Anne Minh-Thu Quach

[Aeronautics Act, December 4th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am a little taken aback by what I have just heard from my Conservative colleague, but I will focus on the bill that my Bloc Québécois colleague from Repentigny introduced. In the almost 14 years that I have known her, she has always been a defender of the environment and, of course, of Quebec.

Bill C-392 amends eight acts in order to bring the federal government to observe certain rules concerning land use and development, and environmental protection in particular. I will support the bill. My colleague from Repentigny introduced a very interesting bill that could force the government to take into account the assessments of the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, known as BAPE in Quebec.

I agree with the amendments, but I have a few questions about their application and their implications. That is why I will vote in favour of the bill so that we can study it in committee and question expert witnesses to determine the potential negative and positive impacts of the bill.

Since I arrived in the House, I have seen too many bills imposed by the federal government without any real environmental assessment. Under Stephen Harper, the Conservatives eliminated the legal safeguards and the federal administration's ability to monitor enforcement of the few environmental rules they left on the books. The environment and the protection of our forests and waterways have become priority issues, however.

Last Sunday, my office organized a town hall on climate change and the need for a solid federal framework and tools at every level to keep our commitments in the fight against global warming. One hundred twenty Canadians came to hear people such as Lorraine Simard of Comité 21, Julia Posca of IRIS and Patrick Bonin of Greenpeace.

Bonin was clear: there can be no energy development without environmental assessment or estimation of upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions. The federal government needs a short-term plan, a medium-term plan and a long-term plan to reduce GHG emissions. The advantage of this bill is that it recognizes that some provinces have effective assessment tools and allows them to use them, for example, BAPE in Quebec.

Consider the energy east pipeline. I do not disagree with the arguments put forward by my Conservative colleague. Conservatives in Quebec and across Canada would like to see the project resurrected. The Liberal Minister of Natural Resources says his government is open to a project like energy east, and yet, under the Conservatives, BAPE published a mini-study, and TransCanada refused to allow its project to be subject to Quebec's environmental legislation. Public opinion prevailed, and the vast majority of municipalities that could proffer an opinion on energy east opposed it for a number of reasons, in particular because there was no environmental assessment. Either the environmental assessments were inadequate, or there was a lack of information about the job creation potential, economic impact and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project. There was a serious lack of information, and people could see little potential for job creation.

How much GHG will be emitted because of the pipeline? Nobody knows. Will TransCanada pay for the clean-up if there is a spill? Maybe. What we know for sure, though, is that our wetlands, such as those around Sainte-Justine-de-Newton, have to be protected and that a spill in the Ottawa River could contaminate all of metropolitan Montreal's drinking water sources. No big deal, that is only about half of Quebec.

The company never told us how long it would take to contain a spill. What we do know is that it takes an hour and a half to respond to an emergency. That is how long it would take to get to the manual shut-off valve in Sainte-Justine-de-Newton. A lot of people are worried about this. The 23 municipalities in the RCM of Vaudreuil-Soulanges repeatedly asked TransCanada questions about energy east, but they never got any answers.

The region of Vaudreuil-Soulanges has the most pipelines and we need protections. The bill sponsored by my colleague from Repentigny could ensure that a BAPE study be considered if the Conservatives or Liberals decide to do further harm to our planet by approving another pipeline.

The notion of co-operative federalism is important to the NDP. It calls for mutual respect by the different levels of government, promotes co-operation on social and economic policies and guarantees the universality of social programs. To ensure that we have a healthy democracy, it is vital that we respect the jurisdictions of each level of government.

We can all cite examples of the federal government meddling in files in our riding where it has no jurisdiction or disregarding the opinion of the provincial or municipal government. A very telling example in the riding next to mine is a communications tower in Montérégie.

In 2008, Rogers informed Châteauguay that it intended to build its radiocommunication antenna system on municipal land that the company had leased since December 2007. The problem was that the people were dead set against the location. The municipal team proposed another location for the tower. Different problems arose along the way.

In 2016, in a case involving Rogers Communications Inc. and the City of Châteauguay, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the municipality had interfered in an area of federal jurisdiction when it tried to ban the construction of a Rogers telecommunications tower. The municipality had issued a notice of establishment of a reserve to prevent the construction of a radiocommunication antenna system.

