François Choquette

[Ethics, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' record on ethics is looking worse and worse. Fraudulent calls made during the last election, the greatest electoral fraud in Canadian history, the story just keeps getting bigger. Their Minister of Industry has a frequent flyer card with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

One of their senators was named in a public inquiry into corruption for meeting with contractors accused of having Mafia ties. Their Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his parliamentary secretary got mixed up in fraudulent campaign donation scandals. They appointed Arthur Porter to a sensitive post where he saw all kinds of top secret documents. That same Arthur Porter had the top job at the McGill University Health Centre, a project tainted with corruption allegations.

Guess who the two people arrested in connection with the project gave thousands of dollars to? The Conservatives, of course. If they truly believe in law and order, the Conservatives should start by cleaning up their own backyard.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her wonderful speech. She gave a very good explanation of the nuclear dangers and the importance of addressing this issue, particularly since it meets a requirement for Canada, which signed the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism back in 2005.

The Conservative government took a long time to meet this requirement, which is part of the convention. What does the hon. member think of this delay, which does not really make sense?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. It is indeed very important to move this bill forward to stop the proliferation of nuclear threats.

As the hon. member clearly explained, the convention dates back to 2005. Canada was involved in its drafting. Its ratification was pushed back to the end of 2012. This legislation is important. However, it comes from the Senate. It is rather odd that the Senate is the one teaching a lesson to the Conservatives.

I thank my colleague for her speech on this issue, and I want to ask her what she thinks of how long it is taking to finally ratify this convention.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who does an excellent job in his riding, especially when it comes to agriculture.

There is absolutely nothing in this budget to protect the regions. The government could have suggested that we put the $1.3 billion back into the regions to create green jobs, jobs of the future and new technologies. That would have helped us.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we said it before: this process has been undemocratic since the beginning.

It was impossible to properly review over 60 pieces of legislation in an hour or two—barely three hours in the case of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. That is what we are fighting against, because it does not make any sense. We can play politics, but the real issue is that it is impossible to properly study this legislation in two or three hours. Bill C-45 should have been split into several bills. We could then have properly studied them in committee and we would have done a job worthy of a true democracy.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I did indeed rise on a point of order yesterday in committee to protest the way things were being done. It is undemocratic and it violates the rules of the House. The finance committee cannot transfer a responsibility to another committee, and a committee cannot report to another committee, because that is against the rules of the House. I rose in committee to address the undemocratic rules that the hon. member supported.

I mentioned two different things in my speech. First, I talked about climate change. Indeed, if we invested in green energy, we would create three times as many jobs. But the government would rather invest $1.3 billion in oil and gas companies that are already making billions of dollars. Just for the heck of it, the hon. member should try to explain that to his constituents and to Canadians.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition at all stages to the Conservatives' Bill C-45. Like most Canadians, the people in my riding are outraged by this undemocratic Conservative approach.

We are opposed to the content and to the undemocratic nature of this bill, which is very similar to Bill C-38, the other mammoth bill. Just as we opposed Bill C-38 then, we oppose Bill C-45 now. The contents of this bill will only increase social inequality in Canada. Moreover, the size of the bill, at over 400 pages, and the speed at which the Conservatives want it passed reveal the undemocratic nature of their methods.

Let us talk about the Conservatives' undemocratic methods. As I said, this bill is over 400 pages long and amends nearly 60 laws. That is why we asked the government to split the bill into a number of bills, so that each committee could deal with the amendments--some of them major—examine them carefully, hear from experts and make sure that reports on each act being amended were done in the proper form, with the necessary amendments.

It should have been done, but instead we had a pretense of consultation. A show, a masquerade. Ignoring the rules of the House of Commons itself, the Conservatives first refused to split the bill as we asked. Then the Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion to delegate its work. You heard correctly, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Finance delegated its work to a dozen committees so they could study--at top speed--the changes Bill C-45 proposes to various acts.

Personally, I was a witness to this pretense of a study, because I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I had to participate in this pseudo-study for just under three hours. Just imagine what the result was: all is well and perfect in the best of all possible worlds. What a surprise.

The same thing happened at other committees. Furthermore, in a November 8, 2012, article entitled Bill C-45: A total sham to save face, Manon Cornellier wrote:

Committees therefore had to scramble to find witnesses who could appear with just a few hours' notice. In the end, the committees had only a day or two to hold hearings. And once again, at almost all of the committees, the Conservatives used their majority to limit the matter to just one quick hour dedicated to hearing from public servants.

There is no doubt that if public servants had been drafting the amendments to the bills, they would not have proposed these amendments, based on the needs of the various groups in question. This was all just a sham, as indicated by the excerpt from Ms. Cornellier's article that I just quoted.

