Pierre Nantel

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for the courage of her convictions. She often stands up for values, and I cannot help but understand her motivation.

I understand full well how the message is received in an entirely different way, even by myself, when it comes from her. The messenger and the choice of words make all the difference. When she states that in 50 years we will remember certain comments in the House, she is evoking a type of consensus, a global conscience.

Why does the motion not mention the UN Security Council? Personally, I am not an expert on international politics. However, when I see that the United Nations is moving in a certain direction, I am reassured that we are doing the right thing, that we are on the right side of history.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her articulate and well-researched speech about the realities of these people and the economic benefits. She made constructive arguments about supporting entrepreneurs, small and medium-sized businesses and people from her region.

I agree with my colleague on the disconnect between the great expectations created by that party during the campaign, when everyone agreed that small and medium-sized businesses needed a lower tax rate, and what actually followed.

Does the member not find even more disappointing that the great expectations of small and medium-sized businesses, Quebec and the aerospace sector were not met?

Does she not find deplorable that this election campaign turned out to be such a complete fraud? The Liberals made promises and announced a humongous deficit, and yet people will not even get what they were promised during the campaign.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 7th, 2016]

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

Despite having closely followed the debates in the House these last two days, I have not heard a single, clear answer as to why the Liberals broke their campaign promise to lower taxes for small and medium-sized businesses.

Has my colleague heard a satisfactory answer or does he believe the government simply backed out hoping no one would notice?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech.

We nod our heads whenever someone talks about environmental issues. She is right about how so many issues have been put off. I am sure she is very aware of the burden of being so few in number and, as a result, seeing governments ignore so many of the measures they could include in an omnibus bill.

Would my colleague like to comment on the fact that the Liberal Party was elected for its bold promises? I like her image of training wheels that a young cyclist uses when learning to ride a bike and the fact that this does not meet people's expectations, including those of the party's own backbenchers, the MPs who are not in cabinet.

That is what is kind of sad about an omnibus bill, is it not? The fact that it silences everyone, not just opposition members, but also anyone whose opinion differs from that of cabinet ministers.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my hearty congratulations to my colleague from Essex for her speech, which reflected the reality of the people she represents. She says that she is proud to represent her constituents, and I think that they can be very proud of their MP, who is so in tune with their reality. The member said that this budget does not meet all the needs of the people in her riding.

After making an election promise to reduce the small business tax rate, the Liberals decided to make them wait even though they are our most important job creators. I am guessing that was a real blow to the agricultural sector and entrepreneurs.

Would my colleague care to comment on that?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to mention to my colleague that I am always a little surprised to see how people join a party, get elected, and become part of a government that made such huge promises, particularly in Quebec.

I cannot help but scratch my head, thinking that, clearly, governing is about making choices. Her government specifically chose not to support Bombardier and small businesses, although it promised to make evidence-based decisions. Knowing where her riding is located, I am sure that many people there who work in the aerospace industry will be asking their MP how she can support such an initiative.

An omnibus bill like this one certainly muzzles the opposition, but it also muzzles members like herself, who do not have much say in the matter and who will obviously have a hard time explaining this to their constituents.

I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

[Canadian Heritage, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the trans-Pacific partnership also raises concerns for cultural industries.

The TPP explicitly prevents the government from developing policies to support Canadian content on digital platforms. On one hand, we have a Minister of Canadian Heritage holding consultations on digital media, and on the other hand we have her government signing a treaty that will limit its own capacity to intervene online.

Despite all her fine words, the minister's hands will be tied. However, she promised to protect our cultural diversity in these trade agreements.

How will the minister defend such an absurdity to our cultural industries?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by asking my colleague if the government's decision to introduce an omnibus bill like this one strikes her as strange at all.

We have obviously seen such omnibus bills over the past five years. The one thing they all have in common is that they are designed to silence parliamentarians, and that includes opposition members and backbenchers. With this particular omnibus bill, the government has silenced Liberal MPs from Quebec.

I would like my colleague to comment on this strategy and the price to pay considering that they have been blamed for what they did in the past and that the Liberals are doing the same thing now.

[Canadian Heritage, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the importance of seeing our young people express themselves by grabbing a pen, a microphone, or a camera to tell their stories, and to tell our stories.

This past Thursday, I attended the short film festival for youth at Le Trait d'Union community centre in Longueuil. This was just a few streets away from the Gentilly elementary school, which a young man named Xavier Dolan attended in the 1990s.

I am extremely proud to speak on behalf of everyone in Longueuil and Saint-Hubert, and everyone here in the House, I am sure, to acknowledge this great Quebec director and his triumph at the Cannes Film Festival for his latest film, It's Only the End of the World, which won the Grand Prix. This recognition reminds us how important our cultural industries are, since they nurture and develop our talents and protect our distinct identity.

I ask all sector stakeholders and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to rise to the collective challenge and commit to protecting our space in the global mosaic and allow future Xavier Dolans to proudly represent us in 20 years.

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased with the tenor of this morning's conversation on such an important subject. We seem to be embracing the propriety, elegance, and nobility of our role.

I cannot understand why the government is trying to rush this when it is such a sensitive matter. Barging around with such a sensitive issue like a bull in a china shop is a bad idea.

People are waiting for a clear decision. Ideas have changed. It has been suggested that the government request an extension from the Supreme Court. Why not do that? That is what should be done. We need time to think this through.

As a Quebecker, I find it so sad that we are fighting about this and looking after our own interests on an issue that should inspire the utmost respect. My provincial government counterparts and the people of Quebec made their decision after giving the matter a lot of thought.

My colleague says that it is about this or that, but ultimately, is this not about the suffering of the sick?