Pierre Nantel

[Committees of the House, March 19th, 2019]

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

I have noticed that his speeches are generally very detailed and well-researched. However, it is still important to point out that, generally speaking, the Conservative Party is known for its rather aggressive and somewhat crass approach. We cannot help but notice that the current approach taken by the Conservative Party is putting the Liberal Party in a very difficult position. Generally speaking, the Liberals signal left during elections and then turn right once they take office. We currently have a government that has done nothing about the things that it said were important priorities.

The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, my neighbour's colleague, talked about the indigenous languages act yesterday. A total of 23 new amendments to the bill were flippantly proposed during the clause-by-clause study. That is reckless. It is obvious the file is being mismanaged when we look at the differences between the bill and what was said, namely that indigenous languages are so important to the Liberals and that this is such an important issue for them. Bill C-92 is a perfect example of this.

I would like my colleague to explain why the Liberal government does not take control instead of blaming the Conservatives. The government has everything it needs to do that, so that we can talk about Bill C-92.

Our parliamentary secretary said that there are only 49 sitting days left. It is shameful that the government waited so long to study such an important bill.

[Canadian Heritage, March 18th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our media industry is going through an unprecedented crisis. Last year, the government promised a tax credit and other measures to support Canadian journalism. A few announcements were made, but since then, there has been radio silence. The government issued a news release, but it has not provided any money or anything concrete.

Now, rumour has it that the government is planning to delay all this until just after the election. Funnily enough, Facebook and Google have no trouble securing a meeting with the Prime Minister or a massive tax break. Meanwhile, our media industry is crumbling, and thousands of Canadian jobs are at risk.

How many more years will the media have to wait?

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for her speech.

I am not an expert in military justice. However, it has come to my attention that, in the military, acts of self-harm are considered an offence. This makes it punishable behaviour.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the new legislation does not address this problem, even though it is a known issue. Self-harm is still considered an offence.

Obviously, if an individual is struggling with this problem, it will be hard for them to seek help because they could end up being reprimanded under the Code of Service Discipline.

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for his speech. The general public may not be very familiar with military justice—as his colleague pointed out earlier—but there is no doubt these changes are desperately needed. They are tackling issues that have caused a lot of well-documented harm.

Based on his experience, would my colleague agree that this government's legislative agenda will have been rather slim?

Few substantive bills have been passed, and now that the end is in sight, they decide to move this sensitive subject forward. How long did it take them to get to this point—two years?

Last fall, when Bill C-15 came into force, the government could have made amendments that would have implemented all this right away. Victims in the military community are suffering. Why did the government take so long to introduce this?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 26th, 2019]

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

I understand her reaction to the comments made by my Conservative colleague from Cariboo—Prince George regarding the worst of the worst. I agree with her. These individuals must be treated like human beings. Earlier a Conservative member said that segregation problems are often related to mental health issues, and I understand those concerns.

Considering my colleague's expertise, however, I do not understand how she cannot see that the bill, in its current form, will cause the same problems that led to the rulings handed down by the two provincial courts.

Is that not the case?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 26th, 2019]

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

I just heard him say that the purpose of this process is to place criminals back into society as safely as possible following their time in prison.

He must be familiar with the two provincial rulings, one in British Columbia and the other in Ontario, I believe, that challenged the value of administrative segregation.

Would the member not agree that administrative segregation is often used in the case of people with mental health issues and that, in many cases, this only makes matters worse?

[Indigenous Languages Act, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I feel the minister is being sincere about this bill, and I am happy to see that.

Indeed, the work has begun, and a significant effort is required from all committee members. There are several relevant topics that could be raised at committee.

I heard the question asked by my colleague from the Green Party, and I want to make sure my friend properly understood her request. She is calling on the government to listen to amendments that may be forthcoming—not just those brought forward by the three main parties, with whom the Liberals have negotiated carefully and well, believe me, and explored the possibilities.

I say this honestly and without cynicism: reach out to experts in this Parliament from the other parties. To be frank, I must say that, in the scandal involving SNC-Lavalin, you wanted to deal with it very quickly and, in the end, that has put a lot of jobs at risk when those in jeopardy should be the white-collar criminals. Of course, it was not you, but everyone knows that your government moved very quickly to add a provision in an omnibus bill, and now we are in this mess.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague whether he thinks that asking Netflix to collect GST constitutes a new tax.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to clarify something for all Canadians. I hope I will get an answer that will make things clearer.

In your motion, you ask the Prime Minister to provide written confirmation that he will not impose any more taxes. I would like to appeal to your judgment. If the Minister of Finance found a bit of courage and finally asked Netflix to collect GST, would your caucus consider that a new tax?

I hope not because it is not right that Netflix does not have to collect GST.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his passionate speech on fairness. That is what he talked about.

He has good reason to sing Canada's praises on many fronts, and it is true that efforts are being made to increase fairness.

However, I would like to ask him whether he thinks it is fair that OTT services like Netflix are not required to collect GST.

How does he explain the fact that, among all the competitors in the cultural community, his government is favouring a web giant by not forcing it to abide by the same rules as its Canadian competitors?