François Choquette

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House in 2018. This year, I will be as optimistic as ever, and I will keep working tirelessly for the people of greater Drummond. Today we are talking about Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with respect to political financing, which is at report stage.

If this bill becomes law, all political parties will be required to report to Elections Canada the names and addresses of individuals attending a fundraising event within 30 days of the event taking place. The information will be available to the public. This concerns mainly members of cabinet, including the Prime Minister, party leaders, and leadership candidates.

This amendment was introduced in response to all the scandals involving the current Liberal Prime Minister. The people of greater Drummond have talked to me about all the meetings the Prime Minister has held behind the closed doors of wealthy people's homes at which guests paid $1,500 for privileged access to him or almost $1,000 to meet ministers. This creates the appearance of conflict of interest and is known as cash for access.

The current government was thrown into turmoil by the scandal, so it decided to introduce this bill. However, the bill will not make political fundraising by cabinet ministers and party leaders significantly more transparent to the public. Unfortunately, it will not fix the problem of cash for access, so these fundraisers will continue to be held.

This bill comes just one year after the Liberal Prime Minister announced he was breaking his promise to ensure that the 2015 election would be the last one held under the first past the post system. Many voters in Drummond had believed that promise. This reform had been backed by three major political parties, including the NDP, and more than 60% of voters voted for those parties. I myself held consultations in Drummond, and the many residents who attended said they believed this change would be made. Sadly, yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the day this promise was broken, despite 90% of experts and 80% of Canadians unanimously supporting a proportional voting system.

The reform before us today does nothing to fix this problem. On the contrary, the Liberals have swept that reform under the rug, and Canadians have become even more cynical about politics, because this promise had been repeated ad nauseam by politicians. Even the Prime Minister, hand on his heart, had promised this change on multiple occasions. Unbelievably, he backed down from that promise.

What Bill C-50 wants to do is put an end to cash for access, but it does not manage to do that.

Bill C-50 seeks to put an end to cash for access, but unfortunately, it does not. Clearly, there is a lot money floating around the Liberal government right now. To give just one example, the people interested in projects funded through the Infrastructure Bank are millionaires. They want a private infrastructure bank in order to make a profit on the backs of Canadian taxpayers, including the people of Drummond. Frustrations are growing because people do not want increased user fees, the privatization of our assets, and a loss of control.

Greater Drummond has a number of infrastructure projects, and the Liberal government promised to invest in infrastructure. To date, the riding of Drummond has not received a single investment in that area. As a result, several projects have not been able to get off the ground, specifically because of a lack of federal support.

Drummondville has plans for a multi-sport centre that would include a soccer field, an indoor football field, and a running track. We really need this indoor soccer field. We asked the federal government for help. The project could cost up to $15 million. We have yet to receive a response from the government regarding funding for the project.

That is unacceptable, given that this government promised to invest in infrastructure. So far, there has been no such investment in the riding of Drummond.

We have another major project, the Promenade des Voltigeurs. This infrastructure project includes plans for a bike path that would also be an ideal walking path winding along the Saint-François River. The price tag for the project is $6.2 million. We have applied to the federal government for assistance, but have not heard back yet.

When will the federal government invest in infrastructure in Drummond? We are looking to receive investments soon.

Hockey is a big deal in Drummond. Our team, the Voltigeurs, is having a good season. Things are going well for the team this year. We would like to modernize our main arena, the Marcel-Dionne Centre. That project will cost $26 million. What is the federal government promising for that investment? Once again, nothing, unfortunately.

The Liberal government is not living up to its promise to invest in infrastructure. More than two years after it was elected, it has invested nothing.

I could go on. There is the high-frequency rail project in the riding of Drummond. The train would travel from Quebec City to Windsor, passing through Drummondville and Montreal along the way. This is a major project that would enable the greater Drummond area to grow both socially and economically. My riding is a real transportation hub. It is a wonderful area for transportation because it is so well located. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for answers from the federal government on this project, which has been in the works for a long time. The Liberals took office two years ago and they are still doing studies. It is time for them to announce investments. It is time for them to invest in public transit and this wonderful major project. The Liberals have still not made any announcements in this regard.