As I said, the people in my riding of Drummond are outraged and are wondering what the Conservatives' real motives are for ramming these changes through so quickly, without any analysis. What exactly are they trying to hide?

One of the many issues, as I mentioned earlier, is of course environmental protection. In my riding, people really care about protecting the environment. They want to develop the riding in such a way that makes Drummond a hub and a magnet for innovation in green technology.

Clearly, however, the Conservatives' changes in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 are weakening Canada's environmental laws and regulations more and more. In fact, Bill C-45 simply follows the same path as the Trojan horse bill, Bill C-38, introduced in the spring, by weakening environmental protections even further. For instance, it shuts down the round table on the environment and makes changes to environmental assessments.

And of course there is the Navigable Waters Act. That act is being completely trashed, and in a subjective, partisan way, I should add. I will explain what I mean by that in a moment.

Along the same line, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity is urging the federal government to think about the consideration being given to fossil fuel, as I mentioned earlier in my question. He says there must be a debate in Canada about this society-wide issue, because the increase in greenhouse gas emissions has to be included in the equation so that informed decisions can be made for all Canadians.

On the subject of our great Canadian Environmental Protection Act, I would like to point out in passing that yesterday, Canada added another fossil award to its collection at the Doha conference. That is proof that our environmental measures are a failure.

The bill also proposes two minor items in subsidies for fossil fuels, as I mentioned just now. They are going to take away a mere $10 million of the $1.3 billion they hand out every year. This is money that the people in my riding, Drummond, are handing over to subsidize billionaire oil producers and gas and coal producers, in addition to the money from the ecoEnergy program that is being diverted.

That is over $1.3 billion, nearly $2 billion, of taxpayer money that the people of greater Drummond want to see come back to their city to fund ecoenergy measures, the university, for example, the future plans for the exhibition centre and the library. They could have solar walls and green roofs, and they could use geothermal heating.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives prefer to give $1.3 billion to the oil companies, as if this were something that would support our environment and create jobs. In fact, we know very well that money invested in the environment creates three times as many jobs. So we would have three times as many jobs from that money if we invested it in green energy and the measures I referred to earlier.

The Navigable Waters Act is going to be trashed. Of the 37 heritage rivers, only 10 will be protected now. The bill reverses the responsibility, which will now rest with the public and municipalities. Municipal councillors in my riding have come to see me; they were outraged, and wanted to know what was going to happen to the Saint-François River. That river runs through greater Drummond and is no longer protected. If a project damages the environment, the municipal council will have to bring legal action to exercise its rights. Rights are often exercised once the damage is done. It is often too late to protect our environment. People are truly angry.

As well, on that point, if my colleagues are not aware, I am going to tell them: 90% of the laws for lakes designated as protected are in Conservative ridings. That is truly insulting, partisan and clumsy. I do not know what polite words I can use to describe this situation. It makes no sense. The people of Drummond are truly outraged to see how protection for our environment is being cut back once again.

I will end on that note, although I could say much more about Bill C-45, which is truly appalling. This bill makes no sense. This is an anti-democratic process that is going to hurt the environment, and hurt our economy. We could create three times as many jobs by investing in the green economy.

That is why New Democrats will continue to work hard to bring solutions to the House of Commons and stand up for Canadians.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

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

I would like to remind him that in 2009, as a member of the G20, Canada made a commitment to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels. Since then, nothing has happened. We are making no progress and, once again this year, accumulating more fossil awards.

What does this budget say about ending subsidies for fossil fuels? Instead of funding renewable energy, it gives more than $1.3 billion to major fossil fuel production corporations.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather strange to see this bill on transparency from a government that is the complete opposite of transparent.

They have muzzled us almost 30 times now and have prevented us from making speeches and debating bills. Here in the House, we can see that this government bill is strange, since it will not improve the precarious situation or the autonomy and development of the first nations.

What is this government's real objective in demanding something that it does not do itself? In fact, it is currently in court for having refused to provide information on the finance bill.

[Bullying, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to speak in support of the initiative brought forward by my NDP colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. His initiative involves developing a national bullying prevention strategy.

My colleague's motion, moved on October 15, 2012, remains current and extremely relevant, especially considering the growing number of suicides that have been linked to bullying. A very recent case comes to mind involving a teenager named Amanda Todd, from British Columbia, who was a victim of bullying. In her case and others, isolation at school can cause kids to drop out or, sadly, even worse, to commit suicide.

Considering the seriousness of the situation, we have a duty to take action, which is why it is so important, as my colleague's initiative proposes, to call on the government to examine the prevalence and impact of various kinds of bullying. A national bullying prevention strategy would also look at the best ways to go about tackling the problem. Creating a special committee is a wonderful idea for examining the problem of bullying in Canada.

