Pierre Nantel

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to say something after hearing my colleague across the aisle speak for so long.

Evidently, his rhetoric lacks nuance. It is like a horn blaring, whether he is talking about the noodles he had at lunch or about the worst scandal ever to involve a Minister of Finance. It is appalling to see such an important thing trivialized. The hon. member cannot say that we should trust the Minister of Finance and praise him for all the wonderful things he has done. Come, now, it is a huge conflict of interest, one for the history books.

I would like to ask my colleague if he can get the message across to the people around him that the problem is serious. They do not seem to realize it at all.

Is my colleague on automatic pilot as usual, or does he really understand what is going on?

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He is quite the orator; it should be said from time to time.

However, beyond the litany of offences to democracy showcased in the many examples he gave involving the government, it is really beyond the pale to think that the Minister of Finance would work on Bill C-27, which benefited him directly, without first placing his assets in a blind trust.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that.

[Canadian Heritage, October 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is not the only one who is out of touch. Unfortunately, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is too.

On Tuesday, in response to a report in which the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage called for concrete action for the cultural and media sectors, the minister said she was exploring the options. After two consultations, three reports, and 3,000 people consulted over a period of 18 months, it seems to me she should have the lay of the land by now. The situation is critical, and the minister must act now. Instead, she is passing the buck to the CRTC so it can explore the options a year from now.

To do her job, she needs to see that this is urgent. When will she wake up and listen to the people she is supposed to protect?

She is the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague opposite talk about the folks in British Columbia being happy with the work that has been done.

In reality, colleagues of mine who represent communities that rely on forestry tell me their constituents are constantly saying the government does not seem to be listening to them.

Honestly, I have to say that this Conservative opposition day is pretty pathetic, because they are the ones who let the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement expire without a murmur. The Liberals are just as bad, having taken no action for two years.

The member for Jonquière said that the specialty paper manufactured in Jonquière is overtaxed due to countervailing duties. You have unquestionably been dragging your heels on this issue, and frankly, the other side has not done much better.

Did you hear the member for Jonquière when she asked this kind of question, or did you forget, just like you forgot your finance minister's villa?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague. The people of South Okanagan—West Kootenay are very well represented. The forestry sector is too. I can see a whole lot of young people here today watching the debate in the House of Commons. Now, they know how to spot an MP who does a good job representing his region and the industry that defines it. Actually, it could be said that this industry defines Canada as a whole.

The member for Jonquière also does great work. She has often raised issues having to do with the NAFTA discussions, like supercalendered paper and the devastating countervailing duties it is subject to, a most important issue for the Lac-Saint-Jean region and the 12,000 jobs the industry supports.

I would like to know, does my colleague not find it disheartening to see that, after two years, halfway through its mandate, as was mentioned, the government has mostly indulged in spin and PR work without ever doing any real work? The effects of the government's inaction have become apparent after two years. Does my colleague not agree?

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that my colleague oopposite would use metaphors that could so easily be turned against his party. He talked about how people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Well, maybe the Liberals themselves should heed that old saying, but in their case, it would not be a glass house, it would be a glass villa.

In recent weeks, the government has been going after small businesses and poor people, turning a blind eye to all manner of tax evasion, and, worst of all, tolerating behaviour like that of the Minister of Finance. The fact that he did not disclose how deeply he was involved in the pension fund business when he was making laws affecting that very sector is unacceptable. The Liberals should choose their metaphors carefully.

Does my esteemed colleague see the shame in waiting until now to lower the small business tax rate from 10.5% to 10% and to 9% in the coming years? This is a bald-faced attempt to distract us from the villa issue and the fact that the minister did not disclose everything to the commissioner.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his very eloquent speech.

I have to acknowledge that I approve of the wording of this opposition motion. However, I would have preferred to have devoted one hour rather than a whole day to this common occurrence, as important as it may be. That is too bad. It is obvious that the Minister of Finance should have complied with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's requests. It is an unacceptable omission on the part of the person holding that office.

This is also an opportunity for me to reveal that the government stooped so low as to promise to reduce the small business tax rate from 10.5% to 10% and then to 9%, and then waited until there was a crisis to make good on its promise. The SMEs in our ridings have been waiting a long time for this election promise to be kept.

Does my colleague not find it appalling that our SMEs are getting a consolation prize?

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but admire such amazing footwork.

I hope the Liberal Party's communications team fully appreciates just how much we believe the hon. member, whom we hold in high regard, is speaking in good faith. We sense in his voice that he wants to do politics differently. However, his voice is being used to justify the indefensible.

The Liberal Party's website states:

After a decade of Stephen Harper, Canadians' faith in government has never been lower. The reason is simple: Canadians do not trust their government...

How can we trust you and your reassuring tone when, just today, as the finance minister's French villa just happens to be under fire, you come out with a new policy for cutting small business taxes? How can we be expected to trust you, honestly?

[Canadian Heritage, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, for 18 months, the Minister of Canadian Heritage consulted with all the stakeholders of our cultural ecosystem without ever listening to them. All the stakeholders were clear: our culture is on the line here and now. However, the minister did not listen. She chose to offload the hard decisions on the CRTC, which will get to it in June 2018. Come on, this is an emergency.

Furthermore, Le Devoir revealed on Friday that even the deputy minister warned the minister that giving a free pass to web giants was not viable. However, the minister did not listen to him either.

Does the minister only listen to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and lobbyists, or does she ever only listen to herself, in the end?

[Canadian Heritage, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, how naive. It is incredible.

The free pass that was given to Netflix does not pass muster in Quebec. Everyone is speaking out against it: the National Assembly, the Union des artistes, even our entrepreneurs such as Peter Simons who points out that local businesses, our entrepreneurs, are doing their fair share. Everyone is against this and yet the minister says she is proud of her work. Something does not add up. As Gérald Fillion says, it is as though she were not listening to us.

Quebeckers are calling for a real cultural policy and businesses are calling for a real tax policy, but the minister is so proud.

How can she be proud of such a failure?