François Choquette

[May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Regina—Lewvan.

It is a privilege to rise today on what happens to be a question of privilege. I am a member of the House of Commons in Ottawa, and I represent the people who duly elected me in 2015, the people of Drummond. It is a privilege to speak on behalf of all of the nearly 100,000 people of the greater Drummond area. It is a privilege to rise here today, a privilege of particular importance because we are in fact debating a question of privilege.

A few weeks ago, an incident transpired on Parliament Hill that had to do with security on the Hill. We must ensure that the Prime Minister can move about safely and that dignitaries can do so as well, all under the watchful eye of the RCMP with the necessary security measures in place. However, problems arise when we are called upon to do our job, to do our duty as MPs and politicians. We come to the House of Commons to give speeches, attend question period, and present petitions on behalf of our constituents. For example, hundreds of petitions about mandatory GMO labelling have been presented. This is an issue of great concern to the people of Drummond, Quebec, and Canada.

My colleague from Sherbrooke is doing great work. He tabled a bill that should come to a vote in the next few weeks. I hope the members will support this bill. These days, people in Drummond, Quebec, and across Canada want to know what they are eating. They are in favour of mandatory GMO labelling.

It is important that I, as an MP, have access to the House of Commons to be able to table petitions regarding mandatory labelling for GMOs, for example, on behalf of Canadians. In order to do so, I must be able to move freely on the Hill.

Some of my colleagues had a bad experience recently. They had to go from one area to another to attend a vote, but unfortunately, they were prevented from doing so. They were not allowed to go through because of a security issue. Given that the Prime Minister's security motorcade was on the move, my colleagues had to wait. MPs must not be prevented from getting to the House of Commons, because that is their privilege.

When we speak of “privilege”, we are not talking about anyone being “privileged”. MPs are not privileged individuals. We are not talking about privilege in the sense of a Prime Minister who spends his vacation on a private island. That is not what this is about. When we speak of “privilege”, we are talking about a duty. MPs have a duty to represent their constituents. In order to do so, we must carry out various tasks, and this includes being present in the House of Commons to give speeches, to table petitions, to attend question period, to ensure that the government responds to questions from Canadians, and to vote. In fact, we will be holding some extremely important votes shortly.

I myself introduced a bill to require Supreme Court judges to be bilingual. For many Canadians, it is extremely important that they be able to speak the official language of their choice when they appear before the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court before which Canadians can defend their rights. Canada has two official languages, going back to the founding of this country.

It is extremely important for Canadians to be able to use the official language of their choice when they are before the highest court in the land. That is why I introduced a private member's bill. It is my privilege and duty as a citizen and a member of Parliament to do my work on behalf of my constituents and of all Canadians, whose interests I defend, including every official language minority community across Canada.

My bill will be put to a vote in a few weeks. I hope that members of the House will vote in favour of it. It is extremely important that all Supreme Court justices understand the arguments and are able to read all the evidence and arguments submitted to them when ruling on a case before the Supreme court so that citizens are properly represented.

Let us come back to the question of privilege, which brings me back to my journey as an MP. I was first elected on May 2, 2011. Tomorrow it will be six years since I was first elected. To me, it is extremely important to acknowledge that and to thank my constituents for the confidence they have placed in me. I will continue working hard for them to protect their rights.

I remember very well that at the very beginning, in May 2011, I was new at this or, as they say, I was green, or inexperienced. I was learning all about this job. We were given a lot of training at the beginning. Among other things, we learned about our privileges as members of Parliament and, especially, what that meant in terms of our duties. As MPs, we have responsibilities. We have a responsibility to show up and vote on behalf of our constituents. We have a responsibility to speak to all sorts of issues and stand up for our constituents.

In June 2015, there was a lockout at Canada Post. People have forgotten that it was not a strike. In fact, people believed that it was a strike rather than a lockout. The NDP did everything in its power to encourage management and the union to negotiate an agreement because there is nothing worse than an imposed solution. We worked hard. We gave speeches into the early morning hours. I remember giving my speech at three o'clock in the morning because our constituents asked us to work on getting a negotiated solution.

