It is a law that is very important to the people in my region. There will be amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payments program, or APP. The APP is a loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. I question this aspect of the bill. Pork producers in my region have had a great deal of difficulty.

The pork industry in Quebec has gone through years of tough times. The APP was one of the programs that supported pork producers. The terms imposed on the producers under this program were quite rigid when it came time to settle the many bankruptcies. If I understand the reasoning behind this bill correctly, not only would it be easier to access the APP, but the conditions of payment would be more flexible. If that is the case, that is an excellent idea.

This is very important for businesses that run into difficulties from time to time, as was the case for the pork producers in my region for far too many years. [ English ] Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is an agricultural riding. I met with my constituents and made part of the announcement when Bill C-18 was tabled. I have had the opportunity to talk to the commodity, fertilizer and livestock people because of their involvement in the advanced payment component of the bill. Of the farm organizations, only one has not yet come on side.

Agriculture in Ontario has had some blips in the beef and pork sectors, which we know about, but one should never take the notion that agriculture is not a significant industry for our economy. How much dialogue has the member had with the farmers, the commodity people, and the organizations in his riding, so we can get this, in a positive attitude, to our committee? (1055) [ Translation ] Mr. François Lapointe : Mr. Speaker, back home in recent years, we have been busy with our communications and dialogue with various groups like UPA and Biopterre, which have a vested interest in the farming industry.

Pressing matters had to do with what was happening in the discussions with the European Union and the bilateral trade. There was a lot of concern among the producers, dairy processors and fine cheese producers. The bulk of our work and the public's reaction back home had to do with files like those and the APP, which I was just talking about. As I was saying in my speech, I can sense just as much concern among some of the UPA producers. I will have more meetings with them to see if we can come up with some constructive contributions for the upcoming discussions between second reading and third reading.

It would be my pleasure. I also want to point out that people like those at Biopterre and the innovation centre will certainly be interested in this bill. I will connect with all these people, and we will try to adopt a constructive approach. Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague on his fine speech. This bill is extremely important for Canada and Quebec. As deputy critic in this area and together with the member for Welland , I launched a number of consultations on Bill C-18 . All we keep hearing are concerns.

A number of members have tabled petitions in the House on issues related to Bill C-18. It is really important that this bill be sent to committee. I would like my colleague to elaborate on the importance of a long-term vision for agriculture and the fact that the NDP is the only party with a Canada-wide agriculture platform and a more balanced approach to agriculture. We know that agriculture represents one in eight jobs. Mr. François Lapointe : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who works very hard on agricultural issues and who is very appreciated by the industry.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has called for protections for producers from claims of patent infringement with respect to natural or accidental spreading of a patented plant genetic material. This example is along the lines of what my colleague said. These are extremely sensitive issues that can lead to serious consequences if they are not resolved and if there is no long-term vision. In some cases, major seed producers have sued people who partially and inadvertently grew protected sprouts in their fields.

We can see the terrible mess producers could end up in if these issues are not cleared up and if producers, not just rights holders, are not well protected by our future decisions. (1100) [ English ] Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise today to address Bill C-18 , the most recent omnibus bill from the Conservatives. They seem to have grown somewhat addicted to this particular way of doing business, of writing legislation that encompasses many laws all in one bill. It is a kitchen sink approach to writing legislation in government.

In their previous incarnation in opposition, they had some sort of ethic around democracy and accountability in the process of law and they questioned this approach significantly when Liberals did the same thing. This omnibus bill is certainly not the worst. It only affects nine different pieces of Canadian law at once. Some might say that is a lot, but we have to see that in comparison to the massive omnibus bills the Conservatives have introduced, which sometimes affected upwards of 50 or 60 different Canadian laws all at the same time.

It is a challenge for those not familiar with parliamentary business, and why should they be? It is a technical and complicated thing. The challenge for parliamentarians from all sides is that our primary job here in this place is to analyze and dissect bills as well as we are able in order to understand what is being presented and what the impacts are likely to be. We can never know fully what the impacts of any piece of legislation might be once it applies in the real world, since once the civil servants and industry get hold of it, there is a to and fro.

However, as parliamentarians we can at least try to do our best to anticipate, by hearing the best advice from witnesses and experts who do know things like the farming industry much better than most members of Parliament. We can hear their input, bring the legislation into effect, and go through a process. The challenge we have had with the current government is twofold. One is that the Conservatives tend to use the technique they are using here today, an omnibus bill that addresses several or many laws at once. In this case it is nine different laws at once, and separating them is incredibly difficult.

The second challenge is that the Conservatives have grown quite addicted to a technique called time allocation. What that means is that rather than negotiating with the opposition to decide how many days of debate a certain piece of legislation might get, the government invokes and enforces the shutting down of debate even as the bill is being introduced. This is the most common tendency we see now from the Conservatives.

They introduce a new bill, and before anybody in the place other than the minister has cracked a single page, they then follow the introduction of that bill with a technique called time allocation, which means debate will then be shut down. The Conservatives do not just shut down debate at one stage. As we all know, bills go through several stages of debate, but the Conservatives shut it down at every single stage. They shut down debate again and again. This has two effects on what happens in Parliament. One is it limits the number of MPs who can speak to a bill and understand what is being presented.

I and all of my colleagues find that one of the best ways to understand a bill is to compose a 10-minute or 20-minute speech on it or to study it at committee. We consult with our constituents and hear from experts in order to form up what we will say. The second thing is that it breeds a natural suspicion, a suspicion the Conservatives used to feel when Liberals did the same thing. When Liberals used time allocation and closure to shut down debate, Conservatives said the Liberals were doing so because they had bad legislation that they did not want the public to fully understand.

I think the Conservatives have now applied this technique over 70 times since the last election, which is breaking all the records set by any government in Canadian history. They do it even on bills like this one, bills that the official opposition has said it would support to second reading. Throughout Canadian history, the natural consequence of being assured of that support is that the government, as a next step, would sit down with the opposition and essentially negotiate.

Acknowledging that the opposition wanted to see the bill pass second reading and go to committee stage, the Conservatives would ask approximately how many speakers the opposition wanted to have speak to the bill. That is because every party has a certain number of requirements. Each party has certain members from certain agricultural districts, as is applicable in this case, and those members need to speak to the bill. It is perfect common sense and it is required of Parliament. Instead, the Conservatives have been invoking time allocation right away.

It builds suspicion and opposition from New Democrats and from others, as it did when Conservatives were in opposition, so they know exactly what this feels like, but they do it anyway. Let us get to the merits and the demerits of the bill itself. Bill C-18 is attempting to strike a difficult balance on the rights of plant breeders. Plant breeders innovate and develop new seeds, new technologies, and new approaches to farming, growing, and raising food in Canada. It is an incredibly important endeavour, because innovation has always been at the heart of agriculture.

