François Choquette

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak to the motion before us today. This afternoon, we have heard a lot about combatting climate change, even though the motion is primarily about pipelines and oil. Nevertheless, it was interesting to see how the Conservatives wanted to present this motion. They want more pipelines. They want to bring back energy east in Quebec. That pipeline was shut down because it was not financially or environmentally viable and because it does not contribute to the fight against climate change. The pipeline also did not have public support, yet the Conservatives want to bring it back.

The Conservatives are kind of funny. They are like firefighters who start fires. They say that they are going to present a plan to combat climate change, yet today they mostly talked about pipelines. Strangely enough, I do not understand how more pipelines will help us combat climate change. I think they would do the opposite.

Most members of Parliament are not scientists. Some of us are, but we do not carry out studies on climate change on a daily basis. However, hundreds of scientists around the world did carry out climate change studies this year and last year. They say that climate action is necessary to avert disaster.

Just this year, the floods in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick reminded us just how important climate action is and showed us the very real impact of climate change. Drummondville, in Drummond, went through multiple freeze-thaw cycles, which was very hard on the roads. The potholes are unlike anything we have seen before. This shows just how serious climate change is.

Scientists are telling us the opposite of what the Conservatives are saying. The first thing to do is put a price on carbon, but not the way the Liberals did. They decided it should not apply to the major greenhouse gas emitters because that would have an impact on the economy. Come on. It takes pressure on the economy for it to make the transition to a green, low-carbon economy. It is important that everyone, including major emitters, pay a price on carbon. That was one Liberal mistake.

Still on the topic of carbon pricing, scientists are also saying that the oil and gas industry must be integrated into our climate policies. The Liberals did exactly the opposite by purchasing a pipeline for $4.3 billion, which runs directly counter to the fight against climate change. On top of that, they continue to subsidize pipelines to the tune of over $1 billion. Subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are worth between $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion annually. This flies in the face of any efforts to combat climate change.

Scientists tell us we need an ambitious target. Unfortunately, our target is the weak goal of reducing our emissions by 30% by 2030. What is more, we will not achieve it. The commissioner of the environment says that it will take us hundreds of years to achieve that target. None of this makes sense. The Liberals went to Paris to sign the Paris Agreement on behalf of Canadians, but the feeble 30% target they cribbed from Stephen Harper will not enable them to keep the promise they made when they signed the agreement. For that, Canada would have to reduce its GHG emissions by at least 45% by 2030.

Building more pipelines is not going to help us fight climate change. We need an ambitious plan, and the NDP will soon be unveiling just such a plan.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Windsor West for his excellent speech.

I want to come back to what was said earlier about the Liberals and the Conservatives. There has been a lot of talk about fighting climate change during this debate. I would remind members that scientists have said that we must not allow temperatures to increase by more than 1.5°C or 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, in order to limit dangerous climate change.

To do that, scientists said we should set a target of reducing emissions by 45% by 2030, not the weak 30% target set by Stephen Harper and adopted by the Liberals. If the Liberals are serious, then why are they settling for Stephen Harper's weak 30% target, which will do nothing to limit climate change?

Why do they continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $1.5 billion or $1.7 billion a year? Why did they buy a pipeline that costs $4.3 billion a year? How does this help fight climate change or lower prices at the pump? It is no help at all. On the contrary, it hinders the fight against climate change and does nothing to lower prices at the pump.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague, with whom I have the honour of working on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

The only thing that bothers me is that he did not read the environment commissioner's reports carefully enough. She said that any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions during the 10 years that the Harper Conservatives were in office was purely due to the provinces' efforts and the economic recession. It had nothing to do with anything the federal government did. On the contrary, the federal government did not do anything it should have done. Scientists from around the world said that, in order to fight climate change, we had to put a price on carbon, implement a carbon tax.

In his speech, the member also failed to talk about one very important thing. The word “pipeline” is found throughout the motion. Basically, the Conservatives want more pipelines, and they would have us believe that pipelines are part of a plan to fight climate change. They want to bring back the energy east project in Quebec.

How will the energy east pipeline help in the fight against climate change? That makes about as much sense as a pyromaniac firefighter.

