François Choquette

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present dozens of petitions from the people of Drummond in response to Health Canada's approval of the sale of genetically modified salmon and the fact that, at this time, no one knows when they are eating genetically modified salmon. It is rumoured that people in Quebec are eating genetically modified salmon, but no one knows for sure, because Canada does not have mandatory labelling.

The petitioners are therefore calling on the Government of Canada to pass legislation on mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods. These kinds of petitions have been landing on my desk for over a year now.

[Official Languages Act, October 31st, 2017]

moved for leave to introduce C-382, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Supreme Court of Canada).

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat less pleased to introduce this bill because, last week, the Liberals defeated Bill C-203, the bill that would have required Supreme Court justices to understand both official languages, despite the fact that they had previously voted in favour of it three times. This time, unfortunately, they defeated the bill, so now we have to do something else.

Now, we can amend the Official Languages Act, which may help the situation but will not resolve everything. It would be a good step forward anyway, and that is why I am introducing Bill C-382, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (Supreme Court of Canada). This bill would amend section 16 of the Official Languages Act so that it also applies to the Supreme Court of Canada. If this bill passes, all federal courts will be responsible for ensuring that judges hearing a case understand the parties' official language of choice without the help of an interpreter. This is a good step forward, but it will not resolve everything. We will have to form government ourselves and introduce another bill like Bill C-203 to fix the problem, so that everyone can access the Supreme Court in the official language of their choice.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Judges Act, October 31st, 2017]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Judges Act (bilingualism).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce a second bill, an act to amend the Judges Act with regard to bilingualism. This bill is very important and it responds to the recommendations of Graham Fraser, the former official languages commissioner, who issued a report in 2013 entitled “Access to Justice in Both Official Languages: Improving the Bilingual Capacity of the Superior Court Judiciary”. When I met the commissioner in early 2015, he told me that he had tabled this report but that the Conservatives had shelved it. He asked me to dust it off and do something with it.

I decided to move forward. I am therefore introducing this bill and hoping that the Liberals will implement it, since it seeks to replace the existing system in which judges evaluate their own mastery of the two official languages with an evaluation by the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, as recommended by the Commissioner of Official Languages. Everyone knows that self-evaluation does not work and that a formal assessment is needed.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Official Languages, October 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberals voted against my bill on the bilingualism of Supreme Court justices even though they supported it three times when they were in opposition.

Their excuse was that it could be unconstitutional. However, several constitutional lawyers have said the opposite. Even the Liberal member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel told the Canadian Press that this constitutional argument does not hold water.

Why did the Liberals not stand up for the official languages and, above all, for Quebeckers, Acadians, and Franco-Ontarians? Have they abandoned their principles?

[Supreme Court Act, October 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and wind up the debate on this bill to require Supreme Court justices to be bilingual.

For the past two years, I have been on a quest to persuade all of my colleagues of the merits of this bill. I have received support from all sides over the past two years. Some 200 Canadian municipalities, regional county municipalities, and regions have sent letters of support for this bill. Bar associations across Canada, including the Barreau du Québec, support this bill. It is also backed by many renowned lawyers and constitutional experts.

I want to thank all of the members who spoke to this bill today, whether for or against. I hope those who were against will change their minds by next Wednesday. However, I want to thank them for taking the time to debate this extremely important bill that will advance not just the French language, since we often focus on French alone, but the cause of bilingualism as well. Canada has two official languages of equal status. That needs to be recognized and cultivated.

I will quote Graham Fraser, the former commissioner of official languages, who stated why it was so important to have legislation requiring Supreme Court justices to be bilingual.

He said that the Supreme Court was the final court of appeal and that it was imperative that its judges understand, in both official languages and without the assistance of an interpreter, “all the information and arguments presented, including any nuances that may have an impact on the outcome.” He went on to say that simultaneous interpretation and translation had their limits.