In Canada we have had incredible experience and success in innovation, not only in breeding livestock but also in developing plant varieties that are more weather resistant and require less water and less fertilizer. All of that is incredibly important.

(1105) Protecting intellectual property rights is important for us as New Democrats because it would provide a shield over those who innovate, protecting them so that they would have some benefit from their innovation. Many regimes in the world have very low standards of intellectual property. China is constantly struggling with this problem, and India as well.

If we have very little protection, innovators are not encouraged, and if the innovators are not encouraged, they do not innovate, because it is often very expensive for innovators to test and retest until they achieve something that the market will actually reward. On the other side of the balance we have farmers' rights, which are incredibly important as well. Farmers are raising some legitimate concerns, and I hope my Conservative colleagues across the way recognize the legitimacy of those concerns.

If the balance is placed too far on the side of the intellectual property regime, on the side of those doing the innovating, and as a result farmers pay more or pay in ways that hurt their ability to make an income, it is a significant and valid concern. If farmers have to pay to store seeds or to replant seeds that they have kept from the previous harvest, those are legitimate concerns. As we know, the farming community is not a unified body.

There are obviously many different types of people working in the farming industry, growing and raising different types of crops and cattle and livestock, yet there are great divisions within that farming community in prosperity. Some farmers have extraordinarily large farms that are very profitable, both on the livestock side and on the plant side, on the pulses and grains and whatnot. Other farmers are more on the margin and are just trying to make it. They are in niche markets, with smaller farms that are servicing a nearly urban economy. Those farms may be affected by this bill in disproportionate ways.

Therefore, New Democrats are seeking to get the balance right. In supporting the bill at second reading, we are saying we have some concerns over the new powers of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency around regulating and licensing. While those new powers might be quite needed for the innovative farm industry that we want to continue to grow, there are no resources attached to it. The CFIA has had massive cutbacks over the year. It is a department that has seen multiple rounds of cutbacks to its ability to deliver services to farmers and Canadians.

The government is going to give it new powers and responsibilities, so one of our legitimate questions for the government is whether, with the new powers and the new work that will be required, the government is attaching any more resources or any new people to do the work. We do not want to create these new powers and give farmers hope that this, this, and this program are now going to be a part of reality, and then not have anybody in the department actually assigned to do it. That is a false hope, and too often what we have seen from the current government is false hope.

I speak to the bill as a representative of the riding I represent in northwestern British Columbia, Skeena—Bulkley Valley , which incorporates a great variety of people in the agricultural industry. It does not include the full sweep that we see in some of the ridings around Canada, the so-called mega-farms, but we have very large agricultural operations, those growing the pulses and seeds side of things, as well as an extensive and diversified group of farmers who are raising cattle, pig, sheep, and whatnot, who are occupying this conversation in completely different ways.

We have a growing and extensive local farmers' market system in the northwest, which is incredibly important, because regions like mine are very far from some of the high-production areas of the country. As a result, food security is an enormous issue for us because of the great distances, the impacts of climate change, and the need to move food farther to the consumer. We know that the average bushel of produce is moving farther afield. That has serious food security questions, because we have a system that is called “just-in-time delivery”.

Many of our retailers depend on food that has to be ready and delivered just in time for the consumer to buy. That creates, unfortunately, a certain level of food insecurity. The farming community is enormous in Canada. It contributes more than $100 billion to the GDP. One in eight workers going to work this morning went to work in the agricultural sector. In scale it dwarfs many of the other sectors of our industry that get a lot of attention, so it is good that the government is paying this amount of attention. There are other aspects of the bill that we quite favour.

We are raising concerns because we think it is our job. We are raising concerns because that is what Canadians want us to do. In such an important industry in Canada, getting the balance right by allowing for the innovators to innovate while allowing for farmers to earn a living as they feed over 35 million Canadians seems to us a worthwhile cause and an exercise worth doing.

(1110) We look forward to the debate at committee. We hope that for once the government will be open to amendments based on the information and the expert testimony that we hear. That would be a welcome relief, as the government so often rejects all science and evidence that comes before us. It is something we think is possible, because hope springs eternal. We believe we can make this bill better than it is right now. We believe we can make it one that an even broader number of Canadians and Canadian farmers can support. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I enjoyed the member's well-thought-out remarks, and he is absolutely right: this has been a government of reckless decisions, especially when it comes to agriculture. We now know that there has been a $5 billion loss in sales through the Canadian Wheat Board changes and that the farmer's share of the export dollar has dropped dramatically while the grain companies take excessive profits. The new government-controlled Canadian Wheat Board was supposed to report its financial condition on March 31; that has not been seen yet. We have to wonder what the government is hiding.

We know the Conservatives cut AgriStability in just about half. They cut AgriInvest in terms of the amount of investment that producers could put in. They have cut public researchers dramatically. The list goes on and on. The member talked about finding the balance. I would say the government's record in terms of abuse of the farm community is about the worst of any government in Canadian history.

Given that record, how can we trust that the government will not maintain the balance of power on the corporate side of things and give the corporate sector the rights to seed reproduction, while providing farmers merely with the privilege? What farmers need is the right to retain seed and to reproduce it. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the new Liberal Party is suddenly very suspicious of corporate Canada. It is an interesting conversation to have. I suppose I am remembering some lessons from Sundays, one of which is to hate the sin, not the sinner.

While we have deep trouble with the way the Conservatives have moved a series of bills through the House while ignoring expert testimony, we see some initiatives within this bill that are highly supported by farmers. I did not get to mention the advance payments program in my speech. We know the expansion of that program would help farmers. It would allow more types of farmers to get into the advance payments program. In my area, the so-called part-time farmers, those who have to seek income off-farm, will now be encouraged to be in this program.

That helps the cashflow and investments that farmers need over the year. To the specific question regarding the balance between the rights of farmers and the corporate rights of those who develop seeds and innovate, we do not think the exact balance we are seeking to achieve has been established in this bill. Obviously, we do not trust the government. I do not think anyone doubts the resolve and determination of the New Democrats in standing up to the government.

The challenge is that when omnibus legislation comes through, we do not get to pick and choose, so all we can do is encourage the good initiatives, discourage the bad, and try to amend them at committee. If the Conservatives refuse those amendments, if they are determined to ignore all of the witnesses and the experts we hear, as they so often do, then we will have to reconsider our position coming out of committee and going into third reading. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : 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.

