Pierre Nantel

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not have the kind of practical experience with this that my colleague opposite has. Logically, the committee's mandate should be to oversee the activities of our security and intelligence agencies. This talk about looking for a needle in a haystack makes it clear that the last thing we need is more hay, yet this committee would have more hay to search through to find mistakes, would it not?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to this subject on behalf of my Longueuil—Saint-Hubert constituents. International issues such as cultural diversity, global warming, and tax evasion are all serious issues that demand international co-operation. Now, unfortunately, that list includes terrorism and a host of other activities that call for close monitoring.

I am glad that our country will, I hope, follow suit by overseeing our intelligence services. I think that such a committee is essential.

The member opposite said that people need to have confidence and the Prime Minister will do this or that, but I would like to remind him that we are still waiting for changes to Bill C-51.

I would like him to comment on that because, during a committee meeting, a Toronto police officer made it clear that Bill C-51 is like looking for a needle in a haystack and we do not need more hay. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but react strongly when I hear the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman talk about how this bill gives the PMO all the power. In fact, it is rather funny for those on our side of the House when we think about just how much control was exerted by the PMO in the last Parliament.

However, I do agree with him that it is disappointing that this is not in line with what we were promised during the last election campaign. One has to wonder about what role the Liberal government expects the various members who represent every region of Canada to play.

I would like to ask my colleague if he believes that the fact that the Prime Minister will be appointing a chair shows a lack of confidence in members.

[Business of Supply, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have to get used to such new distinctions. I would first like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. I always recognize how honest and frank she is when she talks to an issue and expresses her views.

My colleague referred to Cape Breton, and I can say that, as Quebeckers, the people of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert empathize and grieve with them because they constantly feel that their fundamental rights are ignored. There is still a pervasive feeling that there is often no respect for the differences that define us.

Obviously, the Liberals opposite will have some difficulty seeing the logic in this motion. We know that with respect to the famous appointment of Justice Nadon in 2014, it took 50 years for Quebec's views and the recommendations on this position to be considered. Then, this summer, the government decided to deploy the troops and appoint this judge.

Does my colleague not agree that the Conservatives were sincere, although we did not often see eye to eye, while the Liberals made lots of big promises but ultimately ended up centralizing the power here on their side?

[Canadian Heritage, September 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been in power for almost one year and the independent nomination process announced with great pomp by their government is still very much in limbo as the Liberals indulge in selfies, a chronic “construction syndrome”, and spending that is often inappropriate. Seriously, the position of vice-chairperson of broadcasting at the CRTC has been vacant for 15 months and a seat on the CBC's board of directors has been vacant for almost a year. It is important they appoint someone to the board of directors who will look out for our broadcaster.

With respect to her consultation, the minister continues to repeat that everything is on the table. Does she not think that some important players are missing at this table?

[Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his involvement in such important causes.

My colleague compared the bill to a three-legged stool, so I wonder if he can offer any reassurance that each of the three legs will be of equal importance. Nobody wants a wobbly stool. Should we be at all concerned about one of those legs being less sturdy than the others? I am thinking of discrimination against individuals, specifically.

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which I very much enjoyed. I also really enjoy working with him. We agree on all kinds of things, but I do not think we agree on the TPP.

I would like to know if he is aware of this part of the TPP agreement, which I will read.

It says:

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.

Knowing how familiar the hon. member is with all these topics, what do we do with such an exception that simply ties our hands behind our backs? What do we do?

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

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

Given her knowledge of what SMEs experience, specifically those in retail, can she help us gain a better understanding of how the measures in this bill will actually benefit Quebec or Canadian exporters?

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montcalm for his speech. He obviously knows a lot about this topic. We are lucky to be able to learn from his expertise.

I would like to ask him whether it seems obvious to him that, during all this time, the people who are discussing and developing these major contracts between investors are seeking to secretly influence governments. Rumour has it that the TPP could be ratified very soon.

Are there not major issues on which Quebec must stand and be counted? I am thinking about the unbelievable Netflix clause that would mean that we could not intervene in the delivery of what are commonly known as over-the-top services on the Internet. These types of hidden clauses have a huge impact on culture and perhaps even on agriculture.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton South for her speech.

Any measure that will help SMEs take on the challenges they face every day is praiseworthy. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières said, not enough of our SMEs are in the export market, so Canada's decision to sign and ratify these agreements is a great thing, especially because the agreements are for SMEs, business people, products, jobs, and workers, unlike the TPP.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. This agreement seems to please investors more than it does the manufacturing sector.