We understand where he is coming from, successive official language commissioners have long been calling for the same thing. Even the Liberals voted three times in favour of bills introduced by Yvon Godin, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst. He has been fighting for this for 15 years and I just want to acknowledge his excellent work. Not only did he promote bilingualism, but he also promoted equity and equality before the courts, including the Supreme Court.

I also want to mention how important respecting the rights of indigenous peoples is within the framework of this bill. We do not talk about it enough, but it is absurd that the First Nations and the Métis cannot speak their own language here in the House of Commons.

I hope that the government will change its mind because it is inconceivable that this is not possible. I am calling on all members of the House to refer this bill to committee so that we can propose an amendment along the lines of the following:

Section 35 of the Constitution recognizes aboriginal rights, including rights with respect to the languages of indigenous peoples. If the bill passes, I will bring an amendment at committee stage to confirm that nothing in this law infringes aboriginal rights as recognized by Section 35 of the Constitution.

Progress on this issue is vital. Speaking of progress, I would like to talk about a law that I am very proud of, a law that the New Democrats put forward. New Democrats managed to convince all MPs to unanimously pass Bill C-419 on bilingualism for officers of Parliament. Back then, people raised the same arguments about how we would be better off with a single policy and about how the pool of candidates would not be big enough to appoint all 10 senior officers of Parliament. In the end, everyone agreed that there were 10 senior officers of Parliament and that they all absolutely had to be bilingual.

Now we are talking about the highest court in the land, and the same principle applies. There are nine justices, and they absolutely must be bilingual. That is why I am grateful to my former colleague, Alexandrine Latendresse, who introduced the bill, and to all the members who had the courage to improve bilingualism in Canada by passing the bill on bilingualism for senior officers of Parliament. Let us take another step forward. Let us vote in favour of this bill for bilingual Supreme Court justices.

[Food Labelling, October 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Quebec organization Vigilance OGM said that five million genetically modified salmon were definitely sold in Quebec. However, Provigo, IGA, and Metro have said that they would not sell genetically modified salmon because Canadians do not want to eat it.

Did Quebeckers unknowingly eat genetically modified salmon? Did this genetically modified salmon end up in institutions such as hospitals and prisons? Canadians want transparency.

Why is the Liberal government not listening to Canadians and requiring mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods?

[Carbon Pricing, October 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to talk about the environment and the fight against climate change as we debate a motion moved by a Conservative member, whom I know very well since we worked together on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development during my first term. Motion No. 131, entitled “Carbon Pricing”, states the following:

That the Standing Committee on Finance be instructed to undertake a study on: (a) how the government could examine approaches and methods to ensure maximum transparency for consumers related to the costs of carbon pricing...

In short, my colleague wants to know how the government can illustrate the cost of carbon pricing for Canadian consumers. It is somewhat ironic that the motion addresses only part of the problem facing Canadians. Allow me to explain.

Every day, Canadians are suffering the often far too harsh consequences of the dangerous climate change that we are experiencing. We saw the consequences of the heavy rainfall, droughts, and forest fires that Canadians suffered through this year. All of this comes at significant cost. It is normal for heavy rainfall, forest fires, and other natural phenomena to fluctuate, but the increased intensity and frequency of these phenomena are the direct result of dangerous climate change. In that sense, I would have liked my Conservative colleague to ask the following question: what is the cost of inaction when it comes to fighting climate change? Unfortunately, that tends to be forgotten.

The fact that the Liberal government has introduced carbon taxing is good news, but unfortunately it is not enough. The government cannot just put that on the table and think that it has done its part in the fight against climate change. A lot more needs to be done.

I want to read from a report with the Conservatives in mind since they were the ones who moved this motion. It is a report by the national round table on the environment and the economy, which was around for a while at the end of the 2000s and early 2010s, and then dissolved in 2012 because the Conservatives cut its funding. That was the only round table that conducted studies on the environment and the economy together. It was the only round table that brought together economists, environmentalists, and scientists to shed light on the measures that the government must take to fight climate change. Unfortunately, the round table was abolished.

