François Choquette

[The Environment, December 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to know that my colleague was a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I hope he can put down his notes and explain two things to me.

One-third of Parks Canada scientists have been let go. How, then, can we implement recovery plans for species at risk, when we do not have the scientists to implement them? I hope he will put down his notes and answer me.

Moreover, there have been calls to create a marine protected area for the St. Lawrence for 15 years now. The beluga, which was once a threatened species, is now an endangered species.

I am not asking the parliamentary secretary to make any promises. However, does he not think it would be wise, after 15 years of concerted efforts, and now that everyone agrees, to create that marine protected area for the St. Lawrence to protect belugas? I hope to get an answer from him.

[The Environment, December 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk about Canada's Species at Risk Act.

This week, COSEWIC stated that the status of the beluga, a very important species that inhabits the St. Lawrence and is a symbol of Quebec and even Canada, has changed from threatened to endangered because the beluga whale population is dropping steadily. The government will soon have to protect the beluga habitat.

I hope that the Government of Canada will add its 15-year-old proposed marine protected area to this year's list of priorities.

I would like to revisit the question I asked the Minister of the Environment on November 18 about the government's pathetic track record on protecting species at risk.

As I am sure some people know, an important report was released in November about trends in extinction risk for species in Canada. The report outlines the complete failure of the Conservative government to fulfill its duties under the Species at Risk Act.

Of the 369 plant and animal species identified as endangered in 1997, 115 have seen their population drop further and 202 are still endangered. There is therefore still a lot of work to be done. This report, which was written by biologists from the University of Victoria and the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, was recently published in PLOS ONE.

That is pretty serious. People are becoming aware of the Conservative government's failure in this area. More and more often, wildlife protection groups have to go to court simply to get the government to respect the law. A report issued by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development in 2013 had already sounded the alarm, but unfortunately, the Conservative government chose to ignore it.

Nevertheless, this report indicated that we have a major problem and that, at the time, the Conservative government was protecting only seven of the 518 species at risk on the list. The Conservatives cannot boast about doing good work when they are protecting only seven out of 518 species. We have a very serious problem.

What is more, the commissioner said that, at that rate, it would take 10 years to complete the outstanding recovery strategies, and that estimate did not include the new species that are being added to the list and that must be protected.

Indeed, concrete action is needed, and we need to provide human, scientific and financial resources to immediately support the Species at Risk Act.

I look forward to hearing what the member has to say on this matter.

[The Environment, December 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to combat climate change, everyone needs to work together.

China and the United States have agreed to co-operate with the international community, but here in Canada, the minister continues to play dirty. She refuses to include the opposition in the Canadian delegation going to Lima for the climate change conference. Furthermore, she does not even want to give us a briefing to explain what will be on the table at the conference.

Why does the minister keep playing games with the opposition and the international community?

[The Environment, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to trust a minister who would rather attack her own constituents than tackle their problems.

As the United Nations conference on climate change gets under way, our partners are wondering whether the Conservatives have taken note of the agreement between China and the U.S., and whether they will once again show up in Lima empty-handed or, alternatively, with a plan and more stringent commitments.

Will the Conservatives finally take climate change seriously and announce a credible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

[The Environment, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to debunk the Conservatives' two most popular myths, which my colleague repeated. I am sad that he did not answer any of my questions.

First, it is not true that the Conservatives have a good record on climate change. In fact, it is the provinces that have done all of the work—especially Quebec and Ontario, which will soon have a cap and a greenhouse gas emissions trading system, known as a carbon exchange. That is what the NDP endorses. The first myth is therefore debunked.

Second, it is not true that Canada emits only 2% of greenhouse gas emissions. No matter how you calculate it, Canada is one of the largest polluters per capita in the world. The OECD has said that we are the third-biggest polluter. There is nothing to be proud of there.

As for the oil sands, the Prime Minister said that we reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 40%. However, according to an article in La Presse, greenhouse gas emissions have actually increased by 500%. That is because the government calculated the total emissions instead of the intensity of the emissions. That is what should be done. We need to be honest here.