All of these examples show that this government was elected because it made certain promises. The Liberals made a big promise, and the people of Drummond and other Canadians believed them. They believed the Liberals when they said that the 2015 election would be the last first past the post election. The Prime Minister broke that promise.

What did the Prime Minister do? He set up a system of cash for access, which has caused numerous scandals. He held meetings at private residences and charged $1,500 a plate. That is why this government, in the wake of those scandals, introduced a bill, which, when it comes right down to it, will not even solve that basic problem.

I am calling on the Liberal government to go back to the drawing board and redo its homework because this bill does not resolve the problem of cash for access fundraisers.

[Official Languages, February 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne has given the government an ultimatum. It is demanding additional funding to improve conditions in official language minority communities. It is time for the Liberals to prove that they will do more than just pay lip service to official languages. They make promises but do not keep them.

When will the government walk the talk and agree to the communities' funding demands?

[Criminal Code, December 11th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech and for his commitment to standing up for Canadians on this issue, which is a complex one and requires significant expertise. I do not have that expertise, but I understand a little about what happened in committee.

What I understand is that the NDP proposed a number of amendments. For example, we tried to clarify the definition of “no consent obtained” with respect to sexual assault in the Criminal Code of Canada, to ensure that the complainant being unconscious is not kept as the threshold for incapacity to consent.

We also tried to change the process for introducing the complainant's private records at trial. Unfortunately, the Liberals rejected these amendments.

Could my colleague tell us about the famous definition of consent and the evidence that may be submitted at trial? For example, Emma Cunliffe, from the Peter A. Allard School of Law, spoke about an agenda that had been stolen by the accused and the problems that this had created.

Could my colleague speak further to these two very important notions?

[Justice, December 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we recently obtained an internal Department of Justice report that the government has been hiding since March of this year. Why? Because it is damning.

Between 2008 and 2018, the government diverted over $40 million from the Contraventions Act fund. That money was supposed to have been invested to improve access to justice in both official languages, but it was spent elsewhere. Organizations have been closing their doors for lack of funding.

Will the government commit to spending the money where it promised to spend it?

[Official Languages, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to my adorable colleague, who gave a good explanation of what he did, I then sent a letter signed by my leader. I never received a response to my suggestions and to my main recommendation concerning compliance with the Official Languages Act.

My colleague said that we were informed. It is not about informing us, but about consulting the opposition leaders. That is in the law and it was not done.

At #ONfr, journalist Benjamin Vachet said the following, found in the section “The Process Called into Question”:

Despite this future appointment, in the hallways, many are questioning the appointment process that was relaunched in July. Candidates who applied in this second round have said that they were not contacted and are wondering if new applications were considered, or if it was simply a public relations exercise.

There are barely three weeks left in the appointment process for the Official Languages Commissioner.

Does my hon. colleague believe that, in three weeks, we can do what section 49(1) of the Official Languages Act asks us to do, that is, consult the leaders of the opposition and not inform them? That violates the Official Languages Act. The leaders of the opposition must be consulted.

[Official Languages, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege for me to rise in the House of Commons to talk about the importance of official languages and the role of the official languages commissioner, Canada's bilingualism watchdog and protector of official language communities across the country.

On June 21, everyone was talking about the botched appointment of Madeleine Meilleur, which was a disaster for official languages and official language communities all over Canada. At that time, I asked the Prime Minister a question about this extremely important position and the Madeleine Meilleur appointment fiasco because it did not take us long to realize how partisan the appointment was. We asked the Prime Minister and the heritage minister why she continued to outdo herself.

As I said yesterday evening, we were without an official languages commissioner for four days. Finally, the heritage minister woke up and extended Ghislaine Saikaley's term as acting commissioner for another six months. That time is almost up. If I am not mistaken, her term expires on December 15, which is in three weeks, and we still do not have an official languages commissioner.

