François Choquette

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is particularly relevant.

That is exactly what we are trying to understand about the Liberals' point of view. We cannot tell if it is a training mission or a military mission. They are going to triple the number of troops on the ground. We are very concerned because we do not know if this is supposed to be a mission to train or to assist. How is this going to play out?

We have no specifics, no benchmarks, no end date. That is what worries us about their mission. We have no guarantees that this will be a training mission, and we are concerned that it might turn into a military mission.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, some things are missing from the motion. One of those missing things is deradicalization here at home. Why did I mention this? In Drummondville, we have been fortunate to welcome around 40 Syrians.

Not only is it very important to welcome them, but we must also be there for them and ensure that they are included in every community in order to avoid potential problems of radicalization. That is what the Liberal government must do. It must have the necessary tools for combatting radicalization. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is not making the right moves in that regard.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Conservatives asked me that.

The Conservatives were in power not so long ago. They had the opportunity to sign and ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, but they did not. When we talk about tangible, short-term actions that can undermine the so-called Islamic State, that is a very simple thing the previous government could have done, but unfortunately it dropped the ball. Ratifying the Arms Trade Treaty would have been a very simple tangible action. Unfortunately, it did not happen.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

The words my colleague used in asking her question illustrate the fuzziness of the motion. Will this be a military mission or a training mission? She said herself that this is a military mission and a training mission. It is not clear.

We want to know what the Liberals want. Do they want a military ground mission? If that is what they want, that is not what they are saying. However, it feels like that is what they are saying. We are very concerned that the training mission will shift to a military mission. Today, when the hon. member asked her question, she used that word, and that is quite worrisome.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on his excellent speech and his thorough understanding of the subject. We are lucky to have members who are experts in this domain right here in the NDP. We are very happy about that.

This is a very important debate. This debate is about the government's motion to prolong Canada's military mission against the so-called Islamic State and other related issues. It is very important to discuss this today. This issue affects everyone in Canada in general and, from my perspective, the people of greater Drummond in particular.

Before we even talk about the government's proposal, I would like to talk about what is missing from the proposal. One thing that is missing is deradicalization. The motion says nothing about the importance of fighting radicalization right here in Canada and fighting to ensure that all of the communities that make up our great nation feel included.

I would like to thank the Regroupement interculturel de Drummondville for the wonderful event it held on Saturday and congratulate the organization. Drummondville has welcomed close to 40 Syrians. They have been welcomed in Drummondville, and we are very proud of that. We will ensure that these people feel welcome and that they can learn French and be integrated into our community. We will create opportunities for cultural exchange. That is what happened on Saturday. We sampled Syrian food and talked to the Syrian newcomers with the help of interpreters. We also had an opportunity to give them warm clothing. The people of Drummondville knitted hats and scarves and gave them to the new Syrian residents who arrived a month or even just days ago. We are very proud of that.

Before I get into the details of the motion currently before us, I would like to talk about what happened on November 20, 2015, at the UN Security Council. Resolution 2249 was adopted unanimously. It calls upon member states to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed in the territory that has fallen into the hands of ISIL in Syria and Iraq. The resolution does not authorize military intervention. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “Over the longer term, the biggest threat to terrorists is not the power of missiles—it is the politics of inclusion.”

That is what is so crucial. That is also why I want to recognize what has been achieved in my riding by the Regroupement interculturel de Drummondville and the Goûts du Monde co-operative. It is important to ensure social cohesion and the inclusion of all communities. It begins with small steps like the ones in Drummondville, and I hope similar things are happening all across Canada. That is also what needs to be done locally, on the ground. I think that is far more important than bombs.

In that respect, the NDP has been very clear about our positions. That is very important to us. The Liberal Prime Minister's new mission raises some questions that remain unanswered. On the contrary, the new mission is very vague. Canadian Forces personnel are being pushed even further into a combat role, even though the Liberals said early on that they wanted to pull away from a combat role and focus on training. We find this very troubling.

Furthermore, by increasing the number of soldiers on the front lines, as the Prime Minister said, the Liberals are committing Canada to a larger military role with no end date or parameters to define the success of the mission.

As I mentioned, the NDP is truly concerned by the direction being taken by the Liberals. They said they wanted to withdraw from the military role, but that does not seem to be the case. On the contrary, there will be more soldiers on the ground. Unfortunately, we need only think of what happened to Sergeant Doiron, who was killed even though he was supposedly there in a training role. We have learned that when missions are not well defined or clear and do not have specific parameters, we find ourselves in situations where we run the risk of having even more problems and where the lives of soldiers will probably be at risk. That is not what the people of the Drummond area want.

It is very important to us that the mission in Syria be clearly defined, which is not currently the case. On the contrary, the Liberals will triple the number of so-called advisers working with Iraqi security forces. Some of them will work in a battlefield context. Others will explore means of enhancing in-theatre tactical transport. Consequently, instead of reducing the number of armed forces members, they are talking about tripling the number of members deployed. That is very worrisome.

That is why the UN Security Council is urging member states to increase their efforts in the fight against ISIL, particularly by stopping the influx of terrorist fighters to the region and by cutting off the group's funding. We would have liked the government to focus on these areas and to fight radicalization here in Canada.

The matter of the Arms Trade Treaty is of great concern. As members know, it is very worrisome that the current government has not yet signed this treaty. It must be ratified. That is the first urgent order of business. It would help to stop ISIL's advance and would be more effective than deploying our soldiers on the ground in the short term.

