Pierre Nantel

[Business of Supply, September 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his point of view, although it reflects a bit of an alternate reality. It is possible to see things from another perspective.

I would remind members that for Quebeckers who need social housing, it was Paul Martin's Liberal government that decreed that every Canadian had a right to suitable housing and decided to take action in that direction. The situation has only deteriorated since then. When it comes to funding for social housing, it has been nothing but a downward spiral.

According to FRAPRU, the right to housing is the cornerstone to ensuring that a number of other rights are respected. It can help meet many other needs, which is consistent with my colleague's vision regarding housing first. However, that is not the reality. At the Longueuil municipal housing bureau, the wait list for social housing is not counted in weeks or months, but rather in years. No joke.

We hear the Liberals crow about their royal benevolence on every possible issue and towards all of their subjects in Canada.

Did the parliamentary secretary or the Minister of Families bother to meet with the people who walked for four weeks with their backpacks, sleeping in school gymnasiums every night, to reach Parliament Hill? Do they not think that perhaps they should have met with those people?

[Business of Supply, September 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. This is obviously an issue that the NDP cares a lot about. It is also particularly relevant to Longueuil—Saint-Hubert since housing is part of everyone's daily life.

I want to point out that this is the 10th anniversary of all of the social developments in the greater Longueuil area. There are three key founding members, namely Sonia Jurado, Mary Claire MacLeod and Hanh Lam. These three individuals were directly involved in absolutely fantastic projects, such as Terrasse Mousseau, a community housing project that is currently under way. It involves the renovation of 170 units that were in a state of complete disrepair. These homes were unfit to live in, but they are being fixed up little by little by relocating people, renovating the units and creating a new living environment. The project is currently in progress. We hope that everything continues to go well because it is a really well-run project.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the situation that she talked about at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

It is important to remember that, from 2006 to 2013, 45,000 social housing units were affected by the expiry of CMHC agreements. In 2017, the number of households affected was over 140,000. I am thinking, for example, of a woman I met through FRAPRU. She was about 82 years old. She told me that she had been evicted because she lost her social housing subsidy.

When will the CMHC get involved in that case? What does my colleague think about that, since it is her government that is asleep at the switch on this?

[Business of Supply, September 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to the Canada-Quebec agreements. I had the chance—anyone could have joined in—to walk with the people from FRAPRU, the Quebec social housing coalition, who left Ottawa roughly a month ago to travel to Quebec City. They will arrive in Quebec City tomorrow. They walked 550 kilometers and stopped in all sorts of towns and villages along the way to talk about social housing.

I had the opportunity to welcome them back home in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, where we walked 1% of the journey together. These people have deep convictions and they are walking on behalf of an entire community of people who need social housing.

In Longueuil—it is not for nothing that they stopped by—there are major housing challenges. The waiting lists are appalling. My team was on the phone with a friend in my riding who is a young professional, a single parent with two children. She came to see my team because she could no longer make ends meet. She pays $1,000 a month in rent.

These situations are commonplace in Longueuil. Fortunately, there are fantastic solutions. People have stepped up. The people on this walk were invited, for example, to have breakfast at Habitations Paul-Pratt, Manoir-Trinité, where seniors have been able to find great social housing and a wonderful quality of life. That is important. These are urgent needs.

I am wondering why we are talking about this today when the government made some lofty promises about great funding, which we were very pleased with. However, 90% of this money will only be disbursed after the government is re-elected. I believe it is horribly Machiavellian to deal with these issues in this way. I can say the same thing about cultural issues. I just blasted the Minister of Canadian Heritage because his committee will release a report in 2020, after the election. That is just appalling. The needs exist right now.

Why does the government not see what people across Canada and especially in Longueuil are dealing with?

[Canadian Heritage, September 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister answered my question with some old material about his commitment to our cultural industries.

It has been a year since the Netflix agreement was announced, and key players in our cultural industry have already confirmed to CBC/Radio-Canada what we knew from the start. This was a stunt that benefits web giants instead of forcing them to broadcast and fund our original cultural productions.

