François Choquette

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley on his excellent speech. He clearly set out the premise of this debate. He clearly explained why we have difficulty trusting the Conservative government and believing in what it does.

However, Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, is obviously a step in the right direction. The NDP has been asking the Conservatives to abide by the polluter pays principle for a long time. We believe that it is a basic principle of sustainable development. Of course, we will support this bill, but we will be proposing some amendments in committee.

In short, the change that the bill makes is to seek absolute liability for all pipeline projects regulated by the National Energy Board when the company is at fault. We support this excellent measure.

However, the maximum liability is $1 billion, which is much better than the few tens of thousands of dollars that it was before. However, $1 billion is still not very much when it comes to a big oil spill and all of the consequences that has. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction. We are talking about liability of $1 billion without proof of fault or negligence. In such a case, the problem is that Canadians are the ones who will have to pay. People in Drummond and everywhere else in Canada who pay their taxes will have to pay for the problems caused by companies and the bad job that the Conservatives did. Why am I talking about how the Conservatives did a bad job? My other colleagues mentioned it. It is not enough to make a company pay when there are spills and leaks. We also have to prevent spills from happening. The Conservative government is very weak in that regard. That is a serious problem, which they made worse in 2012, when they amended the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

We are all well aware of this change to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Participation in consultations has been severely restricted. Now people can participate in consultations only if they are directly affected by a pipeline project. Many people in Quebec are upset about that because they were expecting to be able to participate in the consultations on TransCanada's energy east pipeline proposal. Unfortunately, it is very hard to get in because the Environmental Assessment Act, which was amended in 2012, severely restricts people's access. There is also another problem I have to raise. Right now, the National Energy Board is starting to ask people to register for consultations even though the final route is unknown. People have to sign up without knowing whether the pipeline will go through their area or not. This is utterly ridiculous. Quebeckers, environmental groups and citizen groups have demanded that the National Energy Board's hearings be suspended until the pipeline's exact route is known. Without that information, how can people register and how can the assessment process involving individuals and organizations be started?

This shows how Bill C-46 is heading in the right direction. However, we need environmental bills that will enable us to prevent disasters rather than clean them up after the fact. That would be much better.

We know that the energy east pipeline will cross dozens of rivers and bodies of water as well as the St. Lawrence. These are strategic places that municipalities draw their water from to treat for drinking water.

We need to be careful and focus on prevention. A report from an RCM in the region that will be affected pointed out flaws in the TransCanada project. We expect much more from the government. It is not enough to repair the damage afterward. We need to focus on prevention. That is very important.

In 2014, the Commissioner of the Environment released a report pointing out the problems with the reform of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. For example, she mentioned that the criteria are unclear, which explains why some projects are subject to an assessment while others are not. She also indicated that it is very difficult for the public to participate in these consultations. If the public cannot be heard and listened to, that leads to a social licence problem. That is the problem with many of the projects on the table right now that could be good for our economy. There is a lack of information and transparency.

Ottawa commissioned a report on the aquatic environment in 2013. We were not given access to that report until a group of environmentalists submitted an access to information request. How can we trust a government that hides a report about the oil sands and the impact they will have on the aquatic environment for two years? That is unbelievable. The report indicates that there is a serious lack of information on the impact of an oil spill on the aquatic environment. There is a lack of information on how we could clean up the oil that spilled into the St. Lawrence River, for example. This report shows the lack of competence of the Conservatives, who do not take the importance of preventing accidents seriously. Introducing this bill, which of course is a step in the right direction, will not be enough if a spill occurs.

Oil spills have happened in the past and, unfortunately, will continue to happen. We must be ready to prevent them insofar as possible and to take quick action when one occurs. We need only think of the ExxonMobil pipeline spill in Arkansas in 2013. In 2010, there was the notorious Enbridge oil spill in the Kalamazoo River, where four million litres of oil were spilled in 14 hours. The cleanup of this environmental disaster is ongoing. So far, it has cost $1 billion, which is just the start. That is why I am saying that the $1 billion limit is not enough when oil companies are not directly responsible.

