François Choquette

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech on such an important issue. I also want to thank my NDP colleague from Halifax for bringing this debate to the House of Commons today. She does excellent work. The proof is that this week she already moved a motion calling for an emergency debate on the Arctic ice, which is melting quite quickly, more quickly than ever. Unfortunately, the emergency debate was denied.

Today, at least, we are having a debate on the environment. I know that sustainable development and the environment are very important issues in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not see it this way, but to the NDP, these are key aspects to economic development.

We are talking here about plastic microbeads that end up in places like the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence River near my riding, Drummond. We have a lot of questions about the risks this poses to our biodiversity and even to our own health.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and we recently conducted a study on the Great Lakes. We wanted to broaden that study to talk about climate change, water temperature, which also has an impact on our biodiversity and the ecosystem, as well as plastic microbeads. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so. I am pleased that we are talking about this today because I think it is an extremely important issue.

Does my colleague agree with the NDP and also think that this is an extremely important issue and that we must act quickly, unlike the Conservatives, who are dragging their heels on this? We must act now. It is rather deplorable that the Conservatives did not act sooner. At least the NDP has a constructive approach, and that is why we moved this motion in order to do something constructive to deal with this issue.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I have the honour to sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which he chairs. Although we may not agree on everything, we still manage to get along a little.

We did do a study on the Great Lakes, but the study was unfortunately limited to certain aspects. For example, we were not able to talk about climate change or water levels and temperatures, which also have a huge impact on the Great Lakes.

We also started talking about the effect of microbeads as part of the study on the Great Lakes, and I am pleased that we are discussing this topic today, since it is serious and important.

The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, which represents some 30 cities, sent a letter to the Minister of the Environment, whom I will not name as I mistakenly did earlier. On January 3, the minister replied and said that the government would consider “proposing the issue of microplastics as a possible priority issue to be addressed”.

That makes no sense. If the government takes this seriously, it needs to take action immediately. It should not wait for the opposition to do it.

We are proactive and constructive on this side, and we proposed this initiative. Now, it is up to the Conservatives to take action and support our motion.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right and I sincerely apologize.

In a letter dated January 3, the Minister of the Environment said that she would consider, and I quote, “proposing the issue of microplastics as a possible priority issue to be addressed”.

That could not be less clear. Does my colleague agree that urgent action is needed? The NDP has shown initiative. Once again, we are being proactive and constructive. We want to build a better Canada. That is what we are going to do in the coming months and after the election.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the urgent need for action and the way the Conservatives are dragging their feet on this issue.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. It is urgent that we take action.

Nevertheless, that is not at all what we are seeing from the Conservatives. On January 3, Minister Aglukkaq answered a letter from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative—

[Pipeline Safety Act, March 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this bill is a step in the right direction. The government is finally waking up. It is implementing the polluter pays principle. That is very good. We have been wanting to apply this principle, which we believe is the very foundation of sustainable development, for a long time.

However, there are some improvements to be made, and one of the biggest problems is what has been left out of this bill. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development since my election, and year after year since 2011, I have seen environmental protections being weakened instead of improved. As such, it is hard to have a pipeline that will be socially acceptable, given that these projects are moving forward without a rigorous environmental assessment process. People have doubts about the safety of these pipelines.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the importance of what is missing from this bill, in other words, rigorous environmental protections and assessments in order to make pipelines in Canada socially acceptable.

[Pipeline Safety Act, March 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for his excellent work and his excellent speech.

This bill is certainly a step in the right direction, but its shortcomings are leading it the wrong way. That needs to be said. Since 2011 the Conservatives have been attacking environmental legislation. They have weakened environmental protections and limited public consultation. That especially worries people in Quebec because the energy east project is going to be approved.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of this bill's shortcomings.

[Regional Economic Development, March 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that 99% of the money that goes unspent is returned to the consolidated revenue fund. The minister needs to stop his tall tales.

Instead of diverting $131 million earmarked for the economic development of Quebec, the minister should start listening to the regions. Then we could create some jobs in the regions.

For example, we could improve the facilities at the Drummondville airport, which is in serious need of some federal funding.

Does the minister realize that his incompetence is compromising the economic development of Quebec's regions?

[Pipeline Safety Act, March 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laval—Les Îles for his excellent speech and for saying that there are, in fact, some good points in this bill. We will support it and try to improve it with appropriate amendments.

Still—and this is important—he did refer to what this bill does not contain. This bill does not mention the environmental laws that have been attacked, diminished and weakened during the years of Conservative rule.

That does not help to build pipelines; quite the opposite. We have a serious problem if the necessary consultations are not carried out. For example, in the case of the energy east pipeline, there is a slapdash rush to finish the consultations in a way that makes no sense, without doing the environmental assessments needed to ensure that the project is solid, environmentally responsible and safe for the public. No one has asked for public approval or social licence.

I would like the hon. member to tell us what is missing in this bill with respect to environmental assessments and social licence.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I agree with my colleague. This bill is long overdue, when it should have been a priority.

As we have been saying from the beginning of the debate and as I just said in my speech, since 2011, instead of introducing such a bill on the polluter pays principle, the government has been undermining environmental assessments and environmental protections.

Earlier I talked about how the government amended the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As my colleague mentioned, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where we have seen some terrible amendments made to that act.

There is also the issue of social licence. The public and organizations need to be consulted so they can share their opinions, tell us about their science and have their say. Those kinds of consultations have been very limited. Like my colleague, I am very concerned about what the Conservative government plans to do with this bill.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for his comments.

Indeed, this bill is a step in the right direction and we will support it. We will propose some minor amendments in committee, but those are details.

Would my colleague agree that it is important to prevent spills, like in Kalamazoo, for instance? That is the weakness of the Conservative government. They amended the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to limit not only public participation, but also environmental assessments.

I want my colleague to be honest, because the Conservatives have done nothing to improve environmental legislation. However, that is the NDP's plan. We want to harmonize the economy and the environment, the principles of sustainable development. That is what we believe in and what we will do in 2015.