Our creators are tired of waiting, but the minister said that we have to wait for the panel to submit its report in 2020. That is five years too late.

Does the minister understand how urgent this situation is or is he going to regurgitate the same talking points as his predecessor? We are going to disappear.

[Accessible Canada Act, September 19th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech, but especially for his dedication to this file.

When Quebeckers hear the name Pierre Nadeau, they think of a great journalist who had a following on television and radio, but in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Pierre Nadeau, above all else, is known as a prominent, social neighbour who loves to talk. I am not sure exactly what kind of disability he has, but he has some form of aphasia. He gets around using a mobility scooter and he is very active. He is a development officer at AILIA, a Quebec association whose mission is to make housing, including social housing, more accessible for those who need it.

Nearly half a million people in the greater Longueuil area do not have access to the Montreal metro because there is no elevator access to the Longueuil metro platform. Even if, by some miracle, someone manages to get on, there is no elevator at the central hub, Berri-UQAM.

Does my colleague think that this new legislation will fix these unjust situations?

[Canadian Heritage, September 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the recent Gémeaux awards reminded us of the work of several generations of Quebeckers to capture our culture on film. The problem is that this work is in jeopardy. Our youth are growing up with Netflix and YouTube, multinationals that obviously do not care about the future of our language or our culture.

The former minister of Canadian Heritage spent three years figuring out that urgent action is needed and then did nothing in the end.

Will the Prime Minister stop interfering and let his new Minister of Canadian Heritage do his job and take action right now and before the next election?

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as a member from Quebec, I really miss the loud fanfare that rang out whenever the Montreal Canadiens won the Stanley Cup. However, when I hear the member for Winnipeg North, it takes me back to those days and I appreciate his loud trumpeting.

Today, however, I find it somewhat disturbing to see how proud the Conservatives are of negotiating such a terrible agreement. Schedule II of the consolidated TPP text states, and I quote:

Canada reserves the right to adopt or maintain a measure that affects cultural industries and that has the objective of supporting, directly or indirectly, the creation, development or accessibility of Canadian artistic expression or content, except:

(a) discriminatory requirements on service suppliers or investors to make financial contributions for Canadian content development; and

(b) measures restricting the access to on-line foreign audio-visual content.

If I produced Canadian content and if I were in Quebec and producing a series like Fugueuse, which has been life-changing for some people, I would be worried.

Is the member for Calgary Forest Lawn reassured by these ridiculous schedules, which are essentially worthless, as demonstrated in the case of Guatemala?

These schedules are supposed to guarantee that we will maintain control of Canadian content on Quebec productions. I hope he can tell me who is to blame, the Conservatives or the Liberals. It makes no difference.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

How many times have we decried the fact that the public was kept in the dark about these negotiations? I had to learn, because I am not an expert. The purpose of debate is to learn and move forward. We are in Parliament.

How is it that in the United States the two main parties are represented in the negotiations? This helps us better understand the complicated issues surrounding this agreement.

How come you never allowed anyone outside your sacrosanct government to be there?

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, did I really hear my colleague opposite say that if there were only New Democrats, we would still be going around doing business with horse-drawn carts? Is that really how you understand our concerns? That is abysmal. Allow me to officially insult you and to call you a blowhard and a moron. I will apologize later, but I am telling you what I think. I am happy that the Speaker was not listening at that precise moment.

It is pathetic to see you depicting yourselves as heroes by stating that you negotiated perfectly—

[Firearms Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we all hope that this is one of the last debates in the House tonight. I am pleasantly surprised because we are having an interesting conversation about the varying realities across Canada's different regions.

I understand that my colleague is opposing what might be seen as a registry. If someone said that all semi-automatic weapons were prohibited and therefore not readily available, I would think that an easing of the rules is possible.

Does my colleague think that firearms users would understand that firearms which can shoot multiple rounds from a magazine need to be prohibited and not be available for unrestricted sale? If those firearms were not available for sale, would a registry still be necessary?