François Choquette

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the NDP's supplementary opinion on habitat conservation.

First of all, I would like to thank all the witnesses who appeared before the committee for this study. According to these witnesses, climate change is the greatest threat to our ecosystems and habitat conservation. However, surprise, surprise, that is not even in the official report.

A truly national conservation report would recognize the interdependence of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, not just terrestrial ecosystems, and would set out stronger legislative measures. The recent amendments to the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act have left gaping holes in Canada's protections for its ecosystems and habitats. We must remedy this situation immediately and strengthen these laws as quickly as possible.

[The Environment, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, a report released yesterday reveals that air pollution caused by the oil sands has been grossly underestimated.

This most recent warning makes it even more urgent to conduct impact studies on health and the environment in order to understand the effects of these projects on the people living in the communities affected.

Why are the Conservatives opposed to any attempt to conduct studies on the impact of these energy projects on people's health?

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and say that, like him, I believe it is very important to protect consumers from counterfeiting.

Unfortunately, we know that, in its 2012 budget, this government made $143 million in cuts to the CBSA, which undermines the capability of implementing this legislation. Again in 2012, the government cut the RCMP's funding by $195 million over three years.

Given these drastic cuts to security how can the bill be implemented effectively so that we can crack down on counterfeiting and make sure that Canadian consumers are protected?

[Adjournment Proceedings, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the response given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

To come back to what she said, some European countries will meet the Kyoto targets. If she thinks that Canada is the best example in the world, she needs to have another look at the models around her. Some countries in Europe have nearly met the Kyoto targets and are still part of that protocol.

What is shameful is that Canada was the first signatory to the Kyoto protocol to pull out of it. That is really not something to be proud of. I would not stand up in this House and say that we are proud of what Canada has done when it comes to the fight against climate change.

I also mentioned that there were other reports. The round table report, the World Bank report and the Environment Canada report were not the only ones. Numerous reports revealed that Canada would not meet the low Copenhagen targets.

If the Conservatives are saying that they will continue to do nothing and will meet the Copenhagen targets, there are two possibilities: either they can do magic and will use it to meet their targets, or they have a secret plan to combat climate change. If that is the case, I would like to hear about this plan, and I think the Canadian public would as well, because the existing plan is not working.

[Adjournment Proceedings, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question I asked in the House in November about climate change. I feel that the minister's response to my question was inadequate.

To begin, I would like to provide some background about what has happened in the fight against climate change since I was elected to the House of Commons.

In 2011, as we all know, a very important decision was made. The Government of Canada decided to pull out of the Kyoto protocol and, from that point on, it would try to meet the targets set out in the Copenhagen agreement.

Some people began to ask the Canadian government questions. For example, a report by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in 2012 stated that Canada would not meet its target and that it would even have difficulty meeting 50% of its target by 2020. Consequently, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy told the Conservatives in the current Canadian government that they needed to make far more significant changes and take more substantive measures if they wanted to meet their weak targets.

I should explain that the 2011 targets were rather significant. After 2011, the Conservatives adopted the Copenhagen agreement targets, which were quite low. They will not be enough to prevent the Earth's average temperature from increasing by 2°C, the threshold at which the changes will be irreversible and the human race will be in jeopardy.

What did the Conservative government do? It is simple. It decided to abolish the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy because it was useless. This was truly absurd, because it was the only round table that brought together the environment and the economy to move our country, Canada, toward a more sustainable economy. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not think that was a good idea.

That same 2012 report by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy mentions that if we do not act, it will cost Canada $50 billion. It will cost Canadian taxpayers more to wait than to take immediate action and invest in fighting climate change and adapting to that change.

In October 2013, Environment Canada issued a report. Even Environment Canada issued a report to tell the Canadian government and the Minister of the Environment that they would not achieve their low Copenhagen agreement target. Even Conservative government officials are telling the government that it will not achieve its low target.

However, the Conservatives continue to say that everything is fine, that I should not worry, because there is no problem. On top of that, we are still waiting for the targets for the oil and gas industry, which were promised ages ago.

When will we get those targets? When will we also get real measures and more measures to achieve the Copenhagen agreement's low targets and do even better? Otherwise, it will be disastrous for our pocketbooks.

[First Nations Elections Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for my colleague, and I will go ahead because what this bill shows is the Conservatives' attitude toward first nations. Again, this is a paternalistic attitude that aims to impose a decision rather than take into account the consultations held with first nations.

