Pierre Nantel

[Tobacco Act, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and especially for her efforts to speak French.

Earlier, I was thinking about e-cigarettes and wondering whether the members across the way feel the same way I do, that we must ensure that e-cigarette advertising does not lead anyone to believe that it might be a good idea to smoke e-cigarettes, and that they are a safe alternative to tobacco.

Would you agree to regulations prohibiting the use of a prestigious, internationally known tobacco trademark on such devices? Do you think it is imperative to regulate this alternative product, these e-cigarettes?

[Tobacco Act, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. St-Hubert is the BBQ chicken place. I am just kidding around.

I would like to thank my colleague for her speech about something that is part of everyday life for so many people. Like many others, I too smoked for a long time. Fortunately, I never tried vaping, because personally, I think it can have the same hold on people as cigarettes.

As my colleague explained, a lot of people get excited about vaping and use their e-cigarettes as much as they would otherwise smoke cigarettes. I have seen plenty of excellent smoking cessation ads that depict people outside in -20 degree Celsius weather smoking a cigarette in the snow and cold. People still do that with e-cigarettes.

My colleague mentioned that she is in regular contact with two addiction prevention centres in her riding, so I can see that she knows whereof she speaks.

I would like her to comment on what we can do to prevent young people from thinking it is cool to vape. E-cigarettes come in a wide variety of styles, and it always surprises me that they are sold in certain types of places, often located near other businesses that I would not necessarily want my children patronizing. I think this issue is very important, and I hope I am not pushing my luck by talking about this.

I think this is a very relevant issue nowadays, and I would like my colleague to comment on it, given that she seems to know much more about it than I do.

[Canadian Heritage, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage why she did not respond to the letter sent to her by the Quebec ministry of culture on September 3, which asked for more information about the agreement with Netflix and the lack of francophone content. That letter was sent exactly one month ago, and Quebec has still not received any answers.

I have not received any answers either. The minister's press secretary was embarrassed to have to tell journalists later that she would get back to them soon. Come on. Let us be clear. Our cultural industries are in crisis and the government needs to wake up. It is dragging its feet on critical issues, especially where Quebec is concerned.

Is that how the government treats the Quebec ministry of culture?

Is it so hard to answer an email?

Does the government not know how to answer or does it just not care?

[Tobacco Act, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything about e-cigarettes in all of that information.

Does the government intend to make a distinction between e-cigarettes and regular tobacco products when it comes to advertising and branding?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very well documented speech. He provided a very nice overview of the current economic situation.

I was also pleasantly surprised to hear him talk about the savings we might make that could help us provide, for example, a more affordable education to our young people. I commend him on that.

I am sure I know the answer, but does my colleague think that combatting tax evasion is one of the things the Liberals have yet to address? We see incredible cases of tax evasion in Canada, but it is also being done right before our eyes in the House of Commons.

[Canadian Heritage, October 31st, 2017]

Clearly they are selling out our culture, Mr. Speaker.

The curtain is being pulled back on the snarl of lobbies funded by California and Silicon Valley. When we think of Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, and all these people, we understand why the minister of heritage is now talking about the business model for our culture. We naturally have no opportunity to hear from the cultural coalition, and the minister has not responded to the letter from the Quebec government, which was sent a month ago. That is pathetic.

Microsoft hired a former Liberal Party director and the heritage minister hired a former Google executive as her chief of staff.

Are conflicts of interest contagious?

[Canadian Heritage, October 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this morning La Presse reported that Netflix hired three lobbying firms that met with Canadian Heritage officials four times in five months this spring. According to the Registry of Lobbyists, over the past two years, they have had 11 separate opportunities to chat with three different departments and with the Prime Minister's Office. They did not waste any time; they know very well who calls the shots here. All these consultations are great, but clearly, they are merely a gimmick. Who is the government consulting when it comes to culture? Apparently, the Americans.

Is this preferential treatment for Netflix and web giants part of the minister's vision, or just an idea from the lobbyists camped out in the Prime Minister's Office?

[Canadian Heritage, October 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, members of the expert panel set up by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to advise her on her cultural policy have spoken out in a Radio-Canada article. They wonder whether they wasted their time, or worse, if the government only ever saw them as token advisers, since the Minister of Canadian Heritage neither listened to nor consulted them on the deal with Netflix. After 3,000 testimonials, 252 briefings, and 18 months of consultations, the Liberals refuse to listen to anyone, including the community, the experts, the deputy minister, and even the minister herself, according to the news.

Who was the Prime Minister listening to when he decided to sell out Canada's cultural sovereignty?

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague opposite is once again bragging about the virtues of his government's various economic reforms. However, today, we are talking about a serious ethical issue, a conflict of interest. I would like him to talk about the subject at hand.

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I quite liked the member for Barrie—Innisfil's question, because the government really does seem to be sending out members who, in good conscience, say that they have confidence in their government.

Like all Canadians, they had confidence. Naturally, no one thinks the Minister of Finance would do this. However, he did. That is a fact. We will go down in history for debating the biggest conflict of interest case ever seen in the House. All of the mid-term reports make it clear what kind of media storm you are in. You have lost control. You are sending out young members of Parliament to try to make excuses for the inexcusable. That is not right.