François Choquette

[Red Tape Reduction Act, February 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech and on the excellent work she is doing for her constituents and small businesses, as she explained. She has been travelling around her riding, which is her job, and meeting with chambers of commerce.

She talked about what would help small businesses, and it is not this little bill, which is a real joke, a total farce. It is a fraud, actually. It will not really cut red tape. Yes, we need to cut red tape, but we also need to help small businesses.

The member did a good job of explaining several concepts, and I would like her to clarify how we, the New Democrats, can help small businesses. What is the NDP's plan for helping small businesses?

[Red Tape Reduction Act, February 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and the work he does in his community. We know that he cares about the people in his community and he works very hard.

There are always questions that come to my mind. As the environment critic and a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I know how much the Conservatives like to reduce environmental protections.

It would seem that they want to again reduce environmental protections with this bill. Of course, no one is opposed to cutting red tape. We all support that.

However, some regulations are useful and in the public interest. They must not be cut. I am also thinking of some controls that are really beneficial for Canadians and some specific measures that help small businesses and protect the environment and people's safety. These protections must not be reduced.

Does my colleague believe that we really need to cut red tape because it will be beneficial for SMEs, but that we must also ensure that we keep those measures that protect the environment and people's safety?

[The Environment, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quickly come back to what my colleague just said about the sector-by-sector approach because the government forgot to include the oil and gas industry in that approach. This sector-by-sector approach is thus nothing but a pale reflection of what it should be.

With regard to the accord that was recently concluded in Lima and the negotiations, federal investments in climate change research have been reduced so much that La Presse reported on November 7 that the reduction in federal funding in this field of research was depriving researchers of essential data.

Because of the Conservative government's cuts to the science of climate change, researchers are having difficulty getting the data they need to study climate change.

How can this government explain the cuts to funding for this research?

[The Environment, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today for my first adjournment debate of 2015, with my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I would like him to know that we are going to have a lot of fun again this year. There will be many adjournment debates. He will have to get ready to stay up late. I will be asking him questions on a regular basis.

On December 3, I asked the hon. Minister of the Environment about the importance of fighting climate change. As hon. members know, all countries, including Canada, urgently need to work together. Canada's reputation with regard to climate change is not getting any better. It continues to get worse.

While China and the United States are making considerable efforts to improve, the Minister of the Environment keeps playing games by excluding opposition members, opposition environment critics, from official Canadian delegations on climate change, as was the case in Lima. What is more, my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, was not even invited either. I would like to know why. It is too bad for him.

At the conference held this past December in Lima, Peru, the international community once again witnessed the Conservative government's inaction first-hand. It brought nothing new. The Minister of the Environment announced that her government did not even 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 more than five years for greenhouse gas targets in this sector, but we have yet to see anything. On the contrary, the government announced that it would not do anything. Instead, it would kowtow to the oil and gas companies and the coal industry. The Lima agreement stipulates that Canada must set stricter targets than before.

Speaking of Canada's weak greenhouse gas targets, we know that our country will not reach its weak targets by 2020. Everyone has said so, except the government, which continues to hide its head in the sand. Everyone knows that we will not reach these minuscule targets. Everyone says so, even officials at Environment Canada.

Canada's complacency is shameful, given that this important conference in Lima has set the stage for the 21st conference, which will take place in Paris in 2015. The Paris conference is very important since that is where the new global climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto protocol will be presented. It is true; I forgot that the Conservatives withdrew from the Kyoto protocol, which shows how little regard they have for this issue.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is usually quite reserved, abandoned that approach a long time ago. Indeed, he asked Canada to be more ambitious and to show more vision on the issue of climate change.

The two largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world, China and the United States, have already taken a major step forward. Will Canada follow their example by presenting a plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas industry? It is urgent.

[The Environment, December 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, 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? I am just saying.

[Motor Vehicle Safety Act, December 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately listened to the speech by my colleague with a great deal of fear and concern. I will nonetheless make my speech on Bill C-603, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (vehicle side guards).

I will support the bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie, who does excellent work on the transport file. What is more, he did a tour of Drummondville to talk to us about rail safety, something that is very important to Drummondville, since a train crosses through town. The train is part of our culture.

This bill on vehicle side guards is also very important to Drummondville, given the amount of car and truck traffic. Nonetheless, more and more people are interested in cycling, which is also quite popular in the greater Drummond area. There are many cycling enthusiasts who use their bikes to get to work or for recreation.

I want to take this opportunity to reiterate that this is a fine legislative initiative by my colleague. Cyclist and pedestrian safety is something the NDP has been interested in for quite some time. This is the third time in nine years that the NDP has introduced a similar bill calling for the installation of side guards.

My former colleague, Olivia Chow, introduced this very important bill in the past, because these protections not only help protect people's health and safety, but they also save lives. They have proven successful around the world. This bill is therefore very important.

Studies have already proven how effective side guards are in guaranteeing the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and even motorcyclists. In the United Kingdom, for example, with the introduction of side guards, the number of deaths in these categories dropped by 61%. That is significant. We can save more than 50% of people. We cannot ignore this kind of result.