In the NDP, we are fortunate to have an excellent critic, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who discusses issues on a nation-to-nation basis. This very capable member has done a remarkable job on this file for several months using this nation-to-nation approach, which is very different from the Conservatives' paternalistic tactics.

Today at noon, there were protests outside Parliament to show the government that first nations want an approach that is more respectful of aboriginal rights and more in line with this practice that the NDP has begun to adopt, that is, a nation-to-nation approach.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether he thinks that the Conservatives, in this bill, showed respect for our first nations and what they asked for.

[Community Housing Project, December 2nd, 2013]

I also want to acknowledge Dominique Chevalier and the Rotary Club for the work they have done on this project that brings the whole community together.

[Community Housing Project, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to reiterate my support for a community housing project called Envolée des mères, which is particularly close to my heart.

This project helps young single mothers in the region and is backed by the Drummondville organization Partance. Together, we want to help improve the quality of life of low-income single mothers who want to return to school or re-enter the labour market.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are giving up on social housing by putting an end to long-term funding for the social housing stock in Canada.

The NDP will always be guided by the legacy of Jack Layton, who was a staunch defender of the right to housing. That is why I am proud to financially support this project. Jack Layton will be immortalized in Drummond, where a housing unit will bear his name.

[The Environment, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little angry. My honourable colleague, the parliamentary secretary, should not say that I do not know what I am talking about.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and I studied the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I can assure him that the list is new. The Conservatives are the ones who made that change and they are the ones who established a list that does not include in situ oil sands projects. They are the ones who excluded them.

There never used to be a list. Instead, there were triggers. When there was a trigger, we considered the in situ oil sands project. My colleague should not try to mislead me because I studied this issue for two years as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He should not say that I do not know what I am talking about because it makes me a little angry.

I do not intend to get angry at him because he is usually quite nice to me. However, he should not tell me that I am not familiar with this issue when I am quite knowledgeable on the subject. Before, when there was a trigger, we examined the in situ oil sands project. Now, the Conservatives have excluded those projects from the list, which is a very serious and dangerous thing. That is why we are speaking out about this and that is why I am saying that it is absolutely essential that in situ oil sands projects be included in the list or that we go back to using the trigger process that is set out in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

We also need to let people share their views with regard to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Right now, environmental groups basically no longer have the right to express their views on these projects.

[The Environment, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of the Environment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment responded to me a few weeks ago about in situ oil sands projects and federal environmental assessments.

In my question, I said that the Conservatives had dismantled the laws governing Canada's environmental assessment process. However, that was not enough to please their buddies in the industry. Now they are going even further to exempt in situ oil sands projects from any federal review, even though this kind of oil sands project is becoming more and more common, which is, in itself, a contradiction.

How do the Conservatives justify this decision, which does not seem informed and even seems dangerous? My hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, compared the in situ oil sands projects to blueberry washing facilities. I do not know where that idea came from.

The in situ oil sands projects are nothing like a blueberry washing facility. The level of danger is not the same. If polluted water is spilled, the problem will not be the same. I did not understand and I do not think I ever will understand how my hon. colleague could keep a straight face while comparing the oil sands to blueberries. He would have to explain it to me because I do not get it.

According to the Conservatives, environmental assessment is costly and results in delays. On the contrary, good environmental assessments save money in the long term and result in fewer delays as there is less to go on the defensive about in the event of legal action. The Conservatives must learn that the environment and the economy cannot be separated. They are inextricably linked. They strengthen society and make effective environmental assessments possible.

As they say, prevention is better than a cure. We must not wait for the damage to be done; we must prevent it. Unfortunately, this exemption for in situ oil sands projects does not do that.

The Conservative government is ignoring extensive discharging of materials harmful to the environment caused primarily by the oil sands industry. Millions of litres of toxic water are dumped with disastrous environmental consequences. This is due to the Canadian government's lax approach, which is based on a weak environmental assessment process.

Canadians are worried about the government's laissez-faire attitude towards environmental protection. They are worried about the potential impact on global warming. We should remember that the government recently went to Warsaw, where it embarrassed itself once again.

I would like to know why the Canadian government and the parliamentary secretary believe that it is a good idea to exempt in situ oil sands projects. I hope that they will not use the blueberry comparison again, as it is a ridiculous response.