Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 444
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I was born in 1963. When I was little, playing with those little green, plastic soldiers who shot at one another was still popular. The concepts of war and global conflicts were still really fresh on people's minds. There was also the notion of war-time efforts. Likely many other people, I believe that we are currently at war.
We are at war against a monster created by every country. The entire planet is at war against the monster that is global warming, which we created ourselves. When I was little, in 1963, nobody cared. We showed off our Plymouth Satellites with their exhaust pipes that emitted tons of smoke, and nobody thought about how this might be a problem.
We are at war. You appear to be sincerely bothered by the useless partisan battles. I agree. People have been shouting nonsense, you are right. However, if you are serious when you say we have to set partisanship aside, are you prepared to introduce a candidate in the House to serve as minister to combat global warming, a super minister of sorts?
Are you prepared to create a non-partisan position, to be endorsed by everyone, who would have full authority to approve or reject certain projects? Are you prepared to go that far? That is where we are at internationally, madam. Let's be leaders.
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate our Green Party colleague. She dared to use terms that truly reflect the challenge we are facing. She dared to talk about humanity. We are at that point.
It is completely unacceptable for members to be hurling partisan tomatoes. We are past that point. That is why I would like to ask her a question. She said that Canada could be a world leader by raising its sights and limiting the temperature increase even further. Does she not believe that we could choose a minister responsible for the fight against climate change and invite other countries to do the same? That minister's mandate could even be longer than the usual election cycle to enable him or her to think more long term.
It would take 50 years before we could all agree on someone, but it would be done and then we would not have to argue about every little detail.
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, my House leader mentioned that our Parliament is probably one of the first in the world to hold an emergency debate on this subject following the release of the IPCC report. This initiative may well be good news.
I am very happy to be here on behalf of the people of Longueuil and Saint-Hubert. We are not here by chance, however. I have been in the House since noon, and although it is twenty minutes to midnight here, it is one minute to midnight in terms of global warming.
That is why my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni talked about mobilizing. There have been huge protests in Montreal, each twice as big as the last. I had the opportunity to participate in three protests with my daughter and her friends. People mobilized because this issue is not getting enough attention and they wanted their provincial politicians to talk more about it during the election campaign.
This summer, I was taken aback when Mr. Hulot, a French politician in the Macron government, resigned on live radio, which naturally created quite a stir. He was France's Steven Guilbeault, so to speak. The following is an excerpt from his speech:
I cannot fathom that the entire world is indifferent to the fact that we are all witnessing the development of an utterly foreseeable tragedy. The planet is turning into an oven. We are running out of natural resources. Biodiversity is melting like snow in the sun and is not always seen as a priority. To be perfectly honest, and what I am saying applies to the international community, we are seeking to maintain and even revive an economic model that is the cause of all these disruptions. Therefore, no, I do not understand how, after the Paris conference, after a definitive diagnosis that continues to be refined and to become more serious day after day, this issue is still relegated to the bottom of the list of priorities. The short-term pressure on leaders and the prime minister is so strong that it is pre-empting medium- and long-term issues. That is the truth, because a prime minister has social needs, humanitarian needs, on his desk that always legitimately sideline the long-term issues that take our society by surprise. I hope that my departure will lead to some serious soul-searching by our society about the state of our world.
Personally, I found that very upsetting. I remember writing on Facebook that I was brought to tears listening to the interview. An Internet troll thought it was entertaining to say that I was just playing politics, but it really did bring me to tears. Like many of my colleagues, I find it extremely disturbing to see young people lose hope and to hear respected commentators say that we are done for and that it is all over. It is pitiful and pathetic, and it is our fault. We need to take action and move beyond our short-sighted debates.