(1115) Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, farmers must absolutely retain their historic right to their seed. The problem now between farmers and people who invent and create new seeds is a matter of rights. The government is giving rights to the companies, but what about farmers' rights? They are in no way equivalent. We will keep and protect our farmers' rights. At the same time, we will try to keep the portions of the bill that improve the lives of Canadian farmers. The Deputy Speaker : Order.

It being 11:17 a.m., pursuant to an order adopted Wednesday, June 4, 2014, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House. [ English ] The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division. Motion agreed to The Deputy Speaker: The motion is carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act The House resumed from May 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3,

An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-3. Third reading The Deputy Speaker : Resuming debate. The hon. member for Surrey North had five minutes left for questions and comments. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when we are looking at the bill, we know there are still some concerns.

We see that this is a bill that certainly goes in the right direction. However, because there has been a gap of time here, maybe my colleague can refresh our memories with respect to some of the concerns we see with this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the bill would actually make very modest improvements to our marine safety issues, which are particularly important to British Columbia.

Off the west coast of British Columbia, we have pristine waters that provide a lot of jobs for local communities throughout the coast, and we also have a large tourism industry that depends on navigation through those waters in northern British Columbia and along the coast in southern British Columbia.

If the government truly wanted to improve marine traffic safety in British Columbia, it would be looking at a number of improvements to which the Conservatives have actually cut funding; for example, the Kitsilano Coast Guard, environmental regulations, and emergency response programs not only in British Columbia but on the east coast of Canada as well. Therefore, even though the Conservatives pretend that the bill would improve the safety of our marine life off the coast, it does not go far enough. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to refer to my hon. colleague's point about the bill making modest improvements. The bill would put into legislative form changes that have been anticipated for quite a while due to international agreements for liability in relation to maritime incidents. However, I find that one of the more amusing things about the bill is the title, that it would somehow be safeguarding our skies.

Perhaps the hon. member can refer to legislation, but as I recall, the only thing in Bill C-3 about the skies is changes to the Aeronautics Act, which are purely procedural and have absolutely nothing to do with environment, pollution, or anything one might conjure up with a notion of safeguarding our skies. It is hyperbole masking as a legislative title.

(1120) Mr. Jasbir Sandhu : Mr. Speaker, I have to give one thing to the Conservatives. They come out with these wonderful titles for bills that have nothing to do with the actual bill itself. I want to note the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands 's keen eye to the title of the bill. I have trouble with the bill. I will share a story about my children. I have a seven-year-old son and an eighteen-year-old daughter. My son makes a huge mess in the living room, but he wants his sister to clean it up. His sister tells their mom that she is not cleaning it up: it is his mess and he should clean it up.

After some discussion, seven-year-old Jaron agrees to clean up the mess. The problem with the bill is that the Conservatives believe that if there is an oil spill or a hazardous material spill, there is not enough liability attached to it. They believe that taxpayers should be cleaning it up. It should be the people who make the spill who clean it up. A seven-year-old understands that. Conservatives do not understand that. They have gutted the environmental regulations. Obviously they want us to clean that up. I can assure members that we will do that in 2015. Ms.

Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is great to speak to Bill C-3 today. I will be sharing my time this morning with the fabulous member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park . She deserves a round of applause. This legislation seeks to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act and make changes to many different pieces of existing legislation, such as the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act, and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. Right now we are debating Bill C-3 at third reading.

I want to mention at the outset that the NDP will be supporting the bill at third reading because, as my hon. colleague before me mentioned briefly in his response to questions, it would make marginal improvements to the situation we have at hand. However, I must also note that during the committee study of the bill, amendments were proposed that came from suggestions from witness testimony at committee. The NDP moved seven amendments and the Green Party moved three. All 10 of the amendments that were put forward, based on expert testimony, were refused by the Conservative majority on the committee.

Even though Bill C-3 would make modest improvements, even better improvements could have been made, and were put forward, but Conservatives on the committee made sure they did not pass. Just briefly, I want to mention a couple of the general themes of the amendments we proposed. One of the amendments required the Minister of National Defence to publish all reports from the studies of the disasters that happened, rather than keeping them as internal documents. Another amendment was with regard to extending the ship-source oil pollution fund, the SOPF, to non-oil spills that could pollute our waters.

Conservative members chose not to support that. Bill C-3 was formerly Bill C-57 , which was tabled in March 2013. That legislation died on the order paper when that session of Parliament was prorogued. Bill C-3 appears to be part of a concerted effort by the Conservatives to correct their lack of credibility in areas of transport safety, particularly oil tanker traffic on the west coast, in face of the mounting opposition we are seeing across the country to the Northern Gateway pipeline, which was originally proposed in 2006.

I think the real reason why the government is finally pushing on this issue is that the bill would implement the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010, to which Canada is a signatory. The convention has not been implemented yet, so this legislation would allow for its implementation. New Democrats believe that Canadian taxpayers should not be on the hook for the cleanup costs and damage that follow a spill of hazardous and noxious substances.

In consequence, we have proposed that damages from a hazardous and noxious substance spill exceeding $500 million liability should not be paid by taxpayers. They should be covered by the SOPF, the ship-source oil pollution fund. Polluters should be responsible for the cleanup of oil spills, rather than taxpayers across the country.

Part 2 of the bill would give the military the AIA, which is the airworthiness investigative authority, the traditional Transportation Safety Board investigatory powers in the event of an aviation accident involving the military.

(1125) For example, if the military exclusively investigates a defined military-civilian accident, the Transportation Safety Board is no longer involved. The military investigator only reports the results of that investigation to the Minister of National Defence . Canadians do not know what is in the report, in the investigation or the outcome of that report. The New Democrats feel that our operations need to be far more transparent. One of the amendments we had put forward was to make these reports public, rather than them only being given to the Minister of National Defence.

Canadians should know what is in those reports. Other measures that the New Democrats wanted to see in a bill to safeguard Canada's seas included: reversing the Coast Guard closures and the scaling back of the services included in the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station; cancelling the closure of B.C.'s regional office for emergency oil spill responders; cancelling the cuts to Canada's Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research; and reversing the cuts to key environmental emergency programs, including oil spill response for Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia.

We put forward many other suggestions to reverse many of the cuts put forward by the Conservative government that decreased safety on our coastlines and in Canadian waters. Many of these amendments were not accepted by the Conservatives on the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee. We are now left with Bill C-3 , which is, as I said at the outset, a marginal improvement, but not the best it could be. However, we do support the bill at third reading.