When we speak of privilege, we are talking about the privilege of being able to stand up for our constituents and being able to share opinions that represent their interests so that we can find the kinds of solutions that the people who put us here expect. That is why, in June 2011, I had the privilege of speaking in the House at three o'clock in the morning. It was not because I am privileged that I was awake at three in the morning fighting for my constituents. I was there because it was my duty.

When it comes to this question of privilege, it is important to understand that it is the duty of MPs to come to work, to do all that is required of them, and most importantly, to vote.

We need to resolve this issue once and for all. How is it that obstruction is occurring even today, in 2017, and that a member was prevented from coming to work and doing her duty of defending and representing her constituents? Something needs to be done about that. That is why we are asking that this matter be sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that it be given priority, so that we can resolve this problem once and for all and so that all members of the House can do their duty and properly represent their constituents. I consider it an honour to do that.

I am pleased to represent my constituents.

[Ottawa River Watershed, April 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the environment because the issue is extremely important to me.

I have already mentioned several times that I got into politics to protect the environment and to take concrete actions to improve the quality of our planet, our water and our land. I am not doing it just for myself, but mainly for my children.

I will speak to Motion No. 104 by my Liberal colleague from Ottawa South, which is on the Ottawa River watershed. The NDP has long worked on a number of fronts to promote the sustainable development of our communities. The quality of our waterways and the protection of our biodiversity are at the heart of our commitment.

I will read an excerpt of the motion so that we understand the context of our work. The motion asks:

That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be instructed to undertake a detailed study with regard to the creation of an Ottawa River Watershed Council, which would bring a comprehensive, inclusive, co-management approach to the Ottawa River Watershed…

The intention behind this motion is timely and laudable. No one can disagree with the desire to protect the Ottawa River watershed. However, there are a few little things that I will be talking about that explain why we question this motion.

I would note, first of all, that the Ottawa River is also called Kitchissippi or great river by the Algonquin. It is very important, and we must not forget that the first nations should be part of every discussion held within all our consultation processes and environmental assessments. On that point, I would like to note that the Canada Water Act does not say anything about an obligation to consult the first nations. That might be a first point to improve.

Second, it must be noted that the Ottawa River has been designated as a Canadian heritage river. That is a good thing, because during their reign, the Conservatives eliminated protection for almost 90% of the rivers that were previously protected. Unfortunately, that has had many negative consequences. Fortunately, the Ottawa River has stayed protected, thanks to the fact that it was designated as a Canadian heritage river.

On that point, the NDP was at the forefront of the fight to protect watercourses. In fact, when the Conservatives included that bill in their mammoth bill in 2012-13, when they removed practically every watercourse that enjoyed protection under the Navigable Waters Protection Act from the list, we introduced dozens of bills, for example in 2013, to have 27 rivers across Canada protected under the Canadian heritage river designation.

In fact, I introduced a bill myself to have important rivers designated as heritage rivers. Unfortunately, that has still not been done. That would be a concrete action the Liberal government could take to restore protection to a number of important watercourses in Canada. They could designate them as Canadian heritage rivers. That would protect them under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I am going to talk about something else that is very important and that I am very proud of. I was there when the former member for Halifax, Megan Leslie, who did a very good job and worked very hard on environmental issues, introduced a motion to ban microbeads from our products and from our environment. Fortunately, all representatives in the House of Commons voted in favour of that motion.

A process is currently in place to gradually ban all microbeads from our environment. Once again, I would like to congratulate Megan Leslie and commend the NDP for its work on this file, which enabled us to undertake the gradual and ongoing process of getting rid of microbeads that cause so much harm everywhere, including in the Ottawa River watershed, which is suffering as a result. Thanks to the NDP's work, we have been making progress, and we will be able to improve water quality in this watershed and others. This is extremely important. In my riding, the RCM of Drummond supports calls to ban plastic microbeads from our environment.

Paul Dewar is another NDP colleague who worked very hard to protect the Ottawa River watershed. He was inspired by citizen groups such as Ottawa Riverkeeper and Waterlution, another group that is very involved in the watershed file. Mr. Dewar repeatedly called for federal government measures to protect the Ottawa River. He lobbied for an action plan and a motion to adopt rules to protect and preserve the river's integrity.

