Alexandrine Latendresse

[Quebec Bridge, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is really disappointing, especially considering that in 2005, the Prime Minister himself made fun of the Liberals, saying that they could not even get a bridge painted.

Now that the Superior Court ruling clearly shows that the federal government must do its part, will the government prove that it can get the Quebec Bridge painted?

[Quebec Bridge, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec City, we have a bridge in need of a paint job. Wednesday's ruling by the Quebec Superior Court clarifies matters, if nothing else. CN and Transport Canada have to stop passing the buck.

The federal government is now obliged to respect the agreements signed in 1997 in the context of privatizing the bridge.

Will the minister respect this ruling and get the Quebec Bridge painted?

[Canada Revenue Agency, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last week we learned that a group of ornithologists was scrutinized by Revenue Canada, on the grounds that the group was not following the rules regarding political activities.

For most Canadians, a group of birdwatchers that informs its members about the Conservatives' disastrous environmental decisions is simply exercising its freedom of expression. For the Conservatives, this is an opportunity to make anyone with a different opinion pay.

To use the same rhetoric the Conservatives used during the firearms debate, why criminalize law-abiding duck watchers and other ornithologists?

Now we know that the Conservatives are willing to do anything to silence their opponents, even if it means using the Canada Revenue Agency as a scarecrow.

If the government keeps on infringing on fundamental freedoms and conducting witch hunts, it could see its wings clipped in the next election.

[Copyright, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that Michael Geist also condemned the minister's stunt and said that the Conservative government is creating a misguided exception in its own interest.

As it turns out, even the only person the minister could find does not agree at all. In general, when people misquote, it is because they have something to hide.

Why does the government want to change the law to serve the Conservative Party's partisan interests, like it recently did with the unfair elections act?

[Copyright, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to change the law so that Conservatives can use media content without asking broadcasters' permission.

When asked whether any experts at all supported their initiative, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said that Michael Geist agreed with them. Once again, they are trying to mislead us by quoting an academic out of context.

Is the minister aware that Michael Geist himself criticized the government on this file?

[Copyright, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect this government to bring in legislation that is in the best interest of everyone. The Conservatives, however, prefer legislation that is only in their interest. We saw this with their electoral “deform”, which was tailor-made for the Conservative Party's needs.

Now they want to do it again by changing the legislation to be able to use content that belongs to broadcasters in their political attack ads.

Can the Minister of State for Democratic Reform name a single independent expert who recommended this change?

[Electoral Reform, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in their unfair elections act, the Conservatives got rid of the Commissioner of Canada Elections with no reasonable explanation.

Some asked a very valid question about the cost of this administrative fiasco deemed useless by all the committee witnesses, including the commissioner himself. The Conservatives did not want to answer, claiming cabinet confidence. That is ridiculous.

Can the minister explain why he refuses to tell Canadians what he does with their money?

[Iraq, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when Canada could already be helping to save lives by providing humanitarian aid and assisting refugees, the Prime Minister would rather get involved in a war without an exit date or an exit strategy.

The Prime Minister has clearly not learned from history and is heading down a slippery slope by getting involved in a new war in Iraq. He is trying to mislead Canadians in order to convince them that Canada should go to war. He is saying that a combat mission is the only way to help fight the Islamic State armed group, even though Italy, Germany and a number of other allies have found other ways to help. He is asking for a six-month mandate, but his Minister of National Defence has already opened the door to an extension of the military mission. He is boasting about a UN resolution even though the UN has not taken a position on a combat mission.

It is sad to see the Prime Minister embroiling Canada in a new war in Iraq. The NDP believes that we can contribute to the coalition against terrorism in Iraq by focusing on what Canada does best.

Contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, bombing or doing nothing are not the only options.

[Health, October 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, despite what the parliamentary secretary said yesterday, and despite what we heard earlier today, it is not true that the World Health Organization is blocking the shipment of vaccines to Africa.

In fact, the WHO said yesterday:

Given the public health need...WHO regards the expedited evaluation of all Ebola vaccines...as a high priority.

The WHO says that the Canadian vaccine is one of the most promising. Why is the Conservative government still dragging its feet?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for his speech. I am always very happy to discuss issues like this with him. I respect the member very much because he brings a lot of substance to debates, and that is the case again today.

I listened closely to his speech, and I found it very interesting that, basically, this rule already exists, albeit informally.

Last week, the government gave a totally irrelevant answer to a member's question; the answer had nothing to do with the question. I am not talking about content or an answer that was not satisfactory.

If topics have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, which is what happened last week, what solutions does he offer to ensure that Canadians watching question period do not feel let downdo not say that what is going on in the House makes no sense at all?

I know that he thinks this is a very important situation and that he would like to see improvements.

How, then, does he see it? What solutions can he come up with?