The two pieces that we really pushed for in committee were to not have Canadian taxpayers on the hook for large-scale hazardous and noxious substance spills. It should have been the polluters. The second piece was that there needed to be increased transparency regarding investigations and the reports that would come out of those investigations. We know how the Conservatives are with respect to transparency and accountability, so I will not go too much into repeating the fact that the government likes to keep things secretive and does not like telling Canadians what it is going on.

The context of Bill C-3 focuses on administrative organization, but lacks in actual environmental improvements. Ben West from ForestEthics Advocacy said of continuing on this path of safety cuts and emergency response closures, “...we have actually been aggressively moving in the wrong direction on this file.” I am concerned because this may have been on the topic of forest or coastline safety in British Columbia, which has a high level of tanker traffic. My constituency of Scarborough—Rouge River is home to the Rouge Park.

The government just introduced legislation in the House to create it as Canada's first urban national park. We are consistently seeing actions by the government that are moving away from forest safety and not ensuring the viability and long-term sustainability of our forests. Rouge Park is a grand forest that was created by community activists, including me. In the spring we go out and plant trees and bushes and in the fall we remove invasive species to ensure that our park, the people's park, will thrive and be a large, successful park.

It is great that the Conservatives have finally come on board, 35 years after the community and local activists started to work on this park, to make it a national park. However, we need to ensure that it is done in a sustainable way where we protect and respect the existing legislation and greenbelt protection measures. We also need to talk to the local first nations communities that have sacred burial grounds and a village there. We also need to talk to the local community activists who work on the ground in the community.

(1130) Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague's speech on this very important issue. Again, the bill would change five different acts. Would my colleague like to comment on what happens when we have omnibus bills such as this one? The other thing I would like her to comment on is with respect to the environmental movements, such as the first nations that have been voicing their concerns on this. We have seen fisheries organizations, community organizations, even the tourism industry voice their opinions on this.

A lot of them have a lot of knowledge and have done a lot of research on this. We often hear the government say that it is willing to work with willing partners. Well, these are willing partners, albeit they have a different opinion than the government at times. However, everyone at the same time wants to see a sound bill and one that would benefit not just the industry but the safety of Canadians as a whole. The member mentioned who would be on the hook in certain areas.

Does she think that Bill C-3 addresses the needs and concerns of the communities I mentioned, especially when we look at first nations, the fishing industry and the tourism industry? Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan : Mr. Speaker, one of the member's question was about the government's continuous use of omnibus bills. As she mentioned, Bill C-3 proposes changes to many different acts. This is a constant behaviour we see with the government. It likes to jam many changes, some that may not even be related, into one bill. People do not necessarily see all those changes because there are far too many.

I only had 10 minutes to speak about these things. If I wanted to speak about all the changes that would happen, I would probably need three hours at least. We know very well, I do not have that time. What happens is important issues get overlooked because we have to prioritize and speak to what we can. With respect to her second question, especially about first nations and fishing communities, I talked about the importance of preserving a way of life and the forests. I have a sacred burial ground of the Mississauga Huron-Wendat First Nation in my constituency of Scarborough—Rouge River.

I want to ensure that it and the people's ways of life are protected, whether it is fishing, hunting, or whatever it may be.

(1135) Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when the NDP members talk about omnibus bills. They love to chat about that in the opposition. The reality is that the bills they are referring to were first enacted in 2001. When a new bill like this is brought forward, it is only responsible and good government that would draw those other bills into play to ensure everything is brought current.

Could my hon. colleague address some of the issues that came forward in the new bill and specifically talk to a number of things such as: increased tanker inspections, which have been updated; expanded aerial patrols off our coasts; increased satellite protection; support of the Canadian Coast Guard to adopt an internationally recognized incident command system; and conducting groundbreaking research? Could she comment on some of the things that make the bill a really strong initiative put forward by the government? Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan : Mr. Speaker, yes, there are some things in the bill that are positive.

That is why we will support the bill at third reading. It does make marginal improvements. However, we need to reverse the cuts to the Coast Guard at the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. We need to cancel the closure of the B.C. regional office for emergency oil-spills responders. We need to cancel the cuts to Canada's offshore oil and gas research centre. We need to reverse the cuts to the environmental emergency program. We need to reverse— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, in starting my remarks, I would definitely like to thank my fabulous colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River for her remarks and for the great representation she provides for the constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River. I am happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-3,

An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . As folks can well imagine, it does make a number of changes to a number of pieces of legislation. As my colleague has said, the NDP will be supporting this bill at third reading because it does make modest improvements to the existing legislation, although we did make some proposed amendments to the bill, which we thought would strengthen it significantly. Unfortunately, the government was not open to those amendments. Let me just briefly describe what the bill proposes to do.

Part 1 would enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act to indemnify the aviation industry for the cost of damages in the event of what they call “interferences” for things like armed conflict or an attack, things that normally would be outside the normal operation of the aviation industry, a crisis of some kind.

Part 2 would amend the Aeronautics Act to provide the Airworthiness Investigative Authority with the powers to investigate aviation accidents or incidents involving civilians and aircraft or aeronautical installations operated by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces or a visiting force.

Part 3 would amend the Canada Marine Act in relation to the effective day of the appointment of a director of the Port Authority.

Part 4 would amend the Marine Liability Act to implement, in Canada, the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea. That is a 2010 convention which basically establishes a liability scheme to compensate victims in the event of a spill of hazardous or noxious substances. It puts a limit to that liability, which the act details.

Part 5 would introduce requirements for operators of oil handling facilities, including the requirement to notify the minister of their operations and to submit plans to the minister. The NDP supports this bill, but we believe there should not be a limit to the liability. We do not believe Canadians should be on the hook for clean-up costs and damages following a spill of hazardous or noxious substances. The Conservatives have even refused reasonable amendments that would increase the liability. Canadians would ultimately be on the hook if the damages exceeded that liability.

Basically, the New Democrats are committed to preventing any spills on our coasts whatsoever. We want to ensure that we have an effective Coast Guard and that we have effective environmental precautions so our coasts are protected. We do question the government when it takes actions like closing down B.C.'s oil spill response centre. If we want to make the coasts safer, why would we close down the oil spill response centre?

Shutting down the Kitsilano Coast Guard station and gutting environmental emergency response programs, these do not sound like the actions of a government that has the interests of the safety of Canadians as its priority.

(1140) However, as I said, there are some positive parts of this bill. The required pilotage and increased surveillance is a small step in the right direction, but the bill is very limited in its scope. New Democrats believe that the government needs to reverse the effects of the drastic cuts of last year's budget on tanker safety to really be effective. If we are talking about tanker safety, let us take a look at some of the more recent statistics. Tanker traffic has increased dramatically and, therefore, has created an increased risk of an oil spill in Canadian waters.

