François Choquette

[Justice, April 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak once again about an issue concerning our official languages.

On December 1, 2017, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada an important question about an internal Department of Justice report that the government had been hiding since March 2017. We had been waiting for that report, which had not been publicly released. What was hidden in that internal report and why did the government want to keep it under wraps?

The report reveals that between 2008 and 2018, consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments diverted over $40 million from the Contraventions Act fund that was supposed to be spent on the roadmap for official languages. As a result, that money, which should have been invested to improve access to justice through the roadmap for official languages, was spent elsewhere. It is extremely disappointing that the money was not invested in our official language minority communities. Many people were surprised and wanted answers.

With that in mind, we asked for some clarification on this situation and called on the new Minister of Canadian Heritage to come up with a plan to make sure that this shortfall is reinvested in the next action plan for official languages, specifically the 2018-23 plan.

The Fédération des associations des juristes d'expression française wrote to the Minister of Justice to ask her to explain this situation, to take action, and to do something to address the situation. She did not respond. In 2016, the Réseau national de formation en justice asked Canadian Heritage questions about what was happening with the Contraventions Act fund. This organization wanted to know whether monies from this fund had been spent on official languages. There was no response. Access to justice in both of Canada's official languages is already difficult and this only compounds the problem. There are still many challenges to overcome.

For example, we still do not have a law to ensure that Supreme Court justices are bilingual and that they can properly understand, speak, and read both official languages.

I tabled a bill to address that. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it because they said they already had a policy to that effect. A policy, however, can be changed with the snap of a finger or it can just be ignored. We have seen other files where policy has not been followed. That is why we need legislation. The December 2017 report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages called for justice to be done in both official languages. It rightly called for the Supreme Court to be bilingual and that this be enshrined in law. It also called on the government to stop diverting the $40 million that was to be used to improve access to justice. I really want to get some answers about this matter.

[The Environment, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is way behind on meeting its objectives with respect to protecting marine environments. The Liberal government committed to protecting at least 10% of marine environments by 2020. Unfortunately, the government is taking shortcuts by creating marine refuges. This invention, which has no legal basis, does not even comply with internationally recognized criteria.

This is why I tabled Motion No. 169, to create a marine protected area in the St. Lawrence Estuary. This motion builds on a motion I moved in 2014 to protect the belugas and the fragile ecosystem in the St. Lawrence. This government must take immediate action and listen to the public and to organizations like the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the David Suzuki Foundation. I urge the public to join me in calling for the creation of marine protected areas to preserve our biodiversity.

[Official Languages, March 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister finally unveiled the action plan for official languages. Even though there is not as much funding as communities hoped, the action plan promises long-awaited reinvestments across the country. The government has announced more action on immigration and early childhood, which are two vital areas for our communities. However, we are disappointed by the lack of improvement in leadership and governance.

Absent leadership or governance from the Liberal government, what is to prevent the Official Languages Act from continuing to be breached time and time again?

[Official Languages, March 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, more and more translation errors are being found in federal government tendering documents. Here are some concrete examples. Imagine bidding on contracts for “Computers for the Department d'Affaires autochtones” or “générator - entretien”. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement promised to resolve this problem. We are still waiting to find out whether it will be made mandatory for the department to use the services of the Translation Bureau.

Who does the minister trust, Google Translate or the Translation Bureau?

[Fisheries Act, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. He is right that it was important to consult all the groups affected by this bill. There is one thing the Liberal government could have done immediately. As soon as it came to power, it could have restored protections for all fish in Canada. That is being done now, but sadly we lost two years.

I commend the government for listening to the groups and the public because there are a lot of good things in there. I mentioned for example habitat protection for all fish, the considerations related to restoration and sustainability, the cumulative follow-up, which is important, and the rebuilding of fish stocks. These are all good things that are in this bill. I congratulate the government on that. It says that it is open to amendments, but I hope it will also be open to clarifying the ministerial discretion because we have serious concerns about that.

