François Choquette

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his very important, well-thought-out and eloquent speech.

The Government of Canada signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity with the so-called Aichi targets. It is important to meet those targets, which seek to protect at least 17% of biodiversity by 2020. Right now, only 10% of biodiversity is protected.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I participated with the Conservatives and Liberals in developing the national conservation plan. I am pleased to see that this plan exists, but unfortunately it is still not being implemented. There are new parks, but we keep seeing problems. For instance, there are problems with the Sable Island national park, the Rouge national urban park and now the Nááts’ihch’oh national park. This park will not provide the natural habitat needed to protect the wildlife that is supposed to live there. What can my colleague make of the whole situation?

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

In regard to the importance of creating parks, we have signed the Aichi targets, which require us to increase protected areas. The national conservation plan created by the Conservatives with the participation of the New Democrats is a plan that could go in the right direction but, once again, its implementation has been delayed, and that is unfortunate.

I am especially concerned about the species at risk, as well as the flora and fauna. I was involved in quite a file dealing with the belugas in Cacouna. My colleague said that a number of species, including grizzly bears and Dall sheep, were going to be protected but, in fact, the vast majority of the critical habitat is outside the proposed park. That habitat will therefore not even be protected. How does he explain the fact that on the one hand he says that these species will be protected, but on the other, he has not even included the critical habitat, the vast majority of which is outside the park?

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my honourable colleague, who is very familiar with the situation in Quebec, whether he agrees with the injunction issued by the Quebec Superior Court saying that drilling cannot continue because there were no scientific opinions from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Alternatively, does he have doubts about the decision of the Quebec Superior Court? I do not understand anymore.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kitchener Centre for his speech and his comments. He and I are members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, so we regularly have the opportunity to discuss this subject.

Here is my question for him. He mentioned several times that it is important to make science-based decisions. The Government of Quebec asked the federal government a number of scientific questions about drilling at Cacouna this summer. Every time the Quebec government asked the federal government these questions, the latter asked the former why it wanted to know. The Quebec government wanted to know so that it could make a science-based decision.

It has been shown in court that the federal government was asked multiple times but did not share the necessary scientific opinions. That is why there was an injunction. It was shown in court that there were no scientific opinions. Why did they systematically refuse to share scientific opinions about drilling off the coast of Cacouna?

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable colleague for speaking about this very important and very worrisome issue of sustainable development in general, and the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal in particular.

He mentioned several times that he believed in science, among other things. This is funny, though, because the Quebec Superior Court just mentioned that it had to respond to an injunction that there was no scientific basis for allowing drilling off the coast of Cacouna.

Where are these scientific opinions that the hon. member is claiming to have and to be submitting? Why did the Quebec Superior Court grant a request for an injunction if there was scientific evidence? I just do not get it. Perhaps the hon. member could clarify things for me.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's commendable speech. He said that everything will be done so that this is safe for the environment. However, there has been an initiative to protect marine areas around the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park for 15 years now. There is also a committee of people from Canada and Quebec.

What did we learn this year? We learned that, as long as the committee has been around, it has never met. Never.

How does he explain the fact that he wants to protect the belugas and that the recovery plan recommends creating a marine protected area, but that the committee has never met?

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague very much for the question.

This is a prime example of the Conservatives muzzling scientists and showing an utter lack of transparency. The Conservatives requested in camera meetings at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development three times instead of listening to the advice of the scientists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. If they have nothing to hide, then why request in camera meetings and why muzzle the scientists? Never before had public servants, scientists, demonstrated in front of the House of Commons. This was unprecedented. Frankly, the Conservatives have to take responsibility for protecting sustainable development. The basic principles of sustainable development are good for the environment and for the economy.

When the NDP forms the government, it will respect the principles of sustainable development.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of our leader's record as Quebec's environment minister. He is the father of Quebec's sustainable development legislation. He is the one who added the right to clear air, water and soil to the charter. That is what we are going to do when we form the government in 2015. It is not over.

I have a big problem with the position of my colleague's party across the way. This summer, I went to the Lower St. Lawrence twice. When the leader of the Liberal Party strolled around there, he said the Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal was a good thing. He was not even aware that the decisions were not backed by science. Even his member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville had to set him straight. The other Liberal members will have to set their leader straight to get him to make sound decisions.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I know very well that we are talking about exploratory drilling. Now, does he know that his own department was asked for scientific advice on this exploratory drilling, and instead of sending the proper documentation to the Government of Quebec, his department simply sent a letter saying everything was fine, without doing a proper scientific study? This is outrageous.

When we asked for studies in committee, they were done in camera. When we asked the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to hold an emergency meeting, that was also held in camera. The Conservatives cannot say that they support environmental protection and then do everything behind closed doors, without any scientific advice.

As for the member's other question, it is important to understand that this part of the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal is used for export only, so there is nothing here to create jobs or protect our fishery resources.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

No, Mr. Speaker, he did not. It is truly shameful.

The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville even told him that he was disappointed that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was refusing to share scientific information. That came from the September 29, 2014, Hansard. The Liberals do not seem to be on the same page. In fact, it seems that the Liberal leader is not familiar with the basic principles of sustainable development. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville had to set him straight.

I hope that the Liberals will set the Liberal leader straight, explain the basic principles of sustainable development to him and vote in favour of our motion since it is based on those basic principles, namely, environmentally sustainable economic development and the social acceptance of the surrounding community.

We moved this motion for all of these reasons, and we are asking the Conservatives to stand with us. They need to understand that they cannot build an oil port in that location without going against their own species at risk legislation, and the project is not good for the economy either.

I hope the government will one day realize that the words “environment” and “economic development” are not mutually exclusive.

This proves that the Conservatives do not take environmental protection seriously. They do not understand what sustainable development is.

When the NDP forms the government, we will ensure that Canada has not only a sustainable development strategy but also legislation in this area. In fact, my hon. colleague from Brome—Missisquoi has introduced a bill on sustainable development, and we will continue in that direction.

The principle of protecting sustainable development—in other words, the right to clean air, clean water and clean soil—will be written into the charter. We will fulfill these promises once the NDP forms the government.

I would also like to draw attention to what the Liberals are doing in this area. The NDP is the only party that has a clear position on sustainable development and the Port of Gros-Cacouna.