Since then, we parliamentarians have not had this information and these resources to guide our actions. That is deplorable. The report I am going to quote from was issued by the national round table on the environment and the economy in 2012 and is still highly relevant. The round table found that the cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action:

Our analysis shows that waiting until 2020 to implement climate policy aimed at cutting emissions by 65% from 2005 levels by 2050 implies close to $87 billion in refurbishments, retrofits and premature retirement of assets.

Merely stating how much carbon pricing will cost citizens is a red herring. We need to calculate much more than the cost of carbon pricing alone. We also need to consider the full impact of climate change inaction.

The NDP intends to vote against this motion. Regrettably, we can see that this motion fails to cover all of the important aspects that need to be studied with regard to the fight against climate change.

Most provinces already have carbon pricing in some form. British Columbia has a carbon tax. Quebec has a carbon market. The NDP is very much in favour of carbon pricing. We see it as a positive first step that deserves strong support.

As I mentioned, the round table was disbanded. However, my Conservative and Liberal colleagues would do well to meet with the scientists who are doing excellent work right now and have no political affiliation. They are not with the NDP. They are scientists from across Canada. Roughly 90 scientists from every field have formed a network called Sustainable Canada Dialogues.

What do they do? They offer suggestions and make proposals for transitioning to a low-carbon economy. It is very important for parliamentarians to listen to these groups. They are scientists from across the country who have recently produced reports on a number of topics, including energy efficiency.

What is the Liberal government doing with the energy efficiency file right now? Nothing. We need a solid energy efficiency roadmap, but right now, we have nothing like that even though the government is pouring billions into infrastructure every year. We need a long-term vision for energy efficiency, and we need to adapt to climate change. We must be prepared, but, unfortunately, nothing is being done. The Liberal government should listen to these scientists.

For the past few years, the Green Budget Coalition, another very important group, has been putting out an annual green budget. A few weeks ago, the coalition published a report containing clear green budget proposals. Interestingly, in every one of its reports, the coalition has called for the elimination of the $1.3 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals should examine that expense. Why have we not yet gotten rid of that $1.3 billion fossil fuel subsidy?

We should take that money and invest it in transitioning to clean energy. That is extremely important. Leaving aside this nonsensical motion, we need to do the math properly. We need to bring science back into the conversation about fighting climate change. We need a comprehensive plan that covers not only carbon pricing, but also energy efficiency and the clean energy transition. That is so important.

[Drummondville Region, October 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, 2017 is a special year for a few of the organizations that are the pride of the people of Drummondville. In arts and culture, the Maison des arts Desjardins Drummondville is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. There is no doubt that this cultural centre has contributed to the booming performing arts and visual arts scene both locally and regionally. I would like to acknowledge the entire team at Maison des arts and its general and artistic director, Marie-Pierre Simoneau.

In the world of sports, the Requins de Drummondville swim club is also celebrating its 50th anniversary. This swim club has helped make swimming accessible within our community and has trained swimmers who have gone on to succeed on the Canadian sports scene.

I would like to acknowledge the excellent work of the volunteers on the club's board of directors, chaired by Jacques Thibault, as well as head coach Amélie Poirier. Thank you to these organizations for making Drummondville and the region shine.

[Oceans Act, October 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we must get it right.

The Liberal government is cutting corners. The new marine protected areas that it wants to create may not even be included in the targets of the international conventions we have signed. The marine protected areas do not meet the standards set out in these conventions.

Yes, we must get it right, but we must also move quickly. Right now, the government is not doing either.

[Oceans Act, October 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to answer the member by sharing a quote from Sabine Jessen, the national director of the Oceans Program for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. She said:

While CPAWS is very supportive of the government’s efforts to meet its international commitment under the Convention on Biological Diversity...by 2020, we are concerned the areas being “protected” [as they would under the government's proposal] do not meet the standard set out under the convention, and therefore will not actually count toward this target.

How can the government brag that it is creating new marine protected areas that will not even truly be considered protected under the convention, in accordance with the Aichi targets?