Earlier, I said that we are at war. It is time everyone realized that every country in the world is at war against global warming, a monster that we created, initially unknowingly. I am 55 years old, and when I was young, I was taught at school that the ocean was so big that it was impossible to pollute it. I did not make that up. I learned it at school. Today, we know that there are entire continents of plastic debris that harm aquatic life and do other damage. The insecurity we are facing today was created by the reckless behaviour we engaged in for years. Today, there is no longer any excuse not to take action. The problem has been documented.
Again, I say, why not create a commissioner's office for this? Quebec has a sustainable development commissioner tied to the auditor general's office. Why shouldn't we create a similar position, one whose mandate would outlast ours? Our terms last for four or five years. Continuity is what we need. The commissioner could be selected unanimously if we decided to stop fighting with each other. This is a fact, and we cannot argue against the scientific fact that the planet is warming and we are going to cook and boil like a frog that does not realize its bathwater is heating up.
Why not appoint someone? Why not put someone in charge of this? Why not create the ultimate international assembly where several people would have exactly the same mandate? Why shouldn't Canada be a leader? We took the lead on the Coalition for Cultural Diversity. Why not put forward a similar concept? Why not appoint a super minister, not an environment minister, but a minister of war on climate change? We are at war, after all.
I have no choice but to be critical of this situation. Sure, the Liberal government has good intentions. I understand. However, as Mr. Hulot described, in real life, it is all well and good to talk about objectives, but when one province was unhappy because its pipeline was not expanded, what did the government do? It bought the pipeline. It is toying with all kinds of short-term solutions. The government is not walking the talk.
The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development obviously understands the issue, but ultimately will not support the transportation electrification industrial cluster. MOST 21, in Quebec City, was a very promising aerospace cluster. However, it will not get support. The Minister of Transport promised to install charging stations in Canada. He promised this would happen in 2018, but there are hardly any. Everything seems to be delayed. This is very real.
The Conservatives obviously know that we think the carbon tax is a good idea. It is a good idea, but what is the government actually doing? Will it encourage people to use electric vehicles? It looks like we will be waiting a long time. I remember asking the Minister of Transport about this. The NDP has an official electrification of transport portfolio, since this is one of our priorities. There is an industrial movement, and the know-how and skills are there. There are people who have decided to focus all of their professional energy on it. Unfortunately, these efforts are a bit uncoordinated. Propulsion Québec is trying to connect all of the industry players. The Innovative Vehicle Institute, in Saint-Jérôme, is trying to mobilize know-how and skills to present beautiful, fully operational projects, like the Lion Electric Co., which is selling electric school busses in the United States.
However, the federal government is not providing enough support. That is the sad part. It is all well and good to brag about acknowledging global warming, but what is the government actually doing? I would also like to ask the government where the much-talked-about report is. The government asked Electric Mobility Canada and other electrification of transportation stakeholders to hold one meeting a month for almost a year. The report has still not been released, but we need it. Will the government be transparent enough to table this much-talked-about report in the House?
Obviously, the report would have enlightened us about this structure that we will hopefully come to see. As the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said today, the electrification of transportation is also a business opportunity. It upsets me that we do not celebrate our achievements in this country. Take, for example, Bathium Canada in Boucherville, which designed and manufactured the batteries that were used in 4,600 electric cars in Paris under a Hydro-Québec patent. That is no joke. The electric RAV4 in California is manufactured in Woodstock, Ontario. No one has ever seen it.
Could we celebrate our stakeholders and our entrepreneurs and will the government ensure that it walks the talk when it comes to its good intentions for the environment?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very important question. I will answer by giving two or three examples. I had the opportunity to visit the Nano One labs in British Columbia. This business provides faster, more affordable manufacturing processes for alloys that are used in the creation of batteries. I encouraged those people to contact manufacturers in Boucherville and their collaboration led to the creation of a new battery pack that will be inserted in the next Mercedes electric buses.
We do not say enough about the New Flyer buses in Winnipeg. If I recall correctly, I have not looked at the numbers in a while, the New Flyer represents just 5% of their revenues, but their electric buses make up 85% of the market in the United States. These are people from Manitoba.