[The Environment, May 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the climate emergency is upon us. Now more than ever, we need this government to show leadership. We are still waiting to see some.

The U.K. Parliament just declared a climate emergency. Meanwhile, the Government of Canada is buying an old pipeline and siding with big corporations like Loblaws.

Canadians are taking to the streets to demand that the government live up to its responsibilities.

When is the Liberal government going to listen to them and take action for the environment?

[Development of Rural Communities, May 2nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have toured the municipalities every year since 2011. It makes no sense to me that, in 2019, in a country as rich as Canada, many regions still have only limited access to high-speed Internet. It also makes no sense that there are still areas with spotty cell phone coverage.

People in my riding of Drummond have to deal with those problems. Our rural regions are being neglected, even though there are resources available. For example, the Drummond RCM worked hard for two years on a rural fibre optic network project, but unfortunately the Liberal government did not support it.

The government plans to connect all Canadians by 2030, but that is not soon enough. We need a quick solution to ensure the development of our communities by giving all Canadians Internet access and decent cell phone coverage at a reasonable price.

[The Environment, April 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I do not need a lecture from the Liberals on the environment.

They continue to subsidize oil companies, and they bought an old $4.5-billion pipeline. That is not what you call leadership. The NDP is proposing a bold, concrete plan to make homes more energy efficient. Not only will this plan reduce greenhouse gases, but it will also create good jobs and save families a lot of money.

When will the government understand that it is possible to combat climate change and work for the people at the same time?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 29th, 2019]

With regard to the official languages: (a) what official forums and conferences discussing linguistic duality or minorities were hosted by the federal government between January 2016 and February 2019; (b) what concrete actions taken by the federal government between January 2016 and February 2019 show that linguistic duality was a genuine priority; (c) what role did the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie play in the forums and conferences mentioned in (a); (d) what are the details of each of the forums and conferences in (a), including (i) their specific topics, (ii) their results; (e) have public debates, public consultations or public reports regarding linguistic duality in Canada and the situation of official-language minority communities been released or made accessible and, if so, to whom, when and where; (f) what processes will be used to make them public; and (g) who has access to the final reports of the studies conducted on the status of linguistic duality?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 29th, 2019]

With regard to biometric data collection procedures: (a) what are the exact criteria that were used to determine that Greenland and St. Pierre and Miquelon would be exempt from biometric data collection before entering Canada; (b) what are the exact criteria that would constitute an exceptional situation justifying an exemption in other cases; (c) is the procedure for collecting data at the border going to be extended to other countries or territories; (d) why (i) are only Greenland and St. Pierre and Miquelon exempt and (ii) could the French West Indies not benefit from the same exemption, given their similar administrative status as a French overseas territory near North America; and (e) does the government plan to publish the studies that led it to say that “it is not expected to result in significant declines in demand over the medium or long-term” and that the “implications for Canada’s competitiveness in attracting visitors, business people and students are expected to be overall neutral”, as described in the Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 152, Number 14: “Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations” of April 7, 2018?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague talked about the importance of working together and working with the regions.

In the Drummond region, people are asking questions about the supply management compensation program. They want details and, most of all, they want all dairy farmers to be compensated. The last time, it was a total disaster.

Something else that is very important for Drummond is the Village Québécois d'Antan, a regional tourist attraction that is very important to Drummond's socio-economic vitality. This heritage gem needs renovations and a number of buildings need to be rebuilt. The Village Québécois d'Antan requested emergency financial assistance from the government, but the government has been dragging its feet.

Will the Liberal government commit to providing the Village Québécois d'Antan with emergency financial assistance?

[Official Languages, April 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act. The Liberal government committed to modernize the act, and I congratulate it for that.

However, as the situations in Ontario, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have shown, official languages are in jeopardy. This is why we should have taken these opportunities to talk about official languages and to put them on the agenda at the federal-provincial-territorial conferences. This has not been done for decades, under both Liberal and Conservative governments. The government does not discuss official languages with the provinces, and then they wonder why there are problems.

When will the Liberal government take real action, show some leadership and put official languages on the agenda at federal-provincial-territorial meetings?