In Drummondville, in my riding of Drummond, people are very active in the fight against bullying. Furthermore, we have an anti-violence committee that includes several organizations. The committee decided to create a subcommittee strictly dedicated to the fight against bullying. I have the honour of sitting on that committee and attending meetings with the goal of creating an effective bullying prevention strategy in Drummondville and the greater Drummond area.

On October 1, the anti-bullying committee, my team and myself organized an evening to fight bullying. The theme was “Bullying, let's talk about it”. Over 18 committees, organizations and educators were present. I want to name them because it is really important to show the scope of the event and the importance of having people from the greater Drummond area involved in the fight against bullying, which is a very complex issue. Everyone must take action against this problem. The Rose des vents de Drummond, PANDA Mauricie/Centre du Québec, the Maison Marie Rivier, the Centre d'écoute et prévention suicide Drummond, Marie-Reine Cercle 407, the AQDR Centre-du-Québec, Commun accord, the Sûreté du Québec, Judo Drummondville, the Centre d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels or CAVAC, the Collège Saint-Bernard, the Calacs La Passerelle, the GRIS-Mauricie/Centre-du-Québec, the Maison des jeunes de Saint-Charles and the Commission scolaire des Chênes, among others, were present.

All these people put their shoulders to the wheel to make this event a success. This allowed us to talk about bullying and to try to demystify its harmful effects. I am really proud that my community is tackling this issue.

Scientific literature shows that prevention yields better results than criminalization. It is important to realize that some of the most effective laws against bullying are provincial laws, for example in the field of education. However, the federal government must still act and show leadership on this issue. For example, cyberbullying is related to telecommunications, which is a federal jurisdiction. This national strategy to fight bullying should be developed in co-operation with the provinces, the territories, municipalities, schools, parents and young people.

The government should also follow the example of other countries that have made great strides in this regard. For example, the Finnish program KiVa is considered to be one of the world's best national programs against bullying. In Finland, the emphasis is on education. The program's objective is to influence and encourage people who witness bullying behaviour to intervene and put a stop to it. In cases of bullying, as an alternative to expelling the culprits, a dialogue takes place between the bully, his victim and other student witnesses. That is a good example of a government program in which education plays a key role in the fight against bullying.

Since 1994, the federal government in Sweden has been demonstrating leadership by requiring all schools to develop a plan to combat bullying. The United States government has set up a website that serves as a public information centre on bullying. In 2001, the American government also organized a conference and summit on bullying prevention. This event brought together many key stakeholders at all levels of government, experts, parents and young people.

It is important to see all the good things that are being done around the world to deal with bullying, which is a very serious problem. These things also help us to understand bullies better. Often bullies act the way they do because they are not comfortable in their own skin and they have low self-esteem. Witnesses often do not speak out against these offensive acts. Of course, there are also the victims, who are the first to suffer. This suffering does not always lead to suicide, since it is not always the most extraordinary and blatant suffering that is the most serious. Suicide is only the tip of the iceberg. The part of the iceberg hidden under the water is the true inner suffering of many people.

Over the years, the NDP has always been against bullying in all its forms. Unfortunately, history has shown us that the Conservatives do not really want to tackle the issue of bullying. Yet the provinces, community organizations and educational institutions need help. The federal government has to play a lead role in the fight against bullying. We hope that the government will show leadership and will finally work with the provinces, the territories, the educational community and even parents and youth. It is very important to involve youth in the fight against this very serious problem.

In fact, we are deliberately placing our youth in a vulnerable position. Stakeholders and experts are adamant about the need to promote education and prevention in order to combat bullying and cyberbullying. We need to address the root causes of the problem to better understand its complexity. To that end, the government must support initiatives to better train stakeholders from various communities.

However, the government must first reflect on the bullying phenomenon and attempt to fully comprehend it. For this reason, I am both proud and happy to support the motion moved by my colleague for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. We need a game plan. The government must stop wasting time and dragging its feet on this issue. Faced with the escalating number of unfortunate events triggered by bullying in this country, it is urgent that we act now.

It is for all these reasons that my colleague's proposed national bullying prevention strategy is such a wonderful initiative. It reflects the values that Canadians and the whole of the NDP caucus hold dear. I think back to the late Jack Layton, who did an outstanding job throughout his career fighting bullying and the exclusion of people because they are different. Let us try to remember that we are all different, in one way or another. We are all unique, we all have our role to play and our own identity.

It is important to make sure that everyone has the chance to express themselves and to grow. I am very glad to belong to a party that has had a leader like Mr. Layton, and now Mr. Mulcair; indeed, through his vision of a country where no one is left behind, where exclusion is unheard of, Mr. Layton has cultivated our desire to fight against bullying. That is why I am very proud to support this motion. I once again congratulate my colleague for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord on his motion.