[Fisheries Act, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question. He is correct. One of the flaws in this bill, which we do support, is that it gives the minister far too much leeway. The Liberals say we are going to rely on science and indigenous traditional knowledge, but at the same time they say the minister is going to be able to do basically whatever she wants. That makes no sense. If we say we are going to rely on science, that means we are not going to rely on the minister's opinion. We had enough of this with the Conservatives, who supported economic development at all costs, without regard for sustainable development. The economy is one of the pillars of sustainable development, but there is also the social aspect, meaning the environmental and social economy.

This flaw is evident not only in this bill, but also in other bills, including the environmental assessment bill the minister just introduced. I do not know what the Minister of Environment put in her coffee, but all of her bills leave her plenty of leeway to do whatever she wants.

[Fisheries Act, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to mention that I will share my time with my charming colleague from North Island—Powell River.

Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, has been a long time coming. The NDP is very happy that this bill has finally been introduced. All of the environmental bills being introduced this week and those that were introduced last week should have been introduced and implemented much more quickly. The Liberals promised to do so, and then waited two years. I understand that they had to consult the public, but they could have implemented some of the provisions without taking all this time for consultations. We are a bit disappointed in this.

Nevertheless, this bill is extremely important, because it implements a number of the recommendations the NDP made in its dissenting opinion during the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans' review of the amendments made to the Fisheries Act in 2012. I remember that sad day in 2012 very well, when the Conservative government rammed the hundreds and hundreds of pages of its infamous Bill C-38 down our throats. This bill contained a number of amendments that weakened our environmental laws. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières pointed out, these amendments are unfortunately still in effect.

The Liberals endorsed Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline project even though the public does not support it. Furthermore, since the assessment was a total farce, two of our country's wonderful provinces are now in a dispute.

There are some good things in this bill, of course. The government will once again protect fish and their habitat from activities that could kill fish. With respect to this bill, many people have commented that we must not protect only fish used by humans. We must not forget that biodiversity is an ecosystem. Fish eat each other, and if we do not save the other fish, then those we eat will have nothing to feed on. That is why taking several fish species off the protected species list was so ridiculous. That protection will be restored, which is a good thing. The HADD provision on harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat will be restored.

In addition, the government will for the first time include recovery of depleted fish stocks in the Fisheries Act. That is a very good thing. There are some aspects of the bill we are concerned about, though. A number of my colleagues have mentioned that the bill gives the minister far too many discretionary powers. The Liberals have said they would make evidence-based decisions. However, if the minister is allowed to do whatever she wants regardless of science and ancestral indigenous knowledge, everything will depend on the minister's opinion rather than science. That is what we find so problematic about this aspect of the bill.

As I was saying, the Liberals should have reinstated fish habitat protections as soon as they took office, rather than waiting.

I must mention that many of these measures came from amendments proposed by the NDP.

Congratulations to everyone who worked on improving this bill. I commend the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, who did excellent work on this. He worked to reinstate solid protections for fish habitat, to put forward suggestions on how to replenish fish stocks and ensure their viability, to advocate for establishing a public registry, which is very important, and to take into account indigenous knowledge.

Before I continue, I would like to talk about the very important report of the Cohen commission, which deals with Fraser River sockeye. The report recommended that the government, which is currently a Liberal one, act on the commission's recommendations to restore sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River. In the third recommendation of the report, Justice Cohen wrote:

The Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product.

In that regard, I would like to come back to the excellent work done by the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. We know that, unfortunately, the Liberals defeated Bill C-228, which was an excellent bill that sought to transition to the use of closed containment facilities and protect the jobs of workers in that sector so that nobody would lose out. It was a very good bill but, unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it.

Right now, many Canadians, including many of my constituents, are questioning the Liberals' intentions, since they also voted against the bill introduced by the member for Sherbrooke, who is another excellent MP. His bill had to do with the mandatory labelling of GMOs.

As the Liberals were voting against the mandatory labelling of GMOs, they secretly approved the farming and sale of genetically modified salmon in Canada. In fact, Canada remains the only country in the world whose citizens have eaten genetically modified salmon. We do not know who ate it. We do not know where it was purchased. We do not know the circumstances, since labelling is not mandatory, but there is absolutely no question that we unfortunately ate it.