As I mentioned, we are very concerned about this mission and we hope that, in the short term, the Liberal government will sign this non-proliferation treaty. It would be a big help.

We have had some concerns for a long time. First, this combat mission was not being run under a United Nations or NATO mandate. The NDP believes it is important to take a multilateral approach to armed conflict. That is why we are calling on the government to sit down with representatives from the United Nations and organizations like NATO, in order to find long-term, multilateral solutions, and not solutions motivated by special interests. The United States is essentially running the coalition right now. We need a neutral coalition, such as a multilateral UN mission. That is very important to us, and that is missing from the Liberals' mission and motion. This is a big concern for us.

In closing, I want to come back to the importance of working on an international scale, as we mentioned, either by signing the non-proliferation treaty or by ensuring that we are participating in a multilateral UN-sanctioned mission. Furthermore, we must continue to combat radicalization within Canada and to do more, to get involved, as we saw in Drummondville on Saturday. The Regroupement interculturel de Drummondville, or RID, and the Goûts du Monde co-operative recently took action on including and welcoming all communities.

If we want our country to be more welcoming, these communities will have to have a better relationship.

[Official Languages, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the meeting this morning was very productive. It was a good open approach. It is important to work collaboratively to advance the rights of official language minorities. I am going to continue to work on that.

However, the situation at the Translation Bureau remains extremely problematic. There are medium-term action plans, but something needs to be done in the short term. We need clear answers quickly.

Here is an email that a Translation Bureau employee sent me to make me aware of the urgent need for action. It reads:

The bureau was created to serve public servants. It is not there to compete with private translation companies. Since 1995, federal government departments have been allowed to get their texts translated by anyone. They often deal with private companies that charge lower rates.... Our translations are generally more accurate and of higher quality. Obviously, that costs more. We are the experts, but many departments do not care and are choosing the cheaper options.

Does my hon. colleague intend to act quickly in the specific matter of the Translation Bureau?

[Official Languages, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to follow up on a question that I asked on January 29, 2016. At that time, I asked the current government about bilingualism and respect for the Official Languages Act. Some problems have come up recently. One of them is related to the Translation Bureau. We have been hearing more and more concerns in this regard lately. Another problem is the fact that immigrants have to pay more for language tests in French than in English.

This raises some questions, including some about the Translation Bureau. As members know, the Conservative government has a very poor track record when it comes to supporting official languages. In the past four years, 400 translation jobs have been cut. If things go on this way, another 140 jobs are expected to be lost by 2017-18, which would represent 17% of the Translation Bureau's staff. We are heading in a very worrisome direction. In addition, the Translation Bureau is contracting out more and more work, a practice that is questionable in terms of efficiency and, ultimately, the quality of the translated texts.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government did not mention its intention to change the 2015-16 plans and priorities for the Translation Bureau. That is one of my questions for my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary. Does he intend to change the Translation Bureau's 2015-16 plans and priorities? Unfortunately, year after year, we keep seeing more and more cuts when in fact we need a strong Translation Bureau to uphold and respect the Official Languages Act.

That being said, questions were also raised recently about the new machine translation tool that will be launched on all computers on April 1, if memory serves me correctly. This has raised a lot of questions, not only within the Translation Bureau, by the union and the employees, but also by various stakeholders who work to protect the official languages. Among others, there is Linda Cardinal, a minority languages expert at the University of Ottawa's School of Political Studies. As we know, we have a very good department at the University of Ottawa that has been doing research on official languages for a very long time. This is what Ms. Cardinal had to say about the translation tool being installed on every computer:

To me, this type of translation does not translate the spirit of the Official Languages Act, which is to promote the equal status of English and French in Canada.

Later she adds:

The purpose of this technology is to replace humans. I would say it does nothing to bring the two large linguistic communities closer together.

As we can see, this is quite worrisome and the stakeholders, experts, and academics are talking about this concern. That is why I am rising again in the House to ask the parliamentary secretary what he plans to do to ensure that the official languages are respected and that French continues to be protected across Canada. That is what I would like my colleague to answer.

[Official Languages, January 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a change in government, but nothing has changed when it comes to the use of French. The Translation Bureau keeps shrinking, Citizenship and Immigration does not even bother translating online forms into French, and immigrants have to pay more for language tests in French than in English.

After years of setbacks under the Conservatives, it is not hard to do better.

Will the government get things back on track? What is its plan?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to recognize my colleague and neighbour from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. I have a great deal of respect for him. Over the years, he has come to understand the inner workings of the House of Commons.

The NDP is totally opposed to the energy east project in its current state. It makes no sense. The existing project is flawed, has no social licence and has not been subject to the kinds of environmental assessments we should expect in a country like ours. Our safety standards should be world-class.

During question period, we repeatedly asked the Liberal government why it would not start the assessment process for the energy east pipeline over again. That is what the Liberals promised during the election campaign. When will they follow through?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

As he mentioned, we cannot continue to do nothing to combat child poverty. That is why the NDP suggested closing the tax loophole for stock options in the next budget.

Therefore, I would suggest that my colleague tell his colleagues and the Prime Minister to eliminate the loophole, which only benefits CEOs of major corporations, who are already millionaires. It is an unjust and unfair tax measure.