Pierre Nantel

[CBC/Radio-Canada, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to get back to the important matters.

In the wake of the Conservatives' cuts to CBC/Radio-Canada, a new study by the Quebec and Ontario governments concluded that the public broadcaster simply does not have the means to fulfill its mandate. The Quebec and Ontario ministers are calling for increased funding to CBC/Radio-Canada.

If there is still a minister of Canadian Heritage in the House, will she listen to the demands made by Quebec and Ontario? Will she once again ignore them, or will she finally listen to the public and reallocate the money that Radio-Canada and CBC need?

[Taxation, May 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, many Longueuil residents are doing more than their share and are paying enough taxes.

As these good people receive fewer services, they see billions of tax dollars disappearing into tax havens every year, instead of being invested in our hospitals, schools and public transit.

These people are right to wonder why it is always them, honest citizens, who have to pay, in the form of taxes, fees and reduced public services, to compensate for the multinationals that do as they please, and that, in addition to earning record profits here, refuse to comply with Canada's laws.

A total of $170 billion has left Canada to be invested in Barbados, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.

Ottawa needs to work with its international partners to make sure that honest citizens are not the ones left to foot the bill for those who are cheating the system.

Canadians are doing their part. We need to work harder than ever to combat tax havens, and people can count on the NDP to fix this problem in 2015.

[Petitions, May 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a petition signed by people who believe that feminine hygiene products are necessities and therefore should not be taxed.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I care about what happened to Warrant Officer Vincent's family every bit as much as my colleague does. In that regard, of course, everyone in the House feels the same.

However, if I had as much time as my colleague to ask my question and if I wanted to be as insulting as the countless examples he hurled at us for 10 minutes, things could get ugly in the House today.

The Conservatives like to say that they are tough on crime and that they are making tough decisions, and I have to wonder if the reason they have refused to accept any of the amendments suggested by anyone in the House is in order to appear tough.

Is it to please their electorate, to appear tough, or is there actually a valid reason behind all this?

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we are very concerned about the scope of this bill. Many very competent expert witnesses, from outside the House, came to tell us that this bill goes much too far.

I would like to ask a specific question: would the law allow CSIS to disrupt environmental groups, first nations or any other activist groups whose tactics include blockades to bar access to infrastructure?

[Labour Law, May 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, labour law in Canada is not some sort of à la carte legislation where we can choose the parts that suit us and disregard the rest.

We in the NDP have explicitly chosen to put workers first and defend their rights at all costs. As we say back home, it is important to walk the talk. We are proud to be the first federal party to have unionized employees.

Whether the Liberals like it or not, defending workers means more than just making nice speeches to get higher ratings in the polls and then changing their tune. Unions are not fools.

Jerry Dias, the president of Unifor, was quite clear in his comments about the Liberal House leader's criticism. Here is what Mr. Dias had to say:

[It is] completely unacceptable [and leaves the impression that] workers' rights can be disregarded in the cause of cheap political theatre.

Five labour federations are outraged by the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party, a party that signals left and then turns right when it comes time to respect workers' rights.

In October 2015, workers will be able to choose a party that respects them: the NDP.

[Copyright, April 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in their budget, the Conservatives want to amend the Copyright Act to finally conform to international standards by extending the term of protection of sound recordings and performances from 50 to 70 years.

Is this too good to be true? Yes, because songwriters will not be included in this measure. Our artists and songwriters are the very source of our music, culture and heritage.

Will the minister stand up and protect our composers and songwriters in the changes to the Copyright Act?

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

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

I really liked the part where he told us that he is very familiar with the child care sector. Once again, that shows just how prepared we are on this side. We have a plan, whereas the other side of the House clearly has bad plans and it only helps their pals.

Like all Quebeckers, I spoke out against the lack of measures for culture and the environment, for example. It is pathetic that there is nothing for those areas.

Clearly, there comes a time when it is not only disappointing, but also worrisome to see that there is nothing—and I believe this is the topic of the day—for rail safety.

Would my colleague like to comment on that last point?

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River on her speech, which pertained directly to her community and raised very specific things about this budget that we condemn, namely, the fact that this government's priorities are completely out of touch with the reality of Canada's middle class.

The government seems to have stolen its ideas from our platform—yes, we are prepared to take office—even though we have to admit that those ideas will benefit Canadians. What is more, our ideas seem to be the only good things about this budget.

Could my colleague elaborate on that?

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, March 27th, 2015]

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

The NDP obviously supports this bill. We are not opposed to virtue. In fact, there is nothing more important to our society's future than our youth. There is nothing more destructive for them than the shocking attitude of these psychopaths who are very active online, for instance.

I understand my colleague's irritation when the party that was not more active than hers asks for more money. However, I deplore the attitude of the Conservatives when they said that they do not know what is in the budget and, above all, that we voted against this type of initiative.

As we speak, we can see that the Conservatives want to rush to make these announcements and ignore what certain experts said in committee. The witnesses who told us their stories said that it is not a bad bill and that they actually support it, but that it would be better if the Conservatives were more open-minded.

Why are the Conservatives so doggedly determined to attain their own objective rather than seeking more of a consensus on something that everyone obviously agrees with?