Here are some examples of concrete action that the NDP has taken in recent years to improve the situation.

I spoke about the Drummond RCM, which recently did an excellent job protecting watersheds. Very recently, the City of Drummondville, together with partners, created a 2017-21 action plan to protect the Saint-Germain River and its watershed. I would like to acknowledge the regional work done in the greater Drummond area to implement this action plan to protect the Saint-Germain River. It is very important for our region.

The Conseil de gouvernance de l’eau des bassins versants de la rivière Saint-François, commonly known as COGESAF, is at the forefront of this initiative, which led to the development of the Saint-Germain River watershed charter, the first within the Saint-François River watershed. It is an extremely important initiative that needs to be recognized.

In the face of climate change, here are the objectives to be achieved through this initiative: monitoring water quality, protecting shorelines, conserving fish habitat, and improving communication with local stakeholders.

I want to thank all the local stakeholders in the greater Drummond area who helped develop the 2017-21 action plan to protect the Saint-Germain River watershed and who will help implement it in the years to come. It is extremely important.

My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, our party's environment critic, gave a speech on this subject as part of our study of Motion No. 104. She brought forward an amendment in order to move this important motion forward. Unfortunately, her amendment was not adopted. The amendment called for the Mackenzie River Basin and the North Saskatchewan River to also be included in the study, instead of focusing only on the Ottawa River watershed. It was a matter of expanding the scope of the study being done by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It is an independent committee and it should have a better overall idea of all the major steps the federal government can take, not only to improve water quality, but also to achieve other things like banning microbeads.

[Official Languages, March 24th, 2017]

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker? To distract from the ethics scandal over his trip to the Aga Khan's private island, the Prime Minister decides to go on a cross-country tour to beef up his image.

However, he went to Ontario and forgot about Franco-Ontarians. He then went to Quebec and forgot that there were anglophones in the Eastern Townships. These oversights are an affront to official language minority communities. That is why he was reprimanded by the Commissioner of Official Languages yesterday.

Does the government acknowledge that the Prime Minister violated the Official Languages act, yes or no?

[Drummond Association for the Disabled, March 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise in the House today to acknowledge the 30th anniversary of the Association des personnes handicapées de Drummond, or APHD.

This organization plays a crucial role in the life of people with disabilities by helping with their social integration in many ways. Its efforts to obtain support from local stakeholders are guided by the desire to protect the rights of people with disabilities and to help them meet their needs and fulfill their aspirations.

We can be proud of the members of APHD, including executive director Daniel Mailhot, who work so hard to create an inclusive and supportive society that fosters equal opportunity for all.

In order to help APHD members in particular, once again this year I am organizing an information session on the disability tax credit to be held on April 25, at 7 p.m., at the Centre communautaire Saint-Pierre in Drummondville.

[Official Languages, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, La Presse reported that, since 2010, the percentage of bilingual employees at security checkpoints in almost all major airports in the country has dropped dramatically.

This information is consistent with a report submitted just today by the Commissioner of Official Languages that reveals the provision of bilingual services in our airports leaves much to be desired.

What does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to do to promote bilingualism and to ensure that our official languages truly enjoy equal status in airports across the country?

[Food and Drugs Act, March 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke for all the work he has done on this file.

He recently came to Drummond to tell people about his bill and why it is important. I do not understand why the Liberals are questioning why we should label genetically modified food.

When we eat a food product, we know its salt and sugar content and we know what vitamins it contains. We have the right to know that information. The people of Drummond and of Canada have the right to know what they are eating. That is all we are asking. We want to know whether the food is or is not genetically modified. Then it will be up to the consumer to decide if they are going to buy the product.

What does my colleague make of the Liberals' argument, which I find quite puzzling?

[Supreme Court Act, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. In the heat of the moment I completely forgot this very important rule.

I would like to come back to the important points. At present, this policy is not enshrined in legislation. A policy can be followed one day and not the next because there are no consequences. However, a bill provides for regulations, its implementation, and important standards to be followed.