The federal government decreases marine communication traffic centres and environmental emergency programs even though estimates state that oil tanker traffic has already tripled between 2005 and 2010 and that oil tanker traffic is planned to triple again by 2016. Therefore, we are seeing dramatically increased oil tanker traffic, which would require stronger measures by the government. Proposed pipeline expansion projects would increase crude deliveries from 300,000 to 700,000 barrels per day. We are seeing a tremendous increase in traffic and we should have the strongest precautionary measures possible.

One of the precautionary measures is to ensure that the polluter pays, so that if there is a spill or a problem, which hopefully there is not and something we can prevent, the polluter pays for the damage caused. We know what the government's record is when it comes to environmental protection. We have seen in omnibus budget bill after omnibus budget bill the extent of the cuts, such as the gutting of environmental protections and the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. A major urban heritage river, the Humber River, runs through my riding of Parkdale—High Park.

It is truly a national treasure, which is why it was deemed to be a heritage river. It has been delisted from the Navigable Waters Protection Act, all except the very mouth of the river. That is of great concern to conservationists, biologists, and the community at large. New Democrats are trying to get that river and many other rivers put back under the protection of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The government is also making changes in aviation safety, which is one of the issues addressed in this bill.

In my riding of Parkdale—High Park it is home to many flight attendants and pilots, people who work in the aviation industry. One of the issues that is of great concern to them is the number of flight attendants on aircraft. We all remember, at least in Toronto we all remember, back in 2005 when Air France flight 358 crashed at Toronto Pearson International Airport. It was a horrific crash. When people first saw the smoke and fire, they wondered whether anyone would survive, but the full complement of cabin crew managed to evacuate all the passengers from that burning aircraft in less than 90 seconds.

Talk about professionalism and dedication. They were exemplary. We know from the history of aviation accidents that having more flight attendants positioned at emergency exits improves every passenger's chance of escaping and surviving in the event of an aircraft accident. We have seen the government previously attempt to reduce the number of flight attendants on aircraft. Right now, the ratio is 1:40. It is trying to reduce that by 25% and increase it to 1:50. I believe that is fundamentally wrong and it could be very dangerous for the travelling public.

While New Democrats support this bill, we have many other concerns about public safety and environmental protection. Frankly, the scope of the changes in this bill are very limited.

(1145) Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I spoke to this bill at an earlier stage. It is clear that, in many respects, this bill has a piecemeal or what we might even describe as an incoherent approach to transportation safety policy in Canada. At the transportation committee, of which I am vice-chair, we are seized right now, for example, with the whole question of safety management systems, rail safety, and other important foundational issues. We could describe this bill as a technical amendment bill, as it would amend so many statutes.

Underlying all of these, if we look at the public accounts, the important thing for Canadians to remember is the money, because they are wise and they know that they should follow the money. When we look at the money, which underpins transportation safety in Canada, the last set of public accounts that were rendered public are conclusive in that they are all being cut. The only area that is not being cut, with a marginal increase, is rail safety. However, road safety is being cut, marine safety is being cut, and air safety is being cut.

Could the member help us understand how the government can, frankly, have the audacity to describe this as the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act when, if we look at the money that underpins the audits, the inspection, the enforcement, and the follow-up, everything but rail safety is actually being cut? Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, I do agree that we need to follow the money. It is evident to those of us on this side of the House that the government's number one job seems to be to reduce the size of government. When it comes to public safety, that is not a good thing.

Surely, a basic responsibility of government is to protect public safety. Whether it is our roads, our skies, our seas, or our rail, that is a fundamental responsibility of government. My colleague referred to safety management systems. That jargon hides the fact that what they basically do is cut back on government inspectors, the people who go in and visit workplaces, and check up on the trucks on our roads and the trains on our rails. It turns much of the safety responsibility over to the employer. It is a competitive economy and people in business obviously want to make money and get business.

They try to cut costs. Making businesses responsible for safety is a contradiction. We need independent government inspections. I will just say one last thing. In my community of Parkdale—High Park, we are surrounded by railway lines, and we see hundreds of DOT-111 tank cars rolling through our community. People do not know what is in those cars. They do not know what precautions are in place. They do not know that safety inspections have taken place. They are kept in the dark.

It is about time that we let some light in and increase public safety by letting Canadians know what is in these tank cars, and reassuring them that we have inspectors from the government who are going in and conducting the inspections to make sure that public safety is the number one priority.

(1150) Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure that I rise to debate Bill C-3 today. I want to underline the fact that it is today because as many Canadians would know, it is also today that the federal government will make its long awaited announcement on the Enbridge northern gateway project at some point this afternoon. This was a decision and a burden that the Conservative government and the Prime Minister gave to themselves.

Previously in Canadian law, any such decisions of this scope and magnitude were handled entirely by the National Energy Board, an organization that was meant to be arm's-length from government and was tasked with promoting energy exports. Some would offer that it might be a challenge or a conflict of interest at times because it is a panel that is tasked with promoting exports and encouraging that to happen, but is also playing the role of watchdog and protecting the public's interests. Sometimes, such as in this case, that has been challenging.

Today by midnight tonight is when the government has to make the decision on Enbridge northern gateway. The government has lost so much faith with the public when it comes to oil spills and the maintenance of the oil industry. My Conservative colleagues can chuckle, but the unfortunate thing is they are entitled to those opinions and not their own facts. The facts state that Canadian public support for transit of oil through pipeline and rail has dropped dramatically since the government took office. One might ask why that is.

I suppose Conservatives, from a particularly cynical line of political thought, thought that they could sort of pull one over on the public, that the public would not notice if the Conservatives since taking office have systematically undermined and downgraded environmental protection laws in Canada, have systematically taken out the major pieces of protection that Canadians have enjoyed for many years rather than enhance them.

Over the last number of weeks we have seen the Conservatives on a pipeline and supertanker charm offensive on both coasts, but particularly on the west coast, where Conservative minister after minister is swooping in to show the public that suddenly they are very concerned with oil spills and with protecting the public. I would argue that it is important to know the government by its actions, not by its words. If we judged the Conservatives by their actions, we would come to a very clear and concise opinion about who they think is really important.

