Pierre Nantel

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I can certainly understand his point of view, which may sometimes differ from ours. However, one thing is for certain: he has a sincere and documented concern. It is a health and safety matter, and I obviously appreciate the member's thoroughness.

I cannot help but notice how the government is constantly in a spin. Earlier, Liberal members were saying that profits from the sale of drugs were going to the mafia and organized crime. Everyone knows that. What is sad is that the Liberals are living in la-la land, as the member said. The Liberals are telling Canadians that they are going to fix all this, that everything is fine, that it is nothing but sunny ways when it comes to this issue.

Does the member not think it is pathetic that the bill does not at all reflect his sincere desire to protect people on the roads and to ensure that there is a set regulatory framework in place? The government is going to flounder around at the expense of Canadians, municipalities, and the provinces, and lives will be lost on our roads.

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that well-documented speech.

My understanding is that everyone will end up paying for this vague and arbitrary approach.

Does he agree that the whole country, all of the municipalities, and all of the provinces will end up paying for an election promise that was nothing more than a flight of fancy, a tasty treat tossed out on the fly to tempt voters?

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Caution is definitely needed here. It seems to me that this government is obsessed with this promise to legalize cannabis. This is having a domino effect on health and safety.

For some time now, officials have been having a hard time assessing the potential dangers and problems associated with drug-impaired driving. It is much more complicated than measuring blood alcohol concentration, with a legal limit of 0.08%.

The framework here is very flimsy, as though it were made of papier mâché. I remember something a librarian told me when I was little. I was told not to return books to the shelf just anywhere, but rather to leave them on the table, because books returned to the wrong shelf can never be found again.

The Liberals are improvising when it comes to important safety standards and they are going to create a nice little framework. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. The Liberals have introduced a botched bill and are telling us to simply trust them, as usual, because they are royalty and they know better.

[Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the CRTC pulled the rug out from under the feet of everyone in the country by cutting funding for Canadian and French-language content, with disastrous consequences.

Three days later, three original series were cancelled in Quebec. It is wrong, but it is legal because the CRTC is allowing it to happen. Even the Quebec minister of culture has asked the CRTC to go back to the drawing board.

This weekend, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to remind her that the government can step in and refer a decision back to the CRTC in exceptional cases such as this one, which is threatening our entire cultural industry.

In this exceptional circumstance, can we count on the minister to refer these ill-advised decisions back to the CRTC? Can independent producers, the artisans of our culture, count on her?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his approach.

Of course, I found his speech to be a bit ingenuous. I can understand that perhaps the member lacks experience, but the government is putting on a white hat, as if it were flawless and above reproach. It is acting as if it were royalty, as if it were omniscient and had a divine gift. The truth is that this government has been sitting on this bill for a year now.

Now, all of a sudden, Parliament has to hurry up. We are under a lot of pressure because the government imposed time allocation before sending this bill to the Senate. Our right to speak to this bill has once again been restricted. The government sat back and did nothing for a year and now it is forcing us to quickly debate this bill.

I would like to know what the member thinks about that.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Knowing how good the government is at communications in general, since it just made Canadians' heads spin with two great press releases, what reason is there for limiting the time for debate today? Is the government just trying to cover up the fact that it has been asleep at the switch for nearly a year?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, how can my colleague explain the fact that this legislation was forgotten on a shelf for nearly a year and that the House now has to rush to make a decision? The Liberals are saying that this is urgent, but they have been asleep at the switch for nearly a year.

What happened?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his very coherent answer to the questions asked. He is very knowledgeable about labour issues, the right to unionize, and collective bargaining.

Just now, I clearly heard him ask the government why it took its time on this bill. There is an inexplicable 11-month delay. Some members are saying that they should not take sides in this matter.

I would like my colleague to tell us, then, how exactly the government can justify such a delay. Either it was incompetent or lazy, or it acted out of self-interest.

[The Environment, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, following the Volkswagen diesel engine scandal, the U.S. government had Volkswagen agree, as part of the settlement, to inject $2 billion into charging stations for electric vehicles.

In Canada, we are still waiting for the results of Environment and Climate Change Canada's investigation.

My question is very simple. Can the minister undertake to have Volkswagen invest some money in Canada's networks of charging stations?

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which is indeed based on such relevant experience. He represents Quebeckers and the municipalities in Quebec well.

It is atrocious that we are getting these dribs and drabs of information about a project of this size that is supposed to provide structure and could do precisely that, but that ultimately seems to serve the interests of high finance. It is such an important project, but it has been stuffed into an omnibus bill and we will not have time to talk about it as we should.

According to these dribs and drabs of information, a board of directors is already being set up, and applications are being taken. However, $30 billion of our money, the public’s money, is being invested in this bank.

Who, then, will represent the public on that board of directors?