Everyone is asking for a bill because they are saying that a policy is not enough. We need to go further and enshrine it in law.

[Supreme Court Act, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals might think that they will be in power forever, but that is not true.

They can say that judges will be bilingual as long as they are in power, but one day, you will be defeated and we may perhaps have a government that—

[Supreme Court Act, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that great question and for the excellent work he has been doing for several years now with the NDP. I am very pleased to work with him and to see him meeting all these challenges.

Indeed, it is ridiculous that the Liberals are even considering voting against this bill. They already have a policy that requires people appointed to the Supreme Court to understand both official languages without an interpreter. We are simply asking that that policy by enshrined in law. This is no different than what has already been done.

Also, this is not unconstitutional, as shown by legal expert Sébastien Grammond in his most recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He said that the only thing that was determined in the Nadon reference was the condition whereby there must be judges from Quebec. That was all. Everything else is the purview of Parliament. It is not a constitutional matter. Sébastien Grammond even said that a condition was added to require 10 years of experience as a member of the bar. No one said it was unconstitutional.

Therefore, adding to the act a condition requiring the person to understand both official languages would be well received, and a credit to Parliament.

[Supreme Court Act, March 8th, 2017]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us applaud him. The work that Yvon Godin did for this bill is incredible. For over 15 years, he fought and travelled across Canada to explain it, defend it, and to ask people to support it.

I hope the House will support this extremely important bill, which the Liberals have already supported on two separate occasions. Some hope remains. Unfortunately, there seems to be a little sand in the gears at the moment. I do not really understand why. I will explain this to the House a little later.

What I wanted to say is that Yvon Godin was a proud standard-bearer for the NDP. He was always proud to stand up for official languages and for the Acadian people. We owe him a great deal. With regard to the bill before us today, I owe him everything for all the hard work he did.

I would like to take a moment to quote a great passage from one of Mr. Godin's most impassioned speeches on this important matter. He said the following regarding everything that had been said previously:

That's troubling. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort in Canada. It is the last stage of the justice process for Canadians. For those who are judged, it's their future that can be ruined. That's why we [need] a justice system [that respects both official languages].

While Yvon Godin is synonymous with this fight, a number of other stakeholders have defended bilingualism in the Supreme Court. I am thinking of people like Justice Michel Bastarache, who is also a fierce defender of linguistic rights in Canada, and Michel Doucet, a legal expert and director of the International Observatory on Language Rights. The former commissioner of official languages, Graham Fraser, who also did a huge amount of work on this and whose first term was renewed, spent about 10 years defending official languages. He should be commended for his work. I am also thinking of other official language commissioners across Canada. There are also a number of francophone associations that represent communities.

I must salute, encourage, and say thanks for its support to the Quebec Community Groups Network. When I remember that, I think again about Yvon Godin, who worked here and who expressed himself so well. He turned red because he was passionate. He shouted and expressed himself.

He was very dedicated to the cause and I must thank him for his support, as I thank everyone who supports this bill. That shows why it is so important. Yvon Godin calls me from time to time, gets me going, and gives me an earful. In fact, he is still very passionate because he knows what he wants to achieve. He knows what it is like to defend the official languages. We need to agree, but we also have to fight to defend the official languages across the country. We do not have a choice.

Why did we introduce this bill concerning the equality of access to justice? Why introduce a bill that requires Supreme Court justices to understand both official languages? It is to ensure equal access to justice in both official languages. The bill promotes this equality. It is important to understand that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, as Yvon Godin said. It is the court of last resort for all Canadian jurisdictions. The judges hear cases that can be very important and very complex. As I mentioned, the court's decision can have serious consequences for the parties involved. Yvon Godin said that it could even ruin the life of the person appearing before the Supreme Court. That is why the decisions can have very serious consequences.

Unilingual judges depend on a third party to understand the oral arguments and written submissions, which has negative consequences. Simultaneous interpretation and translation have limitations. We understand that when people provide simultaneous interpretation, they are not translating word for word. That would be impossible. They are interpreting what is said. They do excellent work. I commend all the interpreters and translators who work here in the House of Commons. It is a big and very complex job that requires a lot of skill. However, the interpreters cannot render all the nuances and subtleties of the arguments, and that is to be expected.