The Supreme Court ultimately found that since radiocommunication comes under federal jurisdiction, the City of Châteauguay had interfered in an area of federal jurisdiction. However, the city's campaign sent a clear message about the importance of land use and forced a debate on the issue of procedings specifically, and the city ultimately won in the Quebec Court of Appeal.

How much money could have been saved if we had a real federal-municipal agreement on land use and the environment? The two levels of government probably could have saved millions of dollars in legal fees.

The NDP therefore believes it is important to respect the concept of co-operative federalism, which aims to counter unilateral actions by the federal government and ensure that multilateral decisions and negotiations take place with a long-term perspective. Bill C-392 is a positive step toward that objective.

I see nothing in this bill that would prevent the federal government from taking action. On the contrary, it promotes the need for agreements among all levels of government and strengthens necessary collaboration. We need strong institutions to deal with the coming climate storm. My constituents, and constituents in all ridings, need to be able to have faith in an environmental assessment process. This is not currently the case. A good federal process would help prevent some of the disputes addressed in Bill C-392.

I was shocked to learn that an RCM in my riding could receive what amounted to an insulting letter from the National Energy Board demanding that the RCM stop causing problems and asking questions. I think it is a problem when the federal government buys a pipeline with our money without consulting indigenous peoples and with no concern for giving $4.5 billion to a Texan company without our consent.

The government needs to step up. We all need to work together to combat climate change and support Canadians. In an open letter, my colleague from Longueuil spoke about creating a non-partisan department of war against climate change. We may disagree on the terminology, but we agree that we need to act quickly and decisively to protect our planet. We need to ensure that our planet will be soundly managed by future generations and also by us, since urgent action involves the next 12 years. Bills like these are therefore welcome.

[Petitions, November 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by 656 people from across the country.

December 13 marks the sombre anniversary of the Nanjing massacre. In 1937, members of the Japanese Imperial Army raped between 20,000 and 80,000 Chinese women and girls and killed roughly 300,000 people. Witnesses of the Nanjing massacre described these atrocities as hell on earth.

The military sexual slavery system of the Japanese military expanded rapidly, affecting an estimated 200,000 women from Korea, the Philippines, China, Burma, Indonesia and other countries.

Canadian citizens are calling on the Government of Canada to declare December 13 of each year as Nanjing massacre commemorative day.

[International Trade, November 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, what the member just said makes no sense. As a farmer himself, he should be ashamed. Three times in three years—in the agreement with Europe, in the TPP and now in the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement—the Liberals opened breaches in supply management. Worse still, there is a clause in the agreement that gives the U.S. oversight of our system.

The Liberals promised to protect supply management at all costs. Farmers believed them, but they bitterly regret it now.

After opening up nearly 10% of our market to foreign producers, how can the Liberals continue to claim that they are there to protect our farmers?

[The Environment, November 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the fact that our planet is facing no greater battle than the fight against climate change, over 230,000 people have signed the Pact for the Transition.

This deeply inspiring, non-partisan movement calls on those who sign up to make an individual effort to protect the Earth and demands that the federal government do its part to fight climate change.

Our leader, Jagmeet Singh, signed the pact today and has pledged to do everything he can to honour that commitment.

When will the minister share her whole-of-government plan for the environment?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 28th, 2018]