In conclusion, this bill is a step in the right direction. The NDP has been asking for a long time that the polluter pays principle be applied and that the companies be responsible for safety. However, we have a major problem with respect to preventing oil spills. I mentioned it in my speech. That is why we are asking for a clear long-term vision for sustainable development. The NDP has the strongest vision. We do not pit the economy against the environment; they are compatible. If we do it right, the economy and the environment will be the most profitable sectors. They create the most jobs and will help us improve the Canadian economy.

The NDP plan is to have a good economy based on sustainable development.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my Liberal colleague.

Indeed, it is a step in the right direction to bring in absolute liability in situations where the company is at fault. That is a key part of the polluter pays principle. It is also an improvement that the bill would increase the liability to $1 billion when the company is not at fault.

However, my colleague mentioned something really important, which is social licence. Prevention is needed so that pipeline leaks do not happen. That is the problem with Canadian legislation.

The Conservatives have been gutting the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act since 2012, and people in Quebec are upset that they are not able to participate in the National Energy Board's consultations and cannot know the full route of the energy east pipeline, for example.

Would my colleague like to tell us more about the fact that environmental assessments are no longer adequate?

[Committees of the House, February 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members want to thank the witnesses who contributed to this study on municipal waste. However, the report is missing some important information, which can be found in the NDP's dissenting report, including for instance, the fact that, according to the Conference Board of Canada's annual report, in 2014 Canada ranked last among 16 OECD countries regarding waste management. Furthermore, experts are calling on the federal government to show some leadership by harmonizing programs concerning extended producer responsibility. Lastly, the witnesses also talked about the need to balance market forces so that low-carbon-emission technologies can be developed in the area of waste management and businesses can invest in those technologies.

[Climate Change Accountability Act, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beaches—East York for his bill to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

I am very pleased to support this bill because it offers hope. Why? Because it was once Jack Layton's, and the member took up the torch and introduced the bill. What was Jack Layton's legacy? His legacy was hope.

I know that the Conservatives like to pit the environment and the economy against one another, but this bill puts the environment and the economy on the same side, and that is very good for Canada, the environment and economic development.

People across Canada will benefit from this bill because it will create jobs in research and innovation in a low-carbon-emissions economy.

Many businesses in the riding of Drummond are already benefiting from this new technology. I would like to list just a few of them: Aéronergie, Annexair and Venmar. These companies are involved in heat recovery and technological innovation. These are incredible opportunities for Drummond's economy.

We must move forward with an ambitious plan to fight climate change. Our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who will be the next prime minister, will be the first Canadian prime minister to go to Paris and come back with an ambitious plan to fight climate change. He will take the lead, and we will all be very proud to be there to support him.

[The Environment, February 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the economic benefits of combatting climate change.

A study by the OECD and the Pembina Institute confirmed that natural resource development without regard for the environmental consequences is harmful to Canada's economic development.

The Conservatives' approach will be detrimental, not helpful, to Canada's economic development. In fact, it is already hurting our development. The Conservatives' focus on oil and gas is having a negative impact on Canada's economy by creating socio-economic disparities across Canada. That comes from the OECD, which is pretty significant.

We have a clear plan. We want to combat climate change and promote a diverse, sustainable economy, for the good of our environment.

What will the member do to ensure that we have better economic diversification and environmental protections in order to stimulate Canada's economic development?

[The Environment, February 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today for an adjournment debate on a question I asked on December 10 about greenhouse gas emissions by the oil and gas sector. This is not the first time we have talked about this.

At the time, I asked the Minister of the Environment about the major agreement between China and the United States on reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and the recent Canada-U.S. air quality agreement presented by the Minister of the Environment.

As hon. members may know, this air quality agreement makes no mention of regulations for the oil and gas sector when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. That is odd because greenhouse gas emissions contribute to air pollution. Every country, including Canada, urgently needs to make a concerted effort to address the problem of climate change.

Unfortunately, since the Conservative government came to power, our credibility on the world stage has taken a serious hit. We have been severely affected by the Conservative government's dismal environmental record.

This is the precise wording of the question:

Whereas China and the United States have struck a deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the most recent Canada-U.S. air quality agreement presented by the Minister of the Environment makes no mention of regulations for the oil and gas sector. Does that mean that the Minister of the Environment does not believe that greenhouse gas emissions produced by the oil and gas sector affect air quality?

