François Choquette

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan who is doing excellent work on her files. I listened to her speech earlier, and she has a very good grasp of this issue.

Of course, we need to do this one step at a time. We must first ensure that prevention and education are being offered in our communities and in our schools, and then make laws after that. I definitely understand the need to have strict laws. However, once offenders have served their sentences, they must be reintegrated. It is therefore important that they have proper support from the time they enter the correctional system. There needs to be training and programs in place that facilitate social reintegration and follow-up. This will help keep people safe. Indeed, that is what we are talking about here—keeping our children and our families safe.

I fully support the position of my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who knows this file very well.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I am sure he has seen some pretty nasty things, since he has had to investigate crimes of a sexual nature. I completely agree that we will be supporting this bill at second reading to send it to committee.

Why send it to committee? As I said at the beginning of my speech, this bill amends many sections of existing laws. I am not an expert in criminal matters, far from it. I therefore do not want to pass judgment on the fundamental principles of this bill. However, I do want the experts to have a chance to do so. It is important that the bill go to committee so that the experts can analyze it.

The member is quite right; it is important to take action once an offence has been committed so it does not happen again, but prevention and education are also important to stop crime before it happens.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. As we can see, this bill affects a number of laws and amends many sections in those laws. It is rather complex and therefore it is vital that it be properly studied by experts in committee.

The NDP will support this bill at second reading stage so that it goes to committee. We hope that the Conservatives will be open-minded enough to listen to the testimony of experts and the many people—I hope—who will come and speak about the important subject of protection for our children and families. Consequently, I hope that the Conservatives will open their ears and are receptive to what they have to say.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am not qualified to speak about the technical aspects of this file, but I do want to say that it is important to understand that this bill must be amended and improved in committee and that we must sit down with experts on the subject. My colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who does an excellent job, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster and other NDP members have clearly explained this.

We will study these proposals carefully. We hope to see measures that will protect our children in practical ways and make our communities safer, not measures that just sound good at news conferences. That is not the goal. We also know that our communities need more resources to deal with the sexual abuse of children. Increasing prison sentences is not enough. That is the direction we hope to take in our discussions. Of course, the devil is in the details. When it comes to the Conservatives' laws, it is important to listen to the experts in the field.

I am the member for Drummond, and I represent, to the best of my abilities, the people who voted for me and all the other residents of Drummond. It is very important to focus first and foremost on prevention, as other members who spoke before me also mentioned. Obviously, we need to prevent crime. That is very important. Many organizations and stakeholders in the greater Drummond area are doing excellent work. I would like to name a few to show what a dynamic community Drummond is, and to give members an idea of what the Conservative government could do to support these organizations.

CALACS La Passerelle de Drummondville was one of the first organizations to work on addressing sexual violence. It provides free and confidential assistance and outreach services. These services fall under three main categories, namely help and outreach, advocacy and prevention. I am mentioning this organization because it also does prevention work. It informs victims of the recourse available to them, helps them deal with the consequences of a recent or past assault, helps them take back control of their lives, and supports them in whatever steps they decide to take, whether it be medical, legal or some other type of action. This organization also visits schools—which is wonderful—to teach children and youth about verbal, psychological and sexual abuse. Boys often learn how to behave toward women and girls at a young age. It is all about prevention, learning and education. This Drummondville organization and its staff are doing excellent work. I am very proud of them and wanted to mention the contribution they make to my region.

CAVAC is another organization that is doing excellent work in Drummondville, in central Quebec. It provides assistance to victims of crime, their loved ones and even people who witnessed a crime, whether it is a break and enter or any other crime. The staff at the Centre-du-Québec CAVAC can help people cope with what they are going through and the physical, psychological and social effects. They can also help people seek compensation for damages.

The CAVAC in Drummondville has an excellent team that provides amazing support to the public. The team is made up of a criminologist and three forensic social workers, and we are proud to have them there. They are able to provide excellent follow-up for victims. It is important to be there to support them.

Another important organization is Commun Accord, which focuses on alternative justice. Traditional justice is not needed in all cases, and that is where Commun Accord comes in. Its mission is to foster the development and practice of alternative justice and educational activities to promote harmonious relationships within the community. This is another organization that focuses on education and prevention among young people and the general public.

We can certainly look at how to bring people to justice, but we also need to look at prevention and education. The Conservative government does not do that at all, unfortunately. All it cares about is its criminalization policy.

I would like to mention another organization, since there are so many in Drummondville. La Rose des Vents conducts prevention and awareness activities in schools and the community in order to demystify and condemn violence and show how it affects both the victim and the aggressor. The workers answer people's questions, tear down prejudices and support caregivers. They also try to identify victims before it is too late.

That is another important organization that works very hard and stresses the need to break the taboos surrounding sexual violence, for example. There is currently a campaign encouraging people to talk about incest and break that taboo. We need to support these organizations, which do incredible work in our communities. I am proud of these organizations, the workers and all of the volunteers.

I would be remiss if I did not mention one last Drummondville organization and highlight the diversity and significant contributions of these organizations. L'Envolée des mères is a new organization that started up in Drummondville in early 2014. It is an 18-unit housing project that will give young single moms and their children access to housing, support, employment and education, and to a nearby daycare centre. This support will help young moms with all kinds of problems who want to take control of their lives.

I am proud to say that l'Envolée des mères asked me for a personal donation and I was delighted to oblige. It was my pleasure. One of those units will be named after Jack Layton, and I am very happy to support it for young mothers. Social housing was a priority for Jack Layton.