The ability of judges to understand both official languages thus promotes the equality of francophones and anglophones and is essential to ensuring that Canadians have access to justice in both official languages.

A document written by Sébastien Grammond and Mark Power provides a good explanation of why bilingualism and an understanding of both official languages is an essential requirement. The ability of Supreme Court judges to understand both official languages is not an asset; it is an essential qualification.

In fact, the oral arguments, being able to understand what is being said, that is not the only problem: there is also all the supporting documentation that is submitted in one language or the other. These documents are not translated. At the Supreme Court of Canada, how can a judge make such important and crucial decisions if he or she does not have access to all the documents pertaining to the case?

Furthermore, certain decisions were made in certain provinces where the cases are heard in French. Some judges therefore do not read these documents that refer to previous cases that sometimes have become jurisprudence, in one language or the other. One cannot do without understanding both official languages, such expertise is essential.

We must also keep in mind that in Canada both official languages are equal. There is not just one that is English and the other that is translated French. Both languages are equal. This is important to remember. The Canadian Constitution, the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensure this equality between the two languages. It is important to remember that.

As I mentioned, this bill has already been tabled several times. In the past, we had the support of the Liberals. We hope to have their support once again. I hope we have it again this time. This bill is the result of all the work that the NDP has already done on respect for the official languages.

We are also very proud of our former colleague Alexandrine Latendresse, who represented the old riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent in Quebec City. She has done excellent work on the bill on the bilingualism of officers of Parliament. The NDP worked very hard on this issue, given that there were unilingual appointments to key parliamentary positions, such as the auditor general, the chief electoral officer, and the privacy commissioner. There are 10 key positions of this type. We have worked very hard to protect the official languages and to make sure that the people appointed to these 10 positions can speak both official languages and have the required language skills. We need to avoid repeating the past mistake of appointing unilingual judges.

The current Chair once told a judge that he was presenting his arguments too quickly and that the unilingual judge could not understand him. This is what we are talking about when referring to the equality of both languages. No one would ask an English-speaking judge to speak more slowly. Why then would we ask that of a French-speaking judge? Judges have a limited amount of speaking time to make their case. A judge cannot be put at a disadvantage relative to another. Both languages need to be equal in this regard.

As I said, many stakeholders support this bill. Earlier, I mentioned a number of official languages commissioners, including Graham Fraser; the Barreau du Québec; the FCFA; the president of the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française du common law; Serge Rousselle, former law professor at the Université de Moncton; Michel Doucet, law professor at the Université de Moncton; Sébastien Grammond, dean of the civil law section at the University of Ottawa; Claude Provencher; and Jean-Marc Fournier, Quebec's minister for Canadian relations. I could go on. This bill has the unanimous support of official language communities.

The Liberal government recently tried to throw a wrench into the works by saying that there is already a policy, that only bilingual justices will be appointed under the current government and so there is no need for a bill, and that the Nadon reference could mean that no new judicial appointment criteria can be introduced without opening up the Constitution.

I will address all of those points. First, the Liberal government will not be around forever. We hope its time will pass. We hope it will be replaced by a government that represents not only the interests of the very wealthy, but also those of all Canadians. That government, one that may be in power soon, is an NDP government.

Second, the Nadon reference focused exclusively on the requirement for a Quebec judge. There have in fact been changes to requirements for Supreme Court appointments. For example, there never used to be a requirement for 10 years of experience as a member of a bar, but it was added, and nobody said it was unconstitutional. That means it would not be unconstitutional to add a requirement to understand both official languages without an interpreter. That is what one expert, Sébastien Grammond, told us on Tuesday. People need to understand that.

In closing, I realize that legislative and judicial bilingualism are still a challenge in Canada. However, significant strides have been made, while more remains to be done. We need strong legislation in order to ensure that only judges who understand both official languages are appointed to the Supreme Court. That is why I am asking everyone to support my bill.