With respect to Lyme disease-carrying ticks and Lyme disease in Canada: (a) what percentage of Lyme disease cases are thought to be reported; (b) what percentage of people who receive treatment for Lyme disease develop post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome; (c) what percentage of people with untreated Lyme disease infections experience intermittent bouts of arthritis; (d) what percentage of untreated Lyme disease patients are at risk of developing chronic neurological complaints months to years after infection; (e) based on all epidemiological data collected since Lyme disease became a nationally-reportable disease, what is the most recent data available about Lyme disease cases, broken down by (i) province, (ii) month, (iii) symptom, (iv) incidence by age and sex; (f) what is Lyme disease’s (i) ranking among vector-borne diseases in Canada, (ii) ranking among nationally notifiable diseases; (g) is it possible to have more than one tick-borne infection, and, if so, (i) are possible co-infections being investigated and tracked, (ii) does one’s chance of having multiple tick-borne infections depend on geographic location, and, if so, what areas are particularly at risk, (iii) what is the rate of co-infection by province; (h) since 2012, how has a warming climate impacted Lyme disease, in particular, (i) how has warming impacted tick distribution by province, (ii) how has warming impacted the distribution of Lyme disease by province; (i) what does the government project will be the effect of climate change on (i) the geographical range of ticks in 2020 and 2050, (ii) the distribution of ticks across Canada, (iii) human Lyme disease infections, (iv) the distribution of Lyme disease infections in Canada; (j) what are Health Canada’s recommended treatment guidelines for Lyme disease, and what was the process used to develop them; (k) what tests does Health Canada recommend for diagnosing cases of Lyme disease; (l) what is the percentage accuracy of the recommended tests in (k) at each stage of disease, namely, when a patient has an erythema migrans rash, when a patient is in the early disseminated stage (days to weeks post-tick bite), and when a person is in the late disseminated stage (months to years post-tick bite); (m) what tests for diagnosing Lyme disease are available and recommended in Canada during each of the stages of the disease mentionned in (l); (n) can patients be treated based solely on their symptoms or must they have had positive test results; (o) is the government aware of any organization that recommends physicians who are familiar with diagnosing and treating Lyme disease, and, if so, where can this information be accessed; (p) what percentage of patients with Lyme disease respond well to antibiotics; (q) what percentage of patients with Lyme disease experience fatigue, muscle aches, sleep disturbance, or difficulty thinking even after completing a recommended course of antibiotic treatment; (r) what research has been undertaken regarding the benefits and risks of a longer course of antibiotics; (s) what follow-up has Health Canada undertaken to ensure that patients have access to a longer course of antibiotic treatment if required; (t) what are Health Canada’s recommendations and treatment, if any, concerning those who suffer post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome; (u) do these individuals in (t) have access to medical means (drugs or other) to provide relief even if their symptoms are neither known nor written in a nomenclature; (v) if there is no treatment or recommendation, is research underway to help these patients in (t); (w) what resources, if any, does Health Canada provide to clinicians regarding diagnosis, treatment, and testing; (x) what resources, if any, does Health Canada provide to clinicians for continuing medical education on the topic of Lyme disease; (y) what, if any, case definition and report forms does Health Canada make available concerning Lyme disease, and when were each of these forms last updated by Health Canada; (z) what specific actions are Health Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research undertaking regarding prevention of Lyme disease, including, but not limited to, (i) programs of research, (ii) programs of service, (iii) education programs for the public and healthcare providers; (aa) what resources have been provided to each initiative identified in response to (z); (bb) what, if anything, is Health Canada doing with national surveillance data regarding Lyme disease, in particular, (i) what is it doing to maintain such data, (ii) what is it doing to analyze such data, (iii) what resources has it allocated to such activities; (cc) in what epidemiologic investigations on Lyme disease is the government currently involved in some capacity; (dd) what financial resources is the government providing for any such study in (cc); (ee) with regard to diagnostic and reference laboratory services studying Lyme disease, does the government have this expertise, broken down by agency and by expenditures since 2015; (ff) if the answer to (ee) is negative, does the government fund provinces or agencies, broken down by (i) agency name, (ii) expenditures since 2015, (iii) type of agency (public or private); (gg) are the provinces following Health Canada’s diagnostic recommendations, and, if they are not following them, why not; and (hh) what, if any, steps is Health Canada and the Canadian Institute for Health Research taking to develop and test strategies for the control and prevention of Lyme disease in humans?

[The Environment, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, ENvironnement JEUnesse maintains that the Canadian government has violated the fundamental rights of young people and wants to bring a class action suit on behalf of Quebeckers 35 and under. According to this organization, the federal government has shown gross negligence on climate action. It is buying pipelines with Canadians' money and will once again fail to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets because it has absolutely no plan.

Are the Liberals prepared to listen to these claims and this heartfelt plea from young Quebeckers, or would they rather keep listening to their buddies in the oil industry?

[Climate Change, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the fight against climate change is everyone's responsibility. Every country has to pitch in. According to the IPCC, we have less than 12 years to change course. Every sector of the economy needs to reduce its emissions to limit global warming to 1.5°C. To do that, we need to drastically change our consumption practices, our habits and our transportation.