In closing, I would cite the economic support or at least the need to look beyond the Lion buses. These are school buses sold essentially to the United States and they are trying to make the project viable with the Innovative Vehicle Institute in Saint-Jérôme.
It cost a lot of money to insert new technology in a vehicle with very specific standards. There is a precise number of rivets for the rigidity of the body, and international standards. They did not get anywhere until someone asked whether the bus, which ran on diesel, was subsidized by the school boards. Indeed, school boards subsidize diesel. If we add the whole subsidy for diesel to the potential life the vehicle, it ends up costing the same as the electric vehicle, but without emissions, and it is made back home.
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, Netflix just announced it is opening a permanent office in France. The company will double its investment in French productions. Netflix will be paying taxes in France. It will even collect sales tax. It will invest 2% of its revenue in producing films and will have to guarantee that 30% of its content is European.
What a crazy revolutionary concept. The French asked Netflix to respect their culture and pay its fair share of taxes.
Will the new Minister of Heritage do his job, immediately put a stop to preferential treatment, and get the same commitments from Netflix here in Canada?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. It is easy to see why she is focusing on a specific amendment that she feels is valuable and worth defending. Of course, the royal Liberal bulldozer paid her no heed.
I would like to know the member's reaction. I am not an expert in international trade, but I hear that in the U.S., both major parties in the legislature get to participate, since they get updates on the proceedings and discussions on admittedly complex treaties. By contrast, we here in Canada are dependent on the members across the aisle.
I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that.
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I will take down the picture, but I have no regrets about drawing attention to the fact that dairy farmers in Quebec—
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour of representing the people of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for seven years now. That has meant standing up for my constituents and everything that comes with the challenges facing our underprivileged families, with our transportation issues and access to the shores of the river. It has also meant developing our expertise in aerospace, agri-food, and the electrification of transportation.
Two other issues have become important to me since I was first elected to the House: reconciliation with indigenous peoples and the fact that quiet nationalism is reaching consensus in Quebec.
Every day I work on correcting this situation. These two issues have been added to the two priorities that first got me into politics in 2011, namely the fight against global warming and protecting our cultural industries. I am pleased to see that Quebec is celebrating culture days at the Théâtre du Nouveau Monde in Montreal, and at the Philippe Allard exhibit at the Maison de la culture in Longueuil. There is something for everyone.
All that culture will be for naught if the planet burns up because of global warming.
I invite everyone from the greater Montreal area to come march in the Planet Joins the Campaign rally being held this Saturday at 2 p.m. The starting point is Place Émilie-Gamelin at the Berri metro station.
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 42 creators and artisans of our culture signed an open letter calling on the government to defend the cultural exemption in NAFTA and to ensure that it applies to online platforms, so that we can compel these platforms to contribute to our culture.
This means that signing agreements where Netflix does not have to pay any taxes or contribute anything or produce anything in French no longer flies.
Will the Liberals guarantee that Quebec and every government in Canada will be able to keep their right to protect our culture? We are not just going to give up our cultural policies as chump change in the NAFTA negotiations, are we?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister answered my question with some old material about his commitment to our cultural industries.
It has been a year since the Netflix agreement was announced, and key players in our cultural industry have already confirmed to CBC/Radio-Canada what we knew from the start. This was a stunt that benefits web giants instead of forcing them to broadcast and fund our original cultural productions.
Our creators are tired of waiting, but the minister said that we have to wait for the panel to submit its report in 2020. That is five years too late.
Does the minister understand how urgent this situation is or is he going to regurgitate the same talking points as his predecessor? We are going to disappear.
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to the Canada-Quebec agreements. I had the chance—anyone could have joined in—to walk with the people from FRAPRU, the Quebec social housing coalition, who left Ottawa roughly a month ago to travel to Quebec City. They will arrive in Quebec City tomorrow. They walked 550 kilometres and stopped in all sorts of towns and villages along the way to talk about social housing.
