Pierre Nantel

[Firearms Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very clear speech. I understand that he was expressing the point of view of his constituents, which is certainly relevant.

I represent a suburb of Montreal, so I do not really face this reality on a regular basis. He talked about how he and his son exchange firearms, following all the rules of course. Since I am not an expert, I wanted to ask him what someone who is familiar with firearms would have to say regarding the firearms used in the most recent attacks. He was quite right that criminals carry small firearms that they trade in an alley in the back of a truck. However, the hoodlums who have shot people recently have done so with firearms that, I think, are available in sporting goods stores, with a gun licence. What do hunters have to say about that? The vast majority of Canadians use firearms to hunt, which is an entirely noble activity. How do hunters react when they see hoodlums shooting all over the place with firearms that should never be sold freely?

[Firearms Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I find this to be a very sensitive topic and I do not know a thing about firearms, but I would like to ask my colleague about his reaction to the firearm classification system. He said that people would have to get arrested in order to challenge the way a firearm is classified. Therefore, I do not understand how the Ruger Mini-14, the firearm used at École Polytechnique, is not restricted.

I understand that prohibited handguns must be in a case and have to be safely transported when driving to the firing range. This is all controlled. But I do not understand why someone would want to shoot a hail of bullets at a duck. It is just a waste of ammunition. I do not see the point.

How is it that such weapons can be of interest to sport shooters? Would my colleague help me understand that?

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that the member obviously very much appreciates the interaction. He is enjoying it.

[Main Estimates, 2018-19, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, if the government is worried about finding $1.5 million, why not save $4.5 billion by not buying a rusty, leaky pipeline? Does the government not want to save that money?

Obviously, if I were an Albertan working in the oil sands, I would be happy with the Liberals' decision. However, what is so appalling about this situation is that the Liberals were unable to fulfill their role of coordinating between the provinces, so they decided to get out the strap, impose their will, and buy the pipeline.

Is my colleague planning to do the same sort of thing with energy east in Quebec? If so, I will be waiting for him with a strap too.

[Main Estimates, 2018-19, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech.

In good faith and with all due respect, I have a very simple question. What would the Conservative Party propose instead of the carbon tax?

[Main Estimates, 2018-19, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my timing is a bit off. The government is telling the others to stay on topic, but what I am interested in is precisely what is off topic.

Does my colleague acknowledge that the climate is changing drastically? What does she propose that we do about it? As long as we are off topic, let us go there.

[Main Estimates, 2018-19, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I hope things will calm down a bit here because it is going to be a long night.

As the transportation electrification critic for my party, I attended the electric vehicle show more than a year ago. The Minister of Transport was there to announce a transportation electrification strategy for Canada. Naturally, the entire community is trying to promote this to both consumers and manufacturers. In particular, we could support the people in Windsor who build the Pacifica Hybrid, a technologically advanced plug-in vehicle manufactured in Canada.

All these people would like to see policies that promote the electrification of transportation. Despite the minister's commitment, there is nothing for this in the budget or the supplementary estimates. It made a lot of sense, so this is very disappointing. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Main Estimates, 2018-19, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague is reading a classic of Quebec literature set on Île d'Orléans, I will ask my question in French.

I very much respect his knowledge of parliamentary procedure. I find his questions very interesting. Unfortunately, all I heard was the usual Liberal arrogance from the President of the Treasury Board, who casually told the member to just Google the information. Is this kind of royal arrogance not typical of this government?

The President of the Treasury Board essentially just told us to use technology to access the information. They are using modern technology as an excuse to avoid giving parliamentarians the information they need to do their jobs. We certainly must not bother his royal highness across the way.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for his speech.

Unfortunately, I think the Liberals are going to have to make an effort to explain their point of view. In his speech, the member said we need to send clear market signals. I am lost for words, because buying a leaky, overpriced pipeline does not send a clear market signal that things are changing in Canada.

If this government really wants to ensure that economic development goes hand in hand with natural resource development, it needs to show us that it is making progress on promoting cleaner extraction methods. This is a dialogue of the deaf. Some members are saying we must not implement a scary carbon tax, while others are saying we should implement it and then going off and buying pipelines.

Can we get some nuanced thinking? Could someone in the government tell us what the cleanest options for oil sands development are? I never hear anything about that, and buying a pipeline certainly does not send a clear market signal.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, whom I hold in high regard, for his speech and for providing a point of view definitely held by people elsewhere in the country. There is no doubt about that.

I truly appreciate his arguments and his approach to different issues. I understand that the figures must have come out, but I would still like to know what the environmental cost of doing nothing would be, if any. A carbon tax is an incentive that encourages businesses to reduce their carbon footprint and clean up emissions.

Is there something else we could do? For example, has the member heard of a cleaner way to develop the tar sands? Is that something he would like to see? I suppose I should use the term “oil sands” to eliminate the negative connotation.

Currently, this energy source is a monster emitter since domestic natural gas is used to heat the water, create steam, and extract the oil from the sand. Could he propose a solution other than this incentive, which is a proven solution?