That is why I will be holding a town hall on Sunday, December 2, at Raphaël-Barrette hall in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield. Our guest speakers will include Patrick Bonin from Greenpeace, Julia Posca from IRIS, and Lorraine Simard from Vaudreuil-Soulanges's Comité 21. Excerpts from the documentary Tomorrow will also be shown. While political leaders are gathering at COP24 in Poland, the people of Salaberry—Suroît will have an opportunity to talk about citizen initiatives urging government action, such as the Pact for the Transition and ENvironnement JEUnesse's class action suit, and to discuss the need for clear public policies at the federal level. Everyone in the world understands that we need to start looking at solutions.

I hope to see many people on Sunday at 1 p.m. in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is obviously very involved in this file and her involvement in and commitment to society in general are a good example of some of the things that can be done.

Many scientists, industry representatives, workers in the environmental field, and people around the world are carrying out initiatives in this regard. Thousands of initiatives are being carried out around the world. I am talking about initiatives pertaining to permaculture, local currency, buy local networks, geothermal energy, wind energy, the creation of construction standards for more energy efficient buildings, and awareness campaigns regarding the fight against plastic.

We are calling on the government to establish a plan for every department. Right now, only 5 out of 19 departments have a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Environment Canada does not even have one. That makes no sense at all. I cannot believe it.

The government needs to have its own plan to adapt to climate change and apply it through public policies in every department and every sector, whether it be transport, food, housing construction and so on. There is an urgent need to act now.

Young people and the general public understand that. The only one who does not is the government.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague from Hamilton Mountain shouting that it is 14 years. I am not the one saying so. Many social housing organizations across Canada are saying that 90% of the investments in social housing announced by the Liberals will not come until after the next election.

Way to go. The housing crisis is happening right now.

People are also talking about other crises. I do not know if the Liberals have their heads buried in the sand or what, but every week for the last four weeks, someone has had something to say about the environment. Global warming is the number one issue. Everyone says that urgent action is needed now.

What do the Liberals propose in these 851 pages? There is nothing for the environment, a big fat zero in terms of investment and a big fat zero in terms of plans. There is nothing for decarbonization, nothing for public transit, nothing for reviewing building codes to make them more energy efficient. There is also nothing to keep fossil fuels in the ground or to promote the development of green and renewable energy sources.

Where is the Liberals' vision for addressing climate change? I do not see it here. It is nowhere to be found.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about the Liberals, who are proposing a hefty 850-page bill. It is an omnibus bill. It is the largest bill ever introduced in the House of Commons. The omnibus bills that the Conservatives used to introduce were 75 pages long. Today we are seeing an 800% or even 900% increase with this 851-page bill. The Liberals were elected on a promise to be more transparent and more accountable.

Furthermore, we are debating this unusually large bill under a gag order. This morning, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour was boasting about how she has already given opposition members 15 hours of debate.

According to my calculations, 15 hours of debate divided by 851 pages equals one minute and five seconds per page. Is it responsible to allocate so little time to debate a bill? I use the phrase “debate a bill” loosely, because only eight NDP MPs and five Conservative MPs spoke to this bill before today, if memory serves.

The Liberals say that they are more democratic, more transparent and more accountable, but I have my doubts. I think that everyone has reason to doubt the goodwill and good faith of the Liberals.

As my colleague from Jonquière said, this bill amends seven acts. The Liberals have never been able to tell us how many clauses and subclauses are in this mammoth bill. They themselves do not even know. They do not even know all the things they put in this bill. It is ridiculous to have to debate it under time allocation.

I will focus on just a few points in my speech because, unfortunately, nobody in the House can cover all the measures introduced in the nearly 900-page bill in just 10 minutes.

Women have been waiting 42 years for the Liberals to keep their promises on pay equity. Unions have been fighting Canada Post in court over that for 30 years. The government is yet again telling women they will have to wait. Pay equity legislation will come into force not in a matter of weeks or months, but in four years.

Our party has been a tireless advocate for this important issue. We have even proposed changes in the past. As we heard from my colleague from Jonquière, the NDP proposed 36 amendments. The Conservatives proposed amendments. The other parties proposed amendments. How many amendments did the Liberals accept? Not one single amendment was accepted, despite the fact that they reflected the demands of unions and the demands of various women's groups. Not one amendment was accepted to improve the bill, to give women a stronger voice. The Liberals did not agree to any of our suggestions.