When I asked her this question, I expected her to say that yes, she had made a mistake and she would remedy the situation. She did not. She once again gave the same insipid answer she always gives, which did not even have anything to do with what I asked.

Let us take a quick look at the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the oil and gas sector in Canada. A committee of senior officials, co-chaired by the Deputy Minister of the Environment and the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, recently revealed that the federal government has not yet released the environmental standards that will be imposed on the oil and gas industry. According to the deputy ministers, this sector will be responsible for nearly 27% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2020.

This sector is growing and we need to take action quickly. We need to quickly implement practical measures.

At the last climate conference in Lima, Peru, the Minister of the Environment announced that her government did not plan to regulate the oil and gas sector, which is responsible for this country's ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

We have been waiting for five years for greenhouse gas targets in this sector. I believe it is time for the government to roll up its sleeves and get to work. Unfortunately, we do not see any effort on the part of the Conservatives to fight climate change, and I must say that the consequences are serious and disastrous for Canadians.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that the agreement between China and the United States was a major step forward in the fight against climate change. Canada has not been able to take that step.

The two biggest emitters, China and the United States, are working together to fight climate change. Will the Conservatives be able to follow their lead by presenting an ambitious greenhouse gas reduction plan that will also include the oil and gas sector?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is not at all opposed to the idea of an integrated security force operating within the parliamentary precinct to protect parliamentarians, staff and visitors.

However, we are opposed to the idea of that force being run by the RCMP and reporting to itself and the government. We strongly believe that the security force should report only to Parliament and to you, Mr. Speaker. That is our view.

Will the hon. member vote in favour of our amendment to the motion, which clarifies the separation of powers?

[Natural Resources, February 5th, 2015]

That is not what I said.

[Natural Resources, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the National Energy Board uses a number of factors to determine who will or will not be accepted. We do not know what those factors are, and they have been reduced more and more in order to limit access to these consultations. That is why there are petitions with 100,000 signatures from individuals and groups who are asking for greater access to the hearings.

The window for applying to intervene in the process has been reduced to such an extent that people are tearing their hair out trying to understand how they can gain access to these consultations. Moreover, the greenhouse gas impact of the pipeline will not be factored in.

These two elements show the Conservatives' lack of leadership and are detrimental to major projects. Limiting access to the consultations does not help major projects.

Once again, I would like to know what the National Energy Board criteria are. They should be disclosed and forwarded to us.

[Natural Resources, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here this evening.

I would like to return to an important issue that I raised a few weeks ago, that is, environmental assessment. On November 24, I asked the Minister of the Environment a question about the pipeline assessment process.

Under the Conservatives, we no longer have a credible mechanism to determine whether projects are socially acceptable. The pipeline assessment process has been completely discredited. The Minister of Natural Resources declared that social acceptability is nothing more than an ideological concept and that they cannot rely on the public. He does not care about public opinion.

People from all over Canada believe the complete opposite. In fact, it is vital that a project be socially acceptable in order to create jobs and to ensure that the public takes ownership of the project and is proud of it.

This week, an article in Le Devoir explained that the National Energy Board had once again restricted the public from participating in the pipeline assessment process. The changes made to the assessment process for energy projects have made it nearly impossible for the public to express their concerns, which would help improve projects and make them accessible.

The article also mentions that nearly 100,000 people signed a petition presented last Monday to the National Energy Board. They shared their concerns and demanded more access, so that they can contribute their experience, their views and their concerns about certain pipeline projects, such as TransCanada's energy east pipeline, whose assessment process just started. People can now sign up to have their say on this pipeline project.

I encourage everyone affected by this pipeline to have their say. It is very important. Those people demanded not only that there be more access, but also that the costs associated with GHGs from the pipelines be absorbed. That position is shared by the NDP and our leader, since we believe this is the challenge of the century.

Why have the Conservatives made it so difficult for the public to gain access to environmental assessments? What were they thinking? This will have a negative impact on social acceptability and pipeline projects. Why are they trying to undermine pipeline projects?