François Choquette

[Paris Agreement, June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. The Liberal government has been dragging its feet for two years and will continue to do so in the coming years. In the 2016 budget, $1 billion was supposed to be allocated to the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change to support measures like the ones my colleague mentioned and to help northern communities that unfortunately have to use diesel fuel as a source of electricity and heating.

The government could invest in this fair energy transition. It is extremely important, and the NDP has a plan to move forward with the transition toward renewable, low-carbon energy that would also be fair for Canadians.

The government needs to think about that transition and support those who would be negatively affected by it. They need to be supported.

[Paris Agreement, June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House of what my hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona said earlier. The Liberals are not currently running a deficit because of all the investments that they have made in combatting climate change. They are running a deficit because of their own mismanagement. They have invested practically nothing in the fight against climate change. However, if my hon. colleague wants some advice on how to balance the budget and address climate change, I suggest that he read the recommendations made by the Green Budget Coalition. Scientists and environmentalists from across the country made recommendations for a balanced budget that fights against climate change.

The first thing we need to do is to eliminate the some $1.5 billion in subsidies given to fossil fuels and invest that money in an energy efficiency program, as I have been proposing since 2012.

[Paris Agreement, June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate on reiterating our support for the Paris Accord. I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who gave an excellent speech and is very familiar with the issue.

Of course, we reiterate our support for the Paris Agreement. It is strange that the Liberal government has decided to use today's motion to do something that has already been done, rather than take further action and adopt a plan or stronger legislation to fight against climate change.

The NDP has been at the forefront of this issue for a long time, and it has called for strong and robust legislation that responds to needs related to climate change. Jack Layton, who was once my boss, worked very hard on this issue. He tabled a bill on the government's responsibility regarding climate change, because signing an agreement is not enough. We also have responsibilities. Year after year, the government has to be accountable and must take concrete action, but the Liberal government does none of that, although it is very important.

In 2010, when the Liberals were in opposition along with the NDP, this bill received a majority vote from the opposition parties, because the Conservative government was the minority at the time. We had led this very strong bill, which constituted a much more ambitious framework than that of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, which was unambitious but was still adopted by the Liberals. Unfortunately, the senators, who are unelected, killed Jack Layton's bill, which was intended to strengthen the fight against climate change. It is very disappointing.

Today, we are talking about Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord, but I remember that when I arrived in the House, in 2011, the government withdrew from the Kyoto protocol. We must not forget that. It was absolutely deplorable. Some people say we should follow the Conservatives’ lead, but I have my doubts.

Let us say what needs to be said about the Liberals. They went to Paris and signed an important accord to limit temperature increases to 1.5°C, which is very important. Then they came back to Canada and said that in order to achieve that, they were going to keep the Conservatives’ pitiful plan. It does not work. Obviously, there were people who said that we could not go on like that. We need to take real action in order to move forward on this.

For the moment, to move forward, the Liberals have put a price on carbon. I would like to say that this is a very good initiative. Everyone that is serious about fighting climate change, including every scientist and environmentalist, says this has to be the first thing we do. On that subject, the Conservative Party alone in the House does not seem to understand this, except for a certain Conservative member who was a candidate in his party’s leadership race. This is extremely important. I hope that everyone will realize that this is a good measure and we have to move forward.

However, while a price on carbon is a step in the right direction, it is not sufficient. We have to have a comprehensive plan, and in that regard, the Liberals have only failures to show. They were supposed to invest $1 billion a year, starting in 2016, to implement the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, but ultimately, they did nothing.

We were waiting for action in the 2017 budget, but what was announced in 2017? Nothing. What is going on, we wonder? There is also nothing in 2018. They will start investing when the next election comes around.

This is unfortunately very disappointing. We have to act; everyone says that today. I recall very clearly the report of the round table on the environment and the economy. The only federal institution that combined economy and environment said that when it came to climate change, not acting would result in losses of $5 billion per year by 2020, and eventually $43 billion by 2050. Investing $1 billion per year is not that much when we consider that it may be costing as much as $5 billion per year at present. Unfortunately, the Liberals have put nothing in place to combat that. Once again, the round table on the environment and the economy, the only non-partisan institution that put the economy and the environment together, was abolished by the Conservatives, and that is a sad track record, if I can come back to that.

What needs to be done now? What should the Liberals do? They should read the recommendations from the Green Budget Coalition, a coalition of scientists and environmentalists who researched and developed a balanced budget that sets out commitments the government should make and how those actions will save money.

For example, as members pointed out, we have to invest in all kinds of measures. Fine, but which ones? The parliamentary budget officer mentioned this, and the Green Budget Coalition recommended that the Government of Canada bring in a law with a timeline established in budget 2017 to eliminate all preferential tax treatment for the fossil fuel industry. The Minister of Finance, who spoke earlier, did not follow those recommendations. Bottom line, no more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, which currently gets about $1.5 billion per year.

Certain governments received fossil awards at international climate change conferences. The message is that they should turn away from fossil fuels and toward fair energy policy and decarbonization.