Canada is facing some major challenges that require a bolder approach than the one the Liberals are using. The first initiatives requiring employers to determine how many people must receive more pay are a step in the right direction. However, what could possibly justify how long it will take to implement this? Is it acceptable that women continue to be underpaid for another four years under this government?

In 2018, women earn on average $12,700 less than men. If we multiply that by four, that means nearly $51,000 less for women. The government says it is proud to have introduced pay equity legislation. However, women will still have $51,000 less in their pockets, which is a lot.

If I had to summarize the government's action, I would have to say that it is nothing but half measures. The time it will take to implement pay equity is the biggest problem lurking behind the government's facade of good intentions, but it is not the only one. There is also the fact that budget implementation act, 2018, No. 2 does not require employers to apply pay equity to workers who were already under contract if changes are subsequently made to the contract following a call for tenders. Why? We do not know.

The bill also does not include any of the pay transparency measures that advocates have called for. Salaries cannot be compared when pay equity issues are being addressed. What is wrong with that picture? Will the pay equity commissioner have the resources needed to do his or her work properly? We do not know that either.

Speaking of half measures, why did the government not adopt the recommendations set out in the Bilson report, including the creation of a pay equity hearings tribunal? Lastly, the Liberals are once again professing to support equality while telling a segment of the population that is being treated unfairly to grin and bear it. I would like to remind the government that women represent 51% of the population.

The government made its choice. It chose not to make the investments needed to ensure that women receive equal pay, and chose instead to give big business, the richest people in the world, $14 billion in tax cuts. This measure was introduced last week in the Minister of Finance's fall economic statement. Did the rich and these big corporations really need that $14 billion this fall? I do not think so. They are getting help, yet many of them evade taxes or openly use tax havens to avoid paying taxes.

The same is true for web giants like Netflix, Apple and Facebook, which pay virtually nothing in taxes and then get tax breaks. However, they use our services and are quite happy to hire highly skilled workers from Quebec and Canada. The Liberals claim that our SMEs are important and that they want to support buying local, but they support the web giants that do not need to worry about all of the taxes imposed on our SMEs under Canadian law.

How much of this money will go to rural areas? We have no idea. The government is allocating billions of dollars for businesses to buy new equipment and innovate, but how can we innovate when our rural areas do not even have access to high-speed Internet or a 3G or LTE cellular network?

The Auditor General criticized the government for its lack of judgment in managing public money allocated to the connect to innovate program. Some municipalities in my riding are turned down for this program or CRTC funds for ridiculous reasons, such as the fact that there is already a home with high-speed Internet within a 25-kilometre radius. This is happening in Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, and all the areas served by Coop CSUR in the Soulanges area are under the same restriction. Do we really want a double standard for our rural and urban areas?

On another subject, how will the poverty reduction strategy be funded? Apparently, it will be made up of existing programs without any additional money. I think the Liberals are just thumbing their noses at us. They have targets, but no plan. That seems to be a theme with this government, because it does not have a plan for the environment either. The Liberals got themselves elected in 2015 by saying, “We have a plan, we have a plan, we have a plan”. Today, there is no plan, there is no plan, there is no plan. I think I will use that in an ad.

Are they going to help the most vulnerable citizens access health care services more easily? No. There is no plan for pharmacare either, even though we know that we could save $3 billion a year according to conservative estimates. We could make a lot of investments in health care with that money.

What other measures does the bill include to drastically reduce our CO₂ and methane emissions starting this year? None. Is the government planning to help rural areas go green, develop public transit, make their homes more energy efficient, or use solar and wind power? No.

Is the government going to implement restrictions to help big corporations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions? No, of course there is no plan to do that. Will the federal government finally have a costed plan for reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions? No, it has no plan for that either.

It has been pointed out that many citizen movements have been launched. In Quebec, artists, scientists, economists and citizens have signed A Pact for the Transition. Millennials have been criticized for not being more involved in all kinds of things, but yesterday, young people who realized that the government is not doing anything for the environment took action, and a youth environmental group called ENvironnement JEUnesse brought suit against the federal government for failing to take action on the environment.

I have to stop now because I am out of time, but that shows just how important the environment is to people 35 and under and how absurd it was for the government to spend $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money on a pipeline.

That move was not a plan or investment for keeping our planet healthy for current and future generations. It is shameful.