I am very pleased that one of the units will be named after Jack Layton thanks to my personal donation and my contribution to the community. I made a small contribution to that community, and I am very proud of that. I would like to thank all of the organizations in Drummondville for the hard work they do in the name of prevention and education.

[The Environment, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, a report released this week outlines the complete failure of the Conservative government and previous governments when it comes to protecting species at risk. Of the 369 plant and animal species identified as endangered in 1997, 115 have seen their population drop further and 202 are still endangered.

Why does this government not take the protection of threatened species seriously?

[Energy Safety and Security Act, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, liability in the nuclear energy sector is one of our concerns.

Increasing the liability to $1 billion is a good start. However, the Japanese government estimates that the cleanup from the Fukushima accident will cost $150 billion. That is far higher than $1 billion.

If a similar accident were to happen in Canada, who would be liable for the remaining $149 billion? If the people of Drummond and my colleague's riding were to receive the bill, I would like him to explain to his constituents why they have to pay so much money while the companies are not held more accountable.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, of course a $1 billion liability seems like a lot. It is an improvement.

Nonetheless, my colleague surely knows the estimated cost of the 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima. In case she does not remember, I will remind her that it is $250 billion. There is a huge difference between a $250 billion liability and a $1 billion liability, a $249 billion difference, to be exact. The federal government would have to subsidize the rest of the repairs and upgrades, and that means it would fall to Canadian taxpayers and the people of Drummond. I do not think the people of Drummond would be pleased to learn that.

How will my colleague explain to her constituents that if there were ever a nuclear disaster like the one in Fukushima, it would be up to Canadians to pay $249 billion?

[Energy Safety and Security Act, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.

In his opinion, why have the Conservatives done nothing to comply with international standards before now? This bill will not allow us to catch up to our international partners. The Conservatives often brag that they want to be more like the United States, but the American government has adopted an absolute liability regime of $12.6 billion U.S.

Why, then, do the Conservatives not want Canada to adopt a regime that offers at least the same amount of protection as the U.S. regime? They are always saying that Canada is ahead of the United States, so why are they not showing leadership and attaining or surpassing the level of protection in the United States?

[The Environment, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to transparency, the Commissioner of the Environment does not agree with the criteria used to choose the projects to be assessed. That is what she said in her report.

It does not seem as though the parliamentary secretary will ask his government to implement the recommendations in the report, which is very disappointing, since they said they were accepting them.

Furthermore, there was an informative article this weekend in Le Devoir regarding the National Energy Board and the public's participation in evaluating major projects; referring to the energy east pipeline project, the article claimed that the National Energy Board will ignore the impact of oil. It went on to say:

The National Energy Board (NEB) is clear: there is no need to assess or even address the topic of climate change...

That is unbelievable. While Mr. Hollande himself lectured the Conservatives about taking the lead on climate change, the energy east pipeline project will not even undergo an environmental assessment with respect to climate change. No one will even be consulted. That is disappointing.

I hope that the government will reconsider and take greenhouse gases into account when assessing major projects.

[The Environment, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the environment once again. As everyone knows, we had the honour of receiving Mr. Hollande, the President of France, in this House. One of the most important things he talked about was the fight against climate change. We know that the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has released its fifth report. Hundreds of scientists have talked about the need for urgent action. Unfortunately, the Conservatives prefer to sit back and do nothing, with the 2015 Copenhagen summit only a year away.

I would like to revisit the important issue of the federal environmental assessment process. I recently asked the Minister of the Environment a question about this important issue, which the Conservatives often ignore. I asked my question on October 7 of this year, the same day that the Commissioner of the Environment, Ms. Gelfand, released her report.

Let me provide some background. I pointed out that many industrial sites that are likely to be major polluters have undergone no environmental assessment whatsoever. You heard me correctly: some sites that are likely to be major polluters have undergone no federal environmental assessment. It really makes you wonder about the Conservative government's attitude, as it deliberately fails to assess certain projects in order to please industry.

I also asked questions about the criteria for performing environmental assessments, in order to more effectively apply the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Unfortunately, we did not obtain a definitive answer from the government.

The environment commissioner mentioned this government's gross negligence in that regard. Why are some projects assessed and others not? The criteria for choosing these projects lack clarity and precision. In fact, Canadians do not even know what they are. They are arbitrary criteria. This is ridiculous when we are talking about an issue as important as the environmental assessment of major projects.

My question for the Minister of the Environment was as follows: Either way, will the government heed the recommendations made by the environment commissioner and commit to greater transparency and clarity when it comes to identifying projects to be assessed? The government's response was very disappointing.

Let us back up for a moment. We know that the Conservative government's decision to completely gut and destroy the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act dates back to 2012. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development since 2011, and I have seen the mess that this has caused. Since that time, we know that major projects such as in situ oil sands development projects, have not been assessed even though they are critical projects and there are a growing number of them. In fact, most new oil sands projects are in situ projects,

I would therefore like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment why projects as important as in situ and hydraulic fracturing projects, for example, are not subject to an environmental assessment.

[The Environment, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, according to a report issued by Germanwatch, Canada has the worst record of all OECD countries when it comes to combatting climate change, ranking just below Australia and Turkey. The Conservative government's failing grade can be attributed to its withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol, its unambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets, and its lack of a plan to reduce the emissions of large emitters.

Speaking of large emitters, when will the government present its plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas industry?