I can say that the oil lobby is particularly thrilled, but Canadians, particularly those living on a pipeline route or under the threat of new or increased supertanker traffic, know the Conservatives are not on their side. This is the government that closed down Coast Guard bases, bases like Kitsilano that is one of the busiest Coast Guard bases in the entire country, handling an enormous amount of traffic. This is the government that scrapped the Navigable Waters Protection Act,

an act that had existed for almost a century in Canada. Excuse me, I misspoke, Conservatives did keep some rivers and lakes protected by the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but those are the lakes that exist in cottage country north of Ontario. Those are the lakes and rivers the Conservatives deemed to be important to protect. All of the rest were deemed not so important. New Democrats have been standing in the House day after day, attempting to reintroduce those lakes into protection, reintroduce those rivers into some form of protection.

That is what Canadians want because we are attached to our rivers and lakes. We are a nation of great expanse and imagination. We believe in the idea that Canada as a settled but wild place, a place where people can experience a country that is truly vast and magnificent, also has with it some responsibility to protect those spaces. The government gutted the Environmental Assessment Act. According to the Auditor General of Canada, assessments in Canada ranged between 3,000 and 5,000 a year.

That is 3,000 and 5,000 different projects a year, mines, pipelines, and whatnot, that went through some sort of environmental review. For those who have ever been involved, this is a public hearing where a proponent has to bring evidence and show in testimony and the public gets to ask questions. The Conservatives have taken those 3,000 to 5,000 assessments a year and reduced them down from what the Auditor General estimates to between 12 and 15 assessments a year. All those other projects, hundreds and thousands of projects, thousands of mines and pipelines will simply not get an environmental review.

(1155) The few that do get a review, as we have now seen through new legislation and regulations the Conservatives have introduced, limit the public's ability to go to the hearings and cross-examine the proponents, the oil companies and the mining companies. The Conservatives have so narrowly defined who matters, it is now being brought up in court, as is so often the case with Conservative legislation and laws. They make them so badly, and so often make them against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that Canadians are forced to go to court to protect that charter.

The Conservatives spend millions of taxpayers' dollars trying to undermine the charter with these draconian pieces of legislation that take away values and the rights of Canadians, and they lose, time and time again. It is at the point where the Conservatives cannot even get a judge nominated to the Supreme Court without violating some fundamental piece of our Constitution. It is incredible, the hubris, yet we can understand it with a government that has been too long in power. It grows in arrogance. It grows in the sense of entitlement. We have seen this movie before in Canada.

It is lamentable, because the Conservatives came in riding the white knight of accountability, riding the cause and the celebrated idea of having a more open and transparent government. However, according to the ethics commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, all of the watchdogs of Parliament, the government has become, and is, the most secretive in Canadian history. It denies Canadians the basic right to information they have constitutionally protected. This is what the Conservatives have become.

It was also the Conservatives who gutted the Fisheries Act, one of the most fundamental pieces of protection of the fisheries in Canada, which has been an historical and important part of our industry and society. It said that companies can now go in and destroy fish habitat, where fish spawn, with no consequence whatsoever, without triggering any kind of assessment or any kind of public hearing. That is okay under the Conservatives' world view. The private sector dominates all. They have limited liability across a whole series of sectors. What is limited liability?

That is when the government comes in with a rule to subsidize and support certain industries. It picks winners and losers. There are certain industries that do not enjoy this favouritism from the government, but the oil industry is one that absolutely does. The Conservatives insert a liability cap on damages in the event of any major accident in which there are significant and serious costs, both for cleanup and to pay damages to those who have lost businesses or their homes.

Heaven forbid, under the Conservatives' world view, that the company that causes the pollution, that causes the spill from a pipeline or a tanker, should pay for the cost of damages. The Conservatives use terms like the “polluter pay principle”, but only sometimes and only to a certain amount. That is the Conservatives' view of the world. Limited liability, this reducing the risk for certain industrial players, causes all sorts of consequences. It is not just the idea that the public has to pay any expenses above. An example is that under certain of these acts, there is a $500-million cap for oil spills.

People might say that $500 million is a lot of money, and maybe that is enough. However, the spill from the Exxon Valdez , which happened just north of my riding in northwestern B.C., hit $3.5 billion. Under the Conservative law, who would pay the remainder, the $3 billion or more? That would be the Canadian public. For the Kalamazoo spill in Michigan, by Enbridge, that happened just a couple of years ago, it is $1.1 billion and counting. They have been at it for three years. They have dredged up the whole bottom of the river, and they are still paying.

Under the Conservatives' world view, it would be the public paying for that incompetence by an oil company. This is not to suggest that these oil companies do not have the resources to pay for this. I did not look at oil prices today, but it is somewhere north of $100, certainly. They are clearing massive profits, historically high profits. These folks can afford to pay for the operations they perform.

The second consequence, aside from the public paying, is that if an industry knows, as the investment industry knew in the United States that there was a certain liability protection they had and that certain banks were “too big to fail”, over time it encourages very bad, risky behaviour. Fundamentally, all of those investors knew that even if this thing went totally wrong, they would not be on the hook. Imagine going to a casino or the racetrack and the government saying, “No matter what, you cannot lose money today. We will cap it at $50.” Most Canadians would pick a horse that is 100 to one. Why not?

They would put $100 on it and put more on the next one, because there would be no way to lose. The only upside would be that we would get to pick long shots, which would encourage risky behaviour.

(1200) The companies will not admit to this, but that is human behaviour. Unless they have somehow changed the genetic code in oil companies to make humans into something we are not, if they encourage risky behaviour, over time humans will take those risks. At the end, we will wake up one morning and turn on the CBC news and hear that there was a tragic accident last night and there is oil spilling, as it does; in Enbridge's case, it has been 900 times just in the last decade. It is lamentable, and the homeowners are upset, and ranchers are worried, and fishermen are losing their business.

When they do the investigation, it will turn out to be from human error, again. Who will pick up the tab? The companies will, up to a little bit. Everything beyond that will come to the taxpayers of Canada. If we think of all of the industries in the world we would want to subsidize, the oil industry would not be on the top of the list. It makes an inordinate amount of profit. Gas prices in Canada today are $1.30 to $1.40 a litre. Some say it is doing too fine. It is certainly doing fine enough. This is the Conservative government that shut down B.C.'s regulatory oil spill response team.

The Conservatives cancelled that and fired everyone in charge of oil spill response on the west coast. They wonder why the public raises suspicions. This is a government that has a fund, as Liberal governments had previously, that shippers at one point had to contribute to. That fund has gone up to $400 million, having contributed to it since 1976, and the government is fine with that and believes it is enough money to handle all incidents of all the oil spills in the country, not just one. As I have described, some of these oil spills can be incredibly expensive.

In Bill C-3 , the government made some small moves to improve a disastrous situation and make it less disastrous. When people are in the process of potential rehabilitation for their actions, we want to encourage any small steps they make. Therefore, the NDP at committee encouraged the baby steps being made by the government and made amendments based on the testimony of the witnesses we heard. I know that is radical and may be contrary to the world view of the Conservatives, but we listen to witnesses who come to committee that know more about an issue than MPs do.