[The Environment, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit a question that I asked the hon. Minister of the Environment concerning a report issued by Germanwatch. This report indicates that, under the Conservatives, Canada has the worst record of all OECD countries when it comes to combatting climate change.

Some might say that this is not surprising in light of everything we have heard recently and all the fossil awards Canada has received at international climate change conferences. However, it is still disconcerting to again be admonished for not doing our job. There is an important explanation for that: we have not yet tackled what will become the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Canada—the oil and gas sector.

The purpose of the adjournment debate is to obtain answers that were not provided in question period. I am going to try to get those answers. I will put a few questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, who is here this evening. First, when will there be regulations for greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector?

Secondly, the Minister of the Environment recently made an announcement. She said that there would be a little help in that area, since it had been announced that the U.S. and China had made some firm and very important commitments to move forward on the fight against climate change. The Conservatives have long said that they would not do anything until the U.S. and China did something. That reasoning did not make any sense, but now that the U.S. and China have made these firm commitments, what did the Minister of the Environment do? She announced that another $300 million would be spent on the fight against climate change and some international assistance. My question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment is this: what does that $300 million mean? Is it the amount to be allocated every year, over 10 years, 50 years? We have seen some announcements regarding additional funding over the very long term. Over how many years will that $300 million be spread?

I have one last question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I moved a motion at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development asking that the opposition parties may also be represented at international climate change conferences, such as the one in Lima that began today. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment support the motion that will finally once again give the opposition parties the right to attend climate change conferences? There is more than one vision of Canada, there are several. They should be represented in international debates.

Those are my main questions for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I hope to get answers to all those questions.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to supplementary estimates (B) 2014-15.

[Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, November 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, since I have only three minutes, I will get right to the heart of the matter.

I am going to support Bill C-574 on the use of wood at second reading.

As the deputy environment critic, I moved a motion on energy efficiency at the request of my constituents in Drummond and many other people across the country. In addition to being good for the environment, energy efficiency also creates jobs and lowers energy bills.

The use of wood provides economic benefits to the regions—as my colleague from Trois-Rivières so clearly explained—as well as environmental benefits. For example, from an environmental perspective, wood compares favourably to other building materials, such as steel and concrete. Steel uses 26% to 34% more energy and emits 57% to 81% more greenhouse gases than wood.

I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about the importance of using wood in construction. This bill would allow the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to give preference to the concept that promotes the use of wood, while taking into account the factors of cost and greenhouse gas emissions, before soliciting bids for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal immovables and federal real property.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against my motion on energy efficiency, when it would have been a good starting point with regard to the use of wood as well.

The motion that I moved on energy efficiency stated:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement an energy efficiency program to encourage owners of houses, residential buildings, shops and businesses to reduce their energy consumption, with a view to: (a) combatting climate change; [we will soon be attending the International Conference on Climate Change in Lima and we need to be ready] (b) lowering the energy bills of Canadians; and (c) creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

This motion would have covered all of the good points. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not understand that because they voted against it.

This bill is similar in that it is good for the economies of the regions and job creation.

I did not have very much time, but I would like to thank the House for allowing me to speak to this bill.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my hon. colleague that his government slashed funding by a third and cut one-third of the scientific positions in parks management. Partners, people and the member for Scarborough—Rouge River have been working very hard on the Rouge park file for a long time now.

There was consensus on creating the park. However, the Conservatives have done such a bad job that they have managed to break that consensus; it had to be on purpose. How can a government break consensus on creating a park? That is unprecedented. It is really exceptional.

The Government of Ontario told the Conservatives that they were messing up. Stakeholders who appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development also told them they were messing up. They could have solved all of the problems just by making one small change to a clause in one little amendment, but they dismissed the amendment out of hand.

Why did they have to be so stubborn, so obstinate with the partners, the provincial governments and others, who were calling for the creation of a good Rouge park?

[Natural Resources, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, 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. By declaring that social acceptability is nothing more than an ideological concept, the Minister of Natural Resources has shown that he cares little about the public and public opinion.

Instead of trying to get this project approved at any cost, why does the minister not consult the public and listen to them?