Not only in Drummond, but across Quebec and Canada, people have been thinking about this problem for quite some time. People in Drummondville are aware of this problem and the municipality has begun taking action. I wanted to point that out to my colleague who said that the municipalities need to do something. Since the federal government is not doing its job, the municipalities are starting to do it.

In my riding of Drummond, people actually asked themselves what they could do while waiting for the federal government to become a responsible government and take action. The City of Drummondville decided to test side guards on a heavy vehicle it owns in order to protect the public.

I would like to thank and congratulate municipal councillor John Husk for initiating this project. He is an avid cyclist and rides his bike a lot both for recreation and to get around. I would like to congratulate him for the pilot project he started in Drummondville.

This project proves that side guards address the concerns of people who live in cities. In Drummondville, they have started using side guards. Only one truck is equipped for the time being, but the city plans to modify five other trucks by 2015. That is significant.

In fact, the City of Drummondville thinks that it is an inexpensive measure that can save lives. If we can save lives, we should not think of the cost. As members will hear later in my speech, side guards are quite inexpensive for a city like Drummondville.

The city wants its entire fleet of 22 heavy vehicles to have side guards in order to save lives in the greater Drummond area.

We are wondering what Canada is waiting for. We are asking ourselves this question because side guards have been mandatory in the United Kingdom and the European Union since 1989. That dates me somewhat because in 1989, I was still a young man. I realize that it is now 2014, almost 2015, and unfortunately, I am getting older. Time flies, but this government and the previous Liberal government did not do anything in all that time, even though, as I mentioned, side guards have been proven to be effective. As I was saying earlier, side guards have reduced fatalities by 61% in the United Kingdom.

A number of Canadian municipalities have begun thinking about adding side guards to their fleets of heavy trucks. Drummondville is currently in the process of doing so. I want emphasize that. It is good that our municipalities are taking the initiative and leading the way, but it is important to note how far behind the Conservatives are lagging on this issue. As I mentioned, the NDP has been calling for side guards on heavy vehicles for nine years now.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is also very concerned that the Conservatives have not taken action on this. In 2009, the federation told the government that it supported making side guards mandatory on heavy vehicles. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is not a group of extremists. These are people who work with the provincial and federal governments. Every year I meet with representatives from the federation, and they do an excellent job. They make very reasonable recommendations to improve the well-being of our municipalities and keep Canadians safe. In 2012, they came back to see the transport minister—who was from Quebec—and let him know how urgent this situation was. Unfortunately, I was completely flabbergasted by what the Conservative member said earlier. He does not think this is a good measure. The Conservatives are passing the buck to the municipalities and saying that the municipalities need to sort this out on their own. However, as we know, transportation is a federal jurisdiction in Canada.

Many people have told us it is time to act. The Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario released a report in 2012 that said it would be a really good idea to put side guards on heavy trucks in Canada. The same goes for Quebec, where they are talking about installing side guards that would have prevented several people involved in accidents from being killed or seriously injured. Again on August 25, 2014, we heard about horrible accidents.

Look at it this way: if it can prevent the death of one person, we should do it. In this case, we are talking about keeping dozens of people alive and safe every year. This is really something not very costly that we should do right now.

Speaking of which, people have asked me how much this would cost. Some might expect the cost to run to millions and millions of dollars, which might prevent the government from taking action. However, the average cost of installing side guards on a vehicle is about $1,500. That is really not very much. Even cities are starting to install side guards because they understand that this measure can really keep people safer.

I do not have a lot of time to get into this point, but I just want to mention that side guards pay for themselves. They make economic sense because they reduce the cost of fuel by making vehicles more efficient and, by extension, enable them to comply with environmental standards.

For all of these reasons, I urge the Conservative government to admit it was wrong, take action and vote in favour of a good bill introduced by my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie.

[The Environment, December 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that answer was rather short. I expect a lot more from my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who works very hard. I was hoping for a more complete answer.

I did not actually get an answer to my question, so I do not know if there are any plans to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and make the shift towards green energy. It is too bad, because the Minister of the Environment, as my colleague mentioned, is currently in Peru. This would be the perfect time to announce some ambitious targets. We are going to miss the 17% target. We just need to look at the Conservative government's record. It withdrew from the Kyoto protocol. Since 2012, environment commissioners have been saying that we will not meet even our weak target. Canada is one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to per capita greenhouse gas emissions.

One thing is certain: we need firm and sustained commitments. Last week my colleague asked about the $300 million for foreign aid. Where is it? It is not in the budget. How is it possible that the $300 million promised for foreign aid is not in the budget? When will it be in the budget, next year? And over how many years will that money be spread? Over 50 years? We want to know. We want answers.

[The Environment, December 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House once again to talk about the fight against climate change.

As we know, the UN climate change conference is currently going on in Lima, Peru. On the weekend, Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, admonished the Conservative government for its poor record on combatting climate change.