We take their advice and write it up into nicely worded amendments as changes to a bill, but consistently, time and time again, the Conservatives reject them. One would think that at committee they would offer some alternative or say why they are rejecting them and that they have counter evidence that is better or more informed, but they do not. All opposition MPs have witnessed it. We have all been there when we have put forward a motion and we stare at five blank Conservative faces across the way. When it is time for the vote, we make our case and say, “This is based on witness so-and-so.

This is how it will help this bill and how it will help the Canadian public and protect the public.” The Conservatives just stare at us with nothing going on and vote against it. It happens over and over again. If this is just a political exercise, so be it. People can choose to make themselves look ignorant. That is a choice others make. The fact is, this impacts Canadian lives and Canadian industry and uncertainty.

I have argued for quite a while, although it may be a slightly counterintuitive position, that for reasons of social licence and the idea of winning over the public, the Conservatives have been no friend of the oil industry. We have seen this just recently. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the main lobby group in Canada for the oil industry, distanced itself from the Conservative position on a whole variety of things, particularly the ads they had been running. When the oil lobby abandons the government and says it would like to not be associated with it, we know that the government has a problem.

The Conservatives like to talk about radicals. That is what radicals look like in action. They so denigrated the faith of the public in government to protect our general and collective interests that the public has said that it no longer grants the government a social licence to operate. When the Conservatives come out with their announcement this afternoon and give the green light and thumbs up to Enbridge northern gateway, we do not believe that the public will be swayed one bit, because the Conservatives have completely lost their faith.

They have forgotten one very fundamental principle in this place, which is that governments can grant permits, but only people can grant permission. The government has forgotten that, and in forgetting that, we see the arrogance and bullying we have seen time and again. People have raised concerns about the northern gateway pipeline going through northern B.C. It goes right through my home and the homes of the people I represent. The government has suggested that in raising those concerns, those people must be foreign-funded radicals.

That is what the minister called them in a letter issued out of the Prime Minister's Office. He said that they must be enemies of the state. That is what they called me, my friends, and my community members for having raised questions about a pipeline that threatens our very way of life.

(1205) I do not think that is anti-Canadian. I think it is very Canadian to raise questions, to raise our voices, to stand shoulder to shoulder, first nation with non-first nation, community to community, to say that our voices count in the conversation of Canada, that we will not be marginalized, and that we will not be bullied by a government, any government, of any political stripe. Conservatives should know this. The Conservatives used to decry the heavy-handed tactics of Ottawa when it comes to energy policy. Some will remember this. How does Ottawa know best for the west? I remember this.

Arrogant Liberal governments came in and imposed plans that western Canada did not want, and western Canadians reacted. Now we see it in the reverse: a pipeline that Canadians on the west coast of British Columbia do not want, at a level of 66% or more. We have 130-plus first nations that have told the government, ”Do not do this thing.” The Union of B.C. Municipalities and the B.C. government have all told the government, “No” and “What part of 'no' do you not understand?” The government, in a few short hours, is poised to ignore all of that and say that those people must be radicals.

They must be enemies of Canada. All those people, two-thirds of the province of British Columbia, the Government of British Columbia, 130 first nations and more, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and the mayors and councillors of British Columbia must be enemies of Canada. That is the Conservatives' world view, because they have so attached themselves to one bad pipeline. The arrogance has grown so much with the current Prime Minister that he cannot imagine stepping back. He cannot imagine taking a breath and realizing that there may be other things that are more important.

Here is a secondary concern, as if all that were not bad enough. As I was talking to first nation leaders in B.C. over the weekend and again last night, they said that if the Conservatives force this project down the throats of British Columbians against the rights and titles of first nations in B.C., not only will this pipeline never get built, but it will so poison the relationship that is already in a terrible state between first nations and the Government of Canada that other projects, other industries, will also be threatened.

The ability to get agreements and deals done in B.C. between industrial players and the first nations of B.C. will be jeopardized. All that is at stake—the relationship between the crown and an important place like British Columbia, the ability to get other industrial development done, such as liquefied natural gas, mining, and other industrial projects—the government is willing to threaten for the sake of one bad pipeline. That is the equation the Prime Minister is going to make this afternoon. That is the test he is facing as a leader in this country this afternoon. I lament that he will fail that test.

I am saddened by the fact that he will fail this test of leadership because he is unable to see the forest for the trees. He is unable to see past his own belligerence and his own determination to have it his way or the highway. He is going to ram through all of those objections.

He somehow thinks that we are going to back down; that the first nations, which have constitutionally protected rights and title in this country, are suddenly going to forgo those rights; that the people in B.C. who voted against this thing two-thirds to one-third are not going to show up at the ballot box in 2015 and kick Conservative MPs out who stand on the wrong side of this issue; and that the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the Government of B.C. are suddenly just going to walk away from their opposition to this pipeline that threatens who we are. It is a most Canadian response.

When threatened at a core level, at a values level, at the ability to raise our kids in a healthy environment and hope for their better future, it is a most Canadian reaction to stand up and resist. It is a most Canadian reaction to say to a government that has grown so arrogant and so content with its privilege and its power, whose members have become so accustomed to those limos that they cannot find a way-- Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Nathan Cullen: They can heckle, Mr. Speaker.

They yell out to try to shut down the voices of real British Columbians who understand how to stand up for their constituents, rather than selling out to the oil companies, as they have so happily done. British Columbia MPs in this place know right from wrong. They know what this afternoon means. It is a decision point. It is a fork in the road. It is a place where Canada stands and says this is the future we want.

New Democrats will stand on the right side of that future and say that we want a prosperous, clean environment and jobs that will sustain us through the future, not a government so drunk on power that it has lost its way and has lost its ability to see anything at all other than the almighty buck from the oil companies.

(1210) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : 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. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, it is incredible. As I already said, it is more important to pay attention to this government's actions than its words. The cuts it made to the Coast Guard prove that this government is not concerned about oil companies.

As my colleague said, between 2005 and 2010, the amount of oil shipped via tankers tripled, and it will triple again in the next five years. Although faced with that reality, the government cut the resources required to clean up bitumen, which is practically an impossible task. That is what the Conservatives want. I notice that there are many Conservatives here, but they are not asking any questions. I find it intriguing that they are so quiet even though they have the opportunity to discuss the future of oil and the west coast. That is the choice they are making. [ English ] Mr.

Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley . I just wanted to get his comments. In British Columbia, former NDP premier, Mike Harcourt, has torn up his NDP membership card because he knows that the NDP has strayed from its working-class roots, has become a party of downtown elites, and does not represent working people anymore. These are the words of Mike Harcourt. He said that they no longer appreciate where our resources come from and what they fund.

A former interim NDP premier, Dan Miller, wrote an

article in which he questions where the New Democrats think that the resources come from that fund our schools, fund our hospitals, fund our infrastructure. He says that the resources do not come out of the air, but that they come from the interior of British Columbia, from LNG, and from everything the NDP opposes. We saw Adrian Dix with a 20-point lead in the provincial election that he blew because he was too radical in opposing every natural resource development. The member can laugh as he does, but he knows that the NDP is out of touch with British Columbians.

That is why the New Democrats continue to lose election after election in the province. Why does the member not stand up for the working-class people, the tradespeople who want to see these projects proceed in a responsible and safe manner?

(1215) Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I am impressed that my friend has become such a fond friend of Christy Clark. I did not notice such support from my Conservative colleagues during the actual campaign in B.C. I remember them distinctly staying away from that election and showing no support for Christy Clark, who, by the way, does not support northern gateway. If the Conservatives are so supportive of the B.C. government, one would think that support would be broadly felt. The B.C. government told the federal government of its five conditions, which have not been met, as the premier said two days ago.

I would suspect that the Conservatives from B.C. would recognize that their premier has said there are problems. Even from the right wing, as my friend says, what about the other side of this thing? We are neighbours. We come from northern B.C., and it is a resource-based part of the world. I had two resource companies in my office yesterday showing strong public support for their operations, mining operations, which we have helped navigate through the process. It is interesting that what has changed in the 10 years that I have been here and represented northwestern B.C. is that companies get it.

They understand we need first nations support. Creating local jobs is important, as opposed to the temporary foreign workers that Conservatives allowed in at HD Mining. My friend must have had an opinion on that. There were 200 Chinese workers allowed to come in and take Canadian jobs through a loophole the Conservative government created. So much for standing up for B.C. So much for standing up for the resource sector and all the jobs.

The Conservatives were only too happy to give those away, and 350,000 temporary foreign workers are working today, many of them in the resource sector, as Canadians in northeastern and northwestern B.C. are still looking for jobs. If the government is actually interested in a resource debate, how about this: raw bitumen exports, which the Conservative government promotes, across the world. The Conservatives ask the United States to support the Keystone pipeline because it would create 40,000 jobs in the U.S. Well, if they can do that there, why can we not do it here?

What happened to the courage, vision, and the idea that Canadian jobs could come from Canadian resources? What happened to those Conservative values? Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his very passionate and important speech. Many things are in the bill, but today, on the eve of the decision that the Conservative government is making with northern gateway, it is paramount for us to have this discussion. We really cannot trust the government to allow us to have this discussion anywhere else.

I think about the amendments we wanted to bring forward in committee, which the Conservatives shut down, as usual. I had the blessing of living in British Columbia for seven years. I think many people in my great riding of Sudbury would also say that it is one of the most beautiful places in the world, and we need to do everything we can to protect it. Unfortunately, we do not see anything in the bill to address oil spills. One of the important things my colleague spoke to, which really resonated, is that the government is allowed to give permits, but it is the people who give permission.

What we have in British Columbia is that none of the people, the first nations, or the communities in the riding the member comes from, are giving permission. I would like the member to elaborate a little more on his statement because it resonates from coast to coast to coast with the importance of understanding what the social licence is as we move forward with this. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I have done a couple of tours around B.C. in the last couple of months, through Vancouver Island, Sunshine Coast, and the interior up to Prince George, because it felt important.

The leadership in my communities has asked me to engage British Columbians on a question that implicates all of us, not just those who live in the northwest at ground zero where the pipeline is meant to go and 11,000 supertankers are meant to sail through some pretty treacherous waters. If people had any semblance of understanding of B.C.'s north coast they would know that this area is fraught with peril. Enbridge itself has admitted that there is at least a 10% to 14% chance of a major oil spill. What was remarkable was the size of the crowd in places like Kamloops, Penticton, Prince George, and Powell River.

A lot of these places are currently represented by Conservatives. Even more intriguing were the people who came out. There were members of the chamber of commerce and members of the local downtown business association. One of the first questions that we often posed at events in Nanaimo, Vancouver Island, and Victoria to counter this idea that this is a city versus rural debate was, “Why do you live here?” This is absolutely not a city versus rural debate. When people are asked that question in places like Courtenay, Comox, Campbell River, and Powell River, they say it is because of “the place”.

These are some of the most remarkable places on earth, certainly within Canada. They are incredibly beautiful. B.C. attempts to marry the use of resources to benefit our communities and to put food on the table, with that natural and stunning beauty. That is the balance that the Conservatives' have completely left behind. The hunting and fishing communities are coming forward. Wildlife groups are coming forward. It is the people who Conservatives have maybe traditionally relied upon and perhaps taken for granted who are joining arm in arm with first nations, with people who are concerned with the environment.

This suggests that the Conservatives have lost their way and the balance has gone completely. The way to tell whether we have a debate or something to say in the House is whether a member gets up and makes a speech about something or whether a member sits and heckles from the backbenches. New Democrats know that we have the right side on this. We will take this question to British Columbians and we will see what they think about this.

(1220) Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques . It is very important for me to be able to rise today and speak to Bill C-3 . I will pull back a little bit and talk about some of the specifics related to this bill. When looking at Bill C-3 , we see it is something we will support at third reading because of the modest improvements in marine security that we have seen in this bill.

However, it is important to recognize that, as usual, we try to bring forward some amendments at committee, really to make the bills better. That is what we are supposed to be doing. We are supposed to be strengthening the bills and laws of this country to make them better for Canadians. However, as usual and once again, the Conservatives completely voted against all of our amendments. It is unfortunate. These amendments did not just come from the NDP; they came from witnesses and stakeholders. We really need to ensure that the government starts to listen.

What we heard from my colleague just a few minutes ago is that it is not listening to first nations in British Columbia. It is not listening to the Government of British Columbia, which said no when it comes to northern gateway. It is also not listening to, I believe, 67% of the population, which is against northern gateway. We needed to ensure that Bill C-3 had a broader scope. It is something we asked for.

We asked that this bill be allowed to go to committee before second reading to ensure we were looking at ways of enhancing this bill and making it better, making sure we can protect our pristine coastline on the B.C. coast. Unfortunately though, that never happened. Let me give members some key facts and figures before I continue. What we have heard about tanker traffic is that it i