I had the opportunity to welcome them back home in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, where we walked 1% of the journey together. These people have deep convictions and they are walking on behalf of an entire community of people who need social housing.
In Longueuil—it is not for nothing that they stopped by—there are major housing challenges. The waiting lists are appalling. My team was on the phone with a friend in my riding who is a young professional, a single parent with two children. She came to see my team because she could no longer make ends meet. She pays $1,000 a month in rent.
These situations are commonplace in Longueuil. Fortunately, there are fantastic solutions. People have stepped up. The people on this walk were invited, for example, to have breakfast at Habitations Paul-Pratt, Manoir-Trinité, where seniors have been able to find great social housing and a wonderful quality of life. That is important. These are urgent needs.
I am wondering why we are talking about this today when the government made some lofty promises about great funding, which we were very pleased with. However, 90% of this money will only be disbursed after the government is re-elected. I believe it is horribly Machiavellian to deal with these issues in this way. I can say the same thing about cultural issues. I just blasted the Minister of Canadian Heritage because his committee will release a report in 2020, after the election. That is just appalling. The needs exist right now.
Why does the government not see what people across Canada and especially in Longueuil are dealing with?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. This is obviously an issue that the NDP cares a lot about. It is also particularly relevant to Longueuil—Saint-Hubert since housing is part of everyone's daily life.
I want to point out that this is the 10th anniversary of all of the social developments in the greater Longueuil area. There are three key founding members, namely Sonia Jurado, Mary Claire MacLeod and Hanh Lam. These three individuals were directly involved in absolutely fantastic projects, such as Terrasse Mousseau, a community housing project that is currently under way. It involves the renovation of 170 units that were in a state of complete disrepair. These homes were unfit to live in, but they are being fixed up little by little by relocating people, renovating the units and creating a new living environment. The project is currently in progress. We hope that everything continues to go well because it is a really well-run project.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the situation that she talked about at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
It is important to remember that, from 2006 to 2013, 45,000 social housing units were affected by the expiry of CMHC agreements. In 2017, the number of households affected was over 140,000. I am thinking, for example, of a woman I met through FRAPRU. She was about 82 years old. She told me that she had been evicted because she lost her social housing subsidy.
When will the CMHC get involved in that case? What does my colleague think about that, since it is her government that is asleep at the switch on this?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his point of view, although it reflects a bit of an alternate reality. It is possible to see things from another perspective.
I would remind members that for Quebeckers who need social housing, it was Paul Martin's Liberal government that decreed that every Canadian had a right to suitable housing and decided to take action in that direction. The situation has only deteriorated since then. When it comes to funding for social housing, it has been nothing but a downward spiral.
According to FRAPRU, the right to housing is the cornerstone to ensuring that a number of other rights are respected. It can help meet many other needs, which is consistent with my colleague's vision regarding housing first. However, that is not the reality. At the Longueuil municipal housing bureau, the wait list for social housing is not counted in weeks or months, but rather in years. No joke.
We hear the Liberals crow about their royal benevolence on every possible issue and towards all of their subjects in Canada.
Did the parliamentary secretary or the Minister of Families bother to meet with the people who walked for four weeks with their backpacks, sleeping in school gymnasiums every night, to reach Parliament Hill? Do they not think that perhaps they should have met with those people?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the recent Gémeaux awards reminded us of the work of several generations of Quebeckers to capture our culture on film. The problem is that this work is in jeopardy. Our youth are growing up with Netflix and YouTube, multinationals that obviously do not care about the future of our language or our culture.
The former minister of Canadian Heritage spent three years figuring out that urgent action is needed and then did nothing in the end.
Will the Prime Minister stop interfering and let his new Minister of Canadian Heritage do his job and take action right now and before the next election?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech, but especially for his dedication to this file.
When Quebeckers hear the name Pierre Nadeau, they think of a great journalist who had a following