Meanwhile, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, has invested over $3 million in the company that produces genetically modified salmon.

Once again in secret, genetically modified salmon is being produced in Prince Edward Island, even though there has been no environmental assessment on the potential dangers. Genetically modified salmon could escape from their enclosures during storms and other severe weather conditions that could occur. The potential impact of such an accident on Atlantic salmon populations has not been assessed. As we know, the wild Atlantic salmon stock is already threatened.

We will support this bill for all the reasons mentioned. However, we are very disappointed in the Liberal government's efforts relative to what could have been done to improve aquaculture on the Pacific coast, as well as the labelling, sale, and farming of genetically modified salmon. Canadians are angry. We need to take action on this, and we will.

[Official Languages, February 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, official language communities are demanding action. They want some very concrete and specific things, including an increase in funding. They are asking for $575 million over five years, the money they would have received over the past 12 years had their funding envelope been indexed. That would give them a chance.

The communities are also asking that federal funding be indexed as of the next budget. I asked for that before and the communities have been asking for it since 2017. Nothing has been done yet. The communities are also asking for more development programs by and for the communities. It is important that they be granted the opportunity to provide these programs. What is more, the action plan must have a real impact on the ability of official language communities to create their social fabric and enhance their vitality. These are important things that the communities are asking for.

Can my hon. colleague confirm that the government has heard the ultimatum delivered by the communities and will soon take action?

[Official Languages, February 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House once again to talk about official languages and the importance of investing in our official language communities across the country. On February 1, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is also responsible for official languages, an extremely important question. My question was about the importance of heeding the ultimatum issued by community organizations that say official language minority communities across the country are under-funded.

It has now been 10 years since those organizations last received any additional funding, since their funding was indexed, yet the cost of living has risen steadily. They are stretched thin, and that is why they want stable, adequate funding that meets their needs so they can help communities grow and thrive.

It is high time that the Liberals and the minister put their words into action when it comes to official languages. As I said in the question, enough with the promises, enough with the empty rhetoric. It is time to take action. They are unable to keep their promises. We have not seen anything concrete. On the contrary, while they are twiddling their thumbs, there are problems everywhere: some organizations are forced to lay off all their employees and get by with the help of volunteers, and some organizations no longer have any offices.

I have two solid examples of the problems we are seeing right now. The first has to do with literacy and basic skills. The government decided to work on a project-by-project basis instead of providing stable funding. The Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, RESDAC, drummed up projects left and right and managed to survive thanks to its incredible resourcefulness. However, for two years now, all of their projects, their very good projects have been rejected. RESDAC has survived despite the fact that it no longer had basic funding.

In November or December, its representatives and those from FCFA held a huge press conference to say that the situation is dire, that they were in a bad way, that they were out of money, and that they were on life support. In fact, volunteers are providing minimal service. There is no longer an official languages literacy and basic skills support network anywhere in Canada. That is unbelievable to me. A complaint was even filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It resulted in two recommendations for which we are still awaiting a response. We are told they are working on it, but it will take at least six months to get any answers, while the needs are pressing. There needs to be an urgent response to help this group.

Chronic underfunding of community media is another problem. Community media, our official language community papers and radio stations, have lost over 80% of their advertising revenue. That is right: 80% of their revenue has evaporated.

I would like to know what the government is planning to do. Will it respond to the ultimatum?

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on her excellent work in the fight against tax havens and the push for tax fairness. She has worked really hard, and has also consulted her constituents, as I recently did in Drummond. A few weeks ago, I suddenly had about 50 people at my door to talk about the changes regarding tax havens.

It has been reported that Canadians are missing out on $8 billion a year in tax revenues. The Liberals voted in favour of our motion, and we asked them to actively fight tax havens. What they did instead was secretly sign two more agreements with tax havens.

How are we to interpret the fact that they appear to support our requests and listen to Canadians, but then they turn around and do the exact opposite? What does that mean? Why do they say one thing and do another?