Pierre Nantel

[The Prime Minister, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country were stunned to find out that the Prime Minister hid the truth in the Senate scandal. Nigel Wright did not act alone. He may have resigned or been fired. Mike Duffy received one, two or possibly three cheques. Arthur Hamilton, the Conservative Party fixer, signed one, two or three cheques. The Prime Minister has told the truth about nothing, nyet, nada.

His flimsy story simply does not hold water. Every time he opens his mouth, he digs himself in even deeper. He is digging himself in deeper because he did not tell the truth. He painted himself into a corner the day he appointed those three wonderful senators. It is time for him to accept his responsibility.

At the time of the sponsorship scandal, he told Jean Chrétien to accept his responsibility. Now embroiled in his own scandals, he is behaving like a Liberal. The good old Reform days are over. The Prime Minister is nothing but a politician who has been worn out by Ottawa, worn out by the power that has corrupted his administration just as it did the one before.

Canadians deserve a good housecleaning here in Ottawa, not a Conservative scandal to take the place of the Liberal ones.

[BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND ITS COMMITTEES, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague that I can certainly see why he would want to debate an issue as important as changing the Canadian Museum of Civilization's mandate.

I am talking to you, Mr. Speaker, but as I look across the way, I can see that the member is talking and not looking at me.

The member is getting to know this file and has quoted directors and others who supported changing the mandate, but does he know that the museum's former director expressed strong opposition to the change? Is he quoting only the people he wants to hear? Two or three others have spoken out against changing the mandate. The government has to stop going on about everything that will change along with the mandate. Imagine if I told my wife we were going to renovate the kitchen and then I would do the cooking and we could make babies. That is how they talk to us about the museum. Hold on a second. Changing a museum's mandate does not necessarily mean switching the artifacts. In other words, that could have been done with the museum as it is now because it is a very good museum just the way it is.

[BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND ITS COMMITTEES, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to debate the Conservatives' wonderful bill to turn the Canadian Museum of Civilization into the Canadian museum of history, but that is not what we are talking about right now.

Can we get back to Motion No. 2?

[BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND ITS COMMITTEES, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to know if my colleague opposite has looked at my Internet site, because, like the sites of all my colleagues, mine has a link to our expenses. Everyone does. I do not know where he gets his information from, but I wonder if we should correct the record of what is said here, because my colleague is misleading people.

[Nobel Prize in Literature, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, literature is the reflection of a country's soul. When writers gain international renown, both their work and their country are honoured.

The Nobel Prize in Literature awarded last week was the first for a Canadian female writer and also the first for truly exceptional, truly Canadian work.

Alice Munro's stories are stories of daily life. They are stories of Ontario, stories of a small town and a long street, stories of Huron County and elsewhere that are told to us by the best short story writer in the world.

My colleague for London—Fanshawe said that Alice Munro shows us essential truths about ourselves, that there are no ordinary lives, no mundane experiences. Every life is an extraordinary and astonishing one. Some lives are lived by those who make exceptional contributions to their country, our society, and the written word.

I rise in the House today to congratulate Alice Munro for her career, her work, her words and a Nobel Prize in Literature.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again today, we are being cut off; we are being prevented from speaking on this subject. Even though the Minister of Canadian Heritage felt that this was something simple that everyone would rally around, unfortunately, that is obviously not at all the case. What is shocking today is to see how hard the government members are pushing to pass his bill, his idea. That is the problem: it is his idea. That is where the problem lies.

People have spoken out many times to say how important it is that the bill be supported by everyone. Today, everyone is pleased to see what phase 2 of this museum will be, travelling exhibits and exchanges with other museums in Canada. However, it is quite cunning on his part to have included that aspect in the bill, an aspect that was already part of the existing museum's mandate. We are focusing a lot on that, but less on the fact that we could very easily have improved the existing museum rather than demolishing it in order to build another one. That is what is happening.

In conclusion, I would like to ask a question. The minister says that he consulted everyone and that everyone is happy. What then does he think about the comment made by Mr. MacDonald, a director whom I am sure he knows very well? Mr. MacDonald said that he was outraged to hear the minister claim that aboriginal peoples were excluded from the exhibits in the Canada Hall. He added that it was clear that the minister had not understood the mutual obligations nor the meaning of this exhibit to aboriginal communities on the west coast that make a living from fishing. We are talking here about the famous Nishga Girl. Again according to Mr. MacDonald, the pressure that the minister is exercising to have that exhibit removed contradicts what he claims are the very objectives of his bill.

What does the minister have to say on the matter?

[Petitions, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present a petition signed by nearly 800 people who are complaining about the interference in collective bargaining that would arise from Bill C-60. The petitioners are seeking to preserve the autonomy of these crown corporations.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 14th, 2013]

With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2005: (a) what sections and branches currently exist or have existed, broken down by year; (b) how many archivists work or have worked in each section and branch, broken down by year, including and specifying part-time and seasonal employees; (c) how many managers work for each section and department; (d) how many items were acquired; (e) what was the total value of items acquired; (f) how many interlibrary loans were registered; (g) what were the costs for operating interlibrary loans; and (h) how many international trips did the head of LAC take and what were the costs of those trips?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 14th, 2013]

With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2011: (a) what are the details of all the fonds and records held in custody by LAC that have been or are currently being de-accessioned to (i) provincial or territorial archives, (ii) university archives, (iii) regional or local archival institutions or organizations; (b) on what written policy or operational rationale were each of these de-accessions based on; (c) what are the details of all the fonds and records on deposit with LAC that have been or are currently under discussion or negotiation for referral to (i) provincial or territorial archives, (ii) university archives or libraries, (iii) regional or local archival institutions or organizations; and (d) in every case the LAC decided not to acquire archives or records being offered, what written policy or operational rationale was provided to the donor as the basis of this decision?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 14th, 2013]

With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2005, has the Treasury Board provided funding to LAC for the development and testing of a Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) and, if so, (i) how much was provided, (ii) in which fiscal years, (iii) which reports are available to provide details on the success of the TDR's development and implementation?