On December 2, I asked the Minister of the Environment about what is going on in Lima. As we know, Canada already has a bad reputation when it comes to international negotiations. It has received a number of fossil awards—not exactly something to be proud of.

Our partners are wondering whether the Conservatives will finally do something, now that China and the United States have come to an agreement about enforcing concrete measures to combat climate change. There have already been calls for more ambitious commitments on climate change. I asked the Conservatives whether they were finally going to come up with a credible plan to combat climate change.

As I said, this weekend Ban Ki-moon mentioned that Canada will fail to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions based on 2005 data. He was the one who told us. We knew it already, but Ban Ki-moon said it as well, as did the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, civil servants at Environment Canada and other stakeholders. Now, Ban Ki-moon is again telling us that we will fail to reduce our greenhouse gas emission by 17% in 2020, based on 2005 data. He is calling out the Conservative government, urging it to do much more. He said that oil producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia, are moving away from the use of fossil fuels. He is calling on Canada to immediately do the same. Ban Ki-moon also said that the government needs to become ambitious and visionary when it comes to climate change. In addition, he said that the federal government needs to look beyond the country's borders to give more support to developing countries in their efforts to fight climate change.

We are also concerned about something really unfortunate going on in Canada: the Conservatives are still subsidizing fossil fuels—oil and gas—to the tune of more than $1.3 billion per year. Canada's subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are among the highest in the world, but we should be using that money to advance green energy and transition to those sources. However, despite all of the stakeholders who have appealed to the government and despite the fact that Canada promised to end those subsidies, the government is only taking baby steps. Those subsidies should be gone already. When the NDP is in power, it will put an end to that $1.3 billion in subsidies and spend that money on transitioning to green energy instead.

When will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment announce his plan to eliminate fossil energy subsidies and transition to green energy?

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, December 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was in fact talking about the legislation with regard to environmental problems. Unfortunately, the government is considering giving the minister all the power. Indeed, this bill gives the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development certain powers, including the power to establish general standards for environmental assessments and the power to limit them.

Can we trust this government when it comes to the environment? No, because it has made so many cuts that affect the environment. It has laid off 2,000 environmental scientists; it closed 200 scientific research centres; it cancelled 492 environmental impact assessments; it closed oil spill response stations in northern British Columbia; it closed seven out of 11 Fisheries and Oceans Canada libraries; and it has made cuts to research institutes. I could go on and on about this government's abuses.

Bill S-6 continues the trend the Conservative government has established since coming to power. It attacks science and environmental assessments and continues to tear down the basis for environmental protection. That is truly unfortunate. Therefore, we will oppose this bill, which does not have the support of the people of Yukon, aboriginal peoples or Canadians in general.

This bill has shown that this is an issue of concern to many people. I would have liked to quote the testimony of Ruth Massie, the grand chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations, but my time is up. In short, the fact that the Conservatives are again attacking the environment is a problem.

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, December 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to once again defend the interests of my constituents in Drummond, and across Canada, regarding the environment. It is a topic that is very important to me and to them as well.

I am rising to speak to Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

To begin, I would like to say that we will be opposing this bill at every stage, as my NDP colleagues have articulated so well already. This bill is poorly put together, it is biased in terms of consultations and it does not meet the needs of Yukoners. However, it is a very important piece of legislation, and I think Yukoners will keep that in mind during the next election.

Looking carefully at the bill, it is clear that it will dismantle the entire environmental assessment process. I will explain that a bit later. However, it is very concerning, once again. The Conservatives have a bad reputation when it comes to the environment, and unfortunately this is no different. They are systematically dismantling our environmental protections.

As I was saying, Yukon first nations were not adequately consulted, as my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine clearly explained. There are major gaps in this regard. The people of Yukon are upset about this bill.

This bill is very troubling because it will allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to give binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board.

In other words, we are handing the minister every opportunity to set policy direction for the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. We know about all the mishaps that have occurred over the past few years when it comes to environmental assessments and diminished environmental protections. That is not all.

As if that were not enough, this bill will also establish mandatory maximum timelines for the assessments and allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to download his responsibility. What is more, it will be possible to create broad exemptions in terms of enforcement of the law and project renewals. We can just imagine all the flaws in this bill.

Since we are talking about the environment, this week marks the beginning of the UN climate change conference in Lima, Peru. This has come up a lot in the House of Commons, including during question period, because we want to show that the Conservative government is weakening environmental protections. It is definitely not doing its job in this area.

Furthermore, ever since this government came to power, opposition members have no longer been included in Canadian delegations. The Conservatives seem to believe that there is only one vision of Canada—theirs.

Of course, that vision does not represent all Canadians; quite the contrary. As everyone knows, only 40% of Canadians voted for this government. However, because of the imbalance in our democratic system, that equals 55% of members, but we plan to correct that in the next election.

It is also important to understand that we asked the Minister of the Environment to hold some information sessions so that people could better understand this government's position since it withdrew from the Kyoto protocol, but to no avail.

There was an announcement of $300 million—