This is what former commissioner Graham Fraser, whose own term was extended and who held the position for some 10 years, had to say about it:

I think that this is an example of a bungled appointment process. I can only think that it reflects a lack of attention, lack of concern for the issue...for the question of official languages.

Graham Fraser dispensed with neutrality and used harsh words. “Lack of attention” and “lack of concern” are very serious words, but they are fitting because he had sent a letter to the Prime Minister a full year before his term expired advising him of his departure and recommending that he take the appointment process very seriously and not wait until the last minute.

Unfortunately, almost one year after his departure, we still do not have a Commissioner of Official Languages. There are barely three weeks left to fill this position, to properly consult the opposition leaders, to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, and finally, for the House to be able to vote in favour of the next Commissioner of Official Languages.

My question is quite simple. Why is the government dragging its heels? Why did it take the government a year to do things properly? What is going on? Why is it so difficult to follow this process properly?

[Government Appointments, November 27th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals say this is an open and transparent process. However, we were kept in the dark for four days about the identity of the future official languages commissioner.

We demand to know who paid the Boyden recruitment agency to find the new commissioner. Was it the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages that paid, rather than the government? We also demand to know who is on the final committee. Who are these people? Do they have any ties to particular candidates? We do not have their names.

Finally, if this is an open and transparent process, why were the opposition leaders not given the short list of the final candidates? I am not asking for it to be released to the Canadian public at large. The Liberals must answer these questions in order to be open and transparent.

[Government Appointments, November 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise again in the House to speak about the position of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which is very important for Canadians across Canada and for official language minority communities.

On June 19, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage a question about this. I challenged the Liberal approach to this file, which unfortunately is a real travesty. It was no laughing matter to hear about the appointment of Madeleine Meilleur. I have nothing against her, but this process has been a real farce, and we were not pleased at all. Things were bleak for official language communities. This is what I said on June 19:

...the Liberals' approach to official languages is a joke. The Minister of Canadian Heritage forgot to extend the interim commissioner's mandate. As of Saturday [it had been four days at that point], we no longer have an official languages watchdog. Before that, the Liberals announced the partisan appointment of Madeleine Meilleur with absolutely no regard for the law or Parliament. This is all the doing of a minister who tells us every day that official languages are a priority for the government.

I concluded by asking the following question:

When will the government get serious and respect the Official Languages Act?

Then I had to rise in the House of Commons on a question of privilege because the Minister of Canadian Heritage knew who was going to be the Commissioner of Official Languages, while members of the House and Canadians were kept in the dark as to the identity of the country's official languages watchdog.

Here is why I raised a question of privilege:

...I wish to point out that my parliamentary privileges, and those of the other members of the House, have been violated. The Commissioner of Official Languages reports not only to the government, but also to Parliament. As a result, Parliament must know who the Commissioner of Official Languages is so it can address this individual, ask questions, and receive information. Today, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage who the current Commissioner of Official Languages is and at what time we will know when a new Commissioner of Official Languages is appointed. We currently do not know who the official languages commissioner is. Perhaps the government knows, but if we parliamentarians do not know...

Does the government think it is acceptable that Parliament and Canadians were kept in the dark for four days regarding who would be our official languages watchdog?

[Official Languages, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a dismal record when it comes to defending official languages.

The media is reporting that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to be served in French when crossing the border. The number of complaints go up every year, and the worst part is that this is nothing new. The Canada Border Services Agency is a repeat offender. There are recurring problems there.

Did the minister responsible for official languages forget that it is her responsibility to ensure bilingual services in every government agency?

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition signed by hundreds of students at École secondaire La Poudrière in Drummondville.

The petitioners state that, because Saudi Arabia has one of the world's worst human rights records, the government should cancel the $15-billion contract to sell light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to end Canadian arms sales to countries that violate human rights.