François Choquette

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister spent all week saying that these changes to employment insurance would not have any negative effects on workers. But that is not the case, according to Regroupement de défense de droits sociaux de Drummond.

The stories of people who are losing out because of these inadequate reforms are pouring in. The new rules penalize Canadians and, more specifically, the least fortunate.

The Conservatives know this is true. Will they finally admit that and cancel the changes to the program?

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague for her excellent speech. I listened very closely to her speech and noted the current weakness that exists in the Canada Elections Act. We have been saying for quite some time now that good electoral legislation translates into a healthy democracy. And funding is the very basis of democracy. Basically, if some people have certain economic advantages, that can undermine a healthy democracy.

That is why I would like to ask my distinguished colleague for her views on the future of the Canada Elections Act. As she mentioned, this bill is merely a first step. Should we not have a complete overhaul of the Canada Elections Act, in order to ensure a strong, fair democracy?

[The Environment, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my distinguished colleague for her answer, in spite of the fact that I could talk about this for hours, because a lot of things have been said on this subject that are not true. However, I will be brief.

I am going to read part of a press release issued by Environment Canada:

Water use and contamination are at the top of the list of environmental concerns surrounding shale gas exploration in Canada, Environment Minister...was told earlier this year in an internal memorandum released on Monday.

What that says is not complicated. It means there is no transparency. Studies are done on the sly and serve the needs of the corporations, once again.

We are talking about greenhouse gases. If we want to combat greenhouse gases, what we specifically must not do is develop shale gas, because it is as polluting as coal.

Does my distinguished colleague, the parliamentary secretary, mean to say that we need to move toward more coal and more shale gas? Is that her solution for combatting greenhouse gases?

[The Environment, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Minister of the Environment or the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment on the issue of subsoil fracturing, and more specifically hydraulic fracturing for shale gas.

In my riding of Drummond, and everywhere in Canada, this issue is raising questions among Canadians. First, on the greenhouse gas emissions balance sheet, is shale gas as polluting as coal, as some studies have shown? Second, are the chemicals used by the industry a threat to Canadians’ health? Because a good dozen chemicals appear to be carcinogenic, according to a study released by the United States. Will rural communities have their underground water, the source of their drinking water, contaminated? These are all questions we have had no answers to, and there are a lot of other questions I could tell you about.

In fact, the truth is that we know nothing about the real impact of this industry. We know nothing about the impact on Canadians’ health, and we know nothing about the impact on the environment or on our biodiversity. Why is this Conservative government closing its eyes to the practices of this industry?

The federal government must make protecting the public its absolute priority. That is what its priority should be. I especially hope the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment is not going to tell us this is under provincial jurisdiction. I will show you, based on all the legislation relating to this, that that is not the case.

First, there is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Then we have the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Species at Risk Act, and the Federal Sustainable Development Act. All of these acts are Canadian environmental protection legislation that exists and that we should have, precisely to protect Canadians’ environment.

In keeping with the division of powers, and in cooperation with the provinces, the territories, the First Nations, environmentalists, scientists and the populations concerned, it is important that the federal government live up to its responsibilities, do the studies and exhibit some leadership in this area, where a lot of questions are going unanswered.

The evidence can be found in a study by the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto dated 2012, confirming that this power system threatens our water reserves in Canada. The study says:

...neither the National Energy Board nor Environment Canada have yet raised any substantive questions about the ‘shale gale’ or its impact on water resources.

Ultimately, it could threaten drinking water in the regions affected. From what I know, water is a resource to which we must pay very close attention, and we must be fully aware of its importance. It is a vital need.

Another study stresses air pollution and this industry’s disastrous track record when it comes to greenhouse gases. It is apparently as polluting as coal.

This brings me to my question. What, exactly, is the government waiting for to require an immediate public study of shale gas and its impact on the environment and on health?

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Etobicoke North for her excellent speech and for raising a very important subject.

We have to tackle child and student hunger. Years ago, we promised to fight and defeat child poverty. Investing in health is not a waste of money; it is an investment. That money can prevent the harmful effects of all kinds of social problems caused by child poverty. We have to focus on health and education.

My question for my colleague is very simple. She has actually already commented on this. Why does she think the Conservatives are refusing to support the health and well-being of our children? What is preventing them from taking care of our children?

[Petitions, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of presenting a petition that supports the member for Trinity—Spadina in her request for a national public transit strategy. The people who signed this petition are in favour of a national public transit strategy, which will surely help everyone across Canada fight pollution, among other things.

[Petitions, June 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the people of Acadie—Bathurst. This petition is signed by 2,248 individuals who are angry about the changes to employment insurance in Bill C-38, including provisions that will weaken entire economic sectors across the country and penalize seasonal workers in the region.

[Fisheries and Oceans, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is trying to create obstacles for anyone who wants to move forward at the Rio+20 summit on sustainable development. After opposing the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, now the Conservatives are blocking efforts to protect marine biodiversity in extraterritorial waters. Just because the Conservatives have decided to destroy Canada's marine biodiversity with Bill C-38 does not mean they have to attack that of the rest of the world.

Why are the Conservatives determined to obstruct a project that could protect the oceans for future generations?

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise again today to speak to Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying). In the little time I have left today, I will focus primarily on good examples of action taken by the community in my riding of Drummond to fight bullying and cyberbullying.

In my riding, the Sûreté du Québec is very committed to the fight against violence and bullying. Officer Daniel Jutras visits schools and gives presentations to raise awareness. Mr. Jutras does an excellent job. He has made several presentations this year, at schools in Saint-Cyrille-de-Wendover and Saint-Germain-de-Grantham among others, as a result of the hard work of parent and citizens' committees.

In Saint-Germain-de-Grantham, the Groupe de soutien d'aide aux victimes d'intimidation, a parent-run committee in the town, organized an evening presentation on bullying. It was a great success: many people attended, and young and old alike showed keen interest.

Bullying affects society as a whole. It is very important to adopt a preventive—rather than a legislative and punitive—approach to bullying. Our work must really focus on prevention. There are a lot of people doing just that in my riding. For example, there is a parents' committee of the Des Chênes school board that had as its guest Jasmin Roy, the founder of the Jasmin Roy Foundation, and an anti-bulling advocate. He came to Drummondville and gave an excellent presentation. Once again, both young and old were interested in his presentation. Everybody had questions or comments on the issue. As a society, this issue concerns us all.

I think that it is important that all levels of government get involved in the fight against bullying and cyberbullying. Not only is it a hot-button issue, it is an age-old societal problem that must be addressed, so that we can live in a better society.

If time permits, I would also like to say that it is important to understand bullying in order to address it. Human beings need to learn to live together with all their differences; the great riches of humanity are to be found in its plurality and diversity. I think that this fits in well with our goal of combatting bullying and cyberbullying through prevention. That is the first step, and everybody needs to get on board.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the hon. member, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. His speech was a great disappointment to me, especially since he spoke about the Fisheries Act, which is going to be amended. We know that the amendment of this bill is an aberration and that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will not even be able to study it.

This bill attacks fish habitat in such a ways that only fish that are valuable to humans will be protected. Nevertheless, all fish feed and live in an ecosystem. If we do not protect the fish that they eat or the ecosystem in which they live, how will we be able to protect any fish over the long term?

The change to this legislation is a total aberration. We are going back years—50 years even—in terms of environmental protection. And this is only one of many examples.

Abandoning the Kyoto protocol and doing nothing to fight against climate change is also an incredible aberration. We must not exceed more than 2% in global warming over the next few years.

I wonder what there is in this bill to protect the environment and fight against climate change.