There is another important recommendation, an essential recommendation. In 2012, I moved a motion on the federal government's plan on energy efficiency, which my colleague talked about earlier. The current Liberal government has not presented any plan to improve energy efficiency. This is very disappointing.

Here is what our plan states, and I quote:

To support energy efficiency, the Green Budget Coalition recommends that the Government of Canada provide $400 million per year for the next five years to re-establish an energy efficiency home retrofit program, similar to the ecoENERGY Retrofit program...

I had proposed a program similar to the eco-energy program. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did not support it, and the Liberals did not bring it back, as they should have.

This brings me to move the following motion, seconded by the member for Edmonton Strathcona:

That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word “realistic and achievable approach”, and substituting the following: “and by finding the right balance between environmental protection and economic growth, and that the House ask the government to commit to new science-based targets that will achieve Canada's commitment under the Accord, and to specific measures and funding to achieve these reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

[Official Languages, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' official languages record has been less than stellar lately. Take, for example, the partisan appointment of the official languages commissioner and the five French errors in the Prime Minister's 560-word biography.

Today, we learned from an internal government report that the use of French is dwindling in the public service. Fewer senior managers are fluent in French, translation quality is down, English is taking over, and so on.

When will the government implement practical measures to protect Canada's official languages?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to read a very important quotation from the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, which presented some recommendations to the federal government.

The first reads as follows:

Invest immediately [not next year or in two years] and work with the provinces and territories to develop a national, comprehensive public education strategy to send a clear message to Canadians that cannabis causes impairment and that the best way to avoid driving impaired is to not consume.

Here is what needs to be done. Investing less than $2 million a year is not enough, and that money is not going to the provinces, as I said. Likewise, no money is going to the municipalities, which urgently need it to strengthen our law enforcement bodies and give them the training required as well as to begin an awareness campaign. At present, there are still people who think that driving while impaired by cannabis actually makes them better drivers. This myth needs to be dispelled immediately so that people understand that they must not drive after consuming cannabis.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, figuring out where that point is is very important. It is not in the legislation.

No matter what the legislation says about legal limits for marijuana, the problem remains. Where is the money to support police officers and law enforcement agencies that have to confront this new reality? Where is the money to help the provinces and municipalities educate people? That has already started. Quebec has already funded an awareness campaign. Where is that money? The government is putting up less than $2 million per year, which is not enough.

What we need in the legislation is a firm commitment on the part of the Liberal government to transfer a portion of the marijuana sales tax to the provinces and the municipalities. They are the ones who will be burdened with doing the education and awareness and setting up social programs for the people who will be using marijuana and sometimes, unfortunately, abusing it.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to speak to Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other acts. In simpler terms, this bill seeks to address drug-impaired driving, more specifically regarding marijuana use.

This bill goes hand in hand with Bill C-45, which provides a framework for the legalization of marijuana. The NDP has always stood for sensible measures to prevent impaired driving. This bill is a step in the right direction. We have to focus on powerful deterrents that can actually help prevent tragedies. Therein lies the weakness of this bill.

Before this legislation comes into effect, we need a robust public awareness campaign, and that has not been done. I will discuss that over the next few minutes. Also, Bill C-46 does not clearly define the levels of marijuana in saliva that would qualify as impairment. That is another problem.

We need a strategy that is based on science in order to stop impaired drivers. The bill sets out no reliable strategy or benchmarks that would make it possible to set clear limits around THC levels.

Impaired driving is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. This is a very serious problem that affects every part of the country, and we must address it. We must do everything we can to raise awareness around driving while impaired, either by drugs or alcohol, and to put prevention programs in place. We must give those that make arrests, like the police, all the tools they need.

Canada has one of the worst impaired driving records in the OECD. We have a lot of work to do. Cannabis legalization will have a number of repercussions. We will need to be ready, and we will need to take the necessary steps to mitigate these repercussions. We have to develop an effective public awareness campaign, and the Liberal government has to properly fund it. There is no such campaign at present—the work has not even begun yet. The proposed funds are not only lacking, they have not been invested yet. Despite all of that, the marijuana legalization legislation will be coming into force in about a year's time.

The Canadian Automobile Association, or CAA, a well-established association of which I am a member, recently ran a headline on that very question that read, “Federal marijuana announcement step in right direction but leaves unanswered questions”.

As we know, the CAA is a group that advocates for drivers and other road users. Without wanting to promote the CAA, I still want to say that they are now looking after cyclists, too. I will now read a quote from the article in question that is well worth hearing:

While the government committed today to making more money available to train police in drug recognition and to acquire testing devices, it didn’t say how much or when it will be available.

I will read more later, but the gist of it is that police, law enforcement in general, needs proper training. They need every tool available to address the reality of people driving under the influence of marijuana. The government has made no information available to us. We have neither the tools, nor the funds to deal with this issue. This is a big problem. It is one of the bill's weakest points.

The article continues as follows:

The government also reiterated a budget 2017 commitment to spend less than $2 million a year over five years on public education—a sum that is clearly inadequate, given the misconceptions about marijuana’s effect on driving.

Less than $2 million a year is not enough. What is worse is that the plan offers nothing tangible, specific, and of enough substance to tackle the many misconceptions that currently exist about marijuana use and its effect on drivers.

Some people still believe that smoking marijuana has no effect on their ability to drive. Some even believe smoking marijuana makes them better drivers. We must bridge that information gap with a massive information awareness campaign that will go on not just for one year, or two or even three, but rather in perpetuity. We must ensure information is always available when we are dealing with dangerous substances. For example, in the case of alcohol, education campaigns designed to prevent the consequences of impaired driving are still ongoing and will keep going for another 10 or 20 years. We can never stop educating people. As the CAA points out, less than $2 million is but a drop in the bucket, given current needs.

In response to the Liberals' marijuana legalization bill, the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, or SAAQ, has already kicked off its campaign to raise awareness about the effects of cannabis on driving. The bill has also put pressure on the provinces, which are increasingly called upon to invest in awareness and prevention so that people, especially kids, who are our future, have all the information they need.

The SAAQ's campaign costs money. The Liberal government has yet to give our municipal and provincial governments a single red cent. The bill should specify the percentage of taxes going to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments. That would guarantee that the provinces and municipalities will not get shortchanged in the long run.

This is critical, as those who really need the tools and the funds to properly educate our youth and raise their awareness are the schools, our social organizations, everyone involved in health care, everyone working with young people, youth centres, and stakeholders at every level of government.

Being legal does not make a substance safe. Marijuana use creates all sorts of health and social problems. People need to know about this. They need to take every precaution if they decide to consume marijuana. Personally, I would prefer it if marijuana, cigarettes, and alcohol were no longer consumed, but as we all know, the world does not work that way.

We need to make all the information available so that people can take the necessary precautions if they decide to consume cannabis, and so that no one ever drives under the influence, which would certainly be dangerous. This information should reach the public, and especially young people, to ensure we make everyone safer.

[Public Services and Procurement, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that a good step in the right direction has been taken. However, there are still some grey areas that I would like to have clarified. For example, will the $7.5 million be used to hire translators and interpreters on a permanent basis rather than just on contract? That is what we want to know. Right now, we do not know whether the 25 new jobs per year will be permanent or contract positions. That is a problem.

What is more, we need to ensure that we have a system in which the quality will be certified or, in other words, we need a system that establishes one all-inclusive rate for each of the streams, regardless of the mode of interpretation. If that is not the case, interpreters who are more versatile, specialized, and experienced will lose out. It is extremely important that we not go with the lowest bidder or we will end up in the same mess we were in before. We need to know exactly what investments will be made regarding employees. Will there be 25 new contract or permanent employees? That is what I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell me.

[Public Services and Procurement, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to follow up on a question I asked about problems at the Translation Bureau.

In early 2016, the Translation Bureau made headlines because it was in a shambles and its interpreters and translators were under intense pressure. The Standing Committee on Official Languages did a study to get to the bottom of things. A report about the Translation Bureau was tabled, and then came a second report, and that is what prompted me to ask the question.

We put so much pressure on the government that we got a response from the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to our first report on the Translation Bureau, but all of the members, not just me, disagreed with the government's response. Even the committee's Liberal members disagreed.

After even more pressure was brought to bear on the government, we received a second response that offered us a little more substance and information. That is why I asked the following question. The Translation Bureau does extremely valuable work to promote our two official languages, but over 400 positions have been eliminated over the past four years and there are plans to cut 140 more this year and next year. Morale is therefore very low at the Translation Bureau. Things have started to get a little better, but there are still problems.

On February 9, 2017, I asked the Minister of Public Services and Procurement whether she thought that the 19 employees who had been hired would be able to replace the 540 employees who would be leaving.

We are told that everything is fine and there is going to be investment in the Translation Bureau again, but there will be only 19 employees to do the work of the 540 employees who have left through attrition. This makes no sense. That is not going to move things forward. This is why I asked this question in February. In fact, of course, the answer was vague.

The Translation Bureau was an institution of renown on the international stage. People from all over the world were inspired by it and came here to train. Unfortunately, for several years now, the Translation Bureau has lost that reputation, first under Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, and now under Liberal rule.

The second response from the Minister of Public Services and Procurement is much more encouraging. There seems to be a desire to get back to quality, instead of constantly lowering the quality of services and looking for the lowest bidder. However, the Canadian public still needs a lot more answers.

First, we want to know whether the government is going to reinvest in the Translation Bureau, which needs not just 17 new employees, but maybe a hundred or so.

Second, will the focus be on quality and not on seeking the lowest bidder? This is extremely important. It is one of the two questions I would like my hon. colleague to answer.

[Public Services and Procurement, May 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, this week I found out that employees at Drummond Institution received a letter asking them to pay back the emergency pay advances they received during the Phoenix pay system crisis.

The employees do not take issue with having to pay back the advances, but the disappointing and shocking thing is the very tight deadline for repayment, not to mention the fact that most of them are still owed money because of the Phoenix fiasco.

Can the government take responsibility and show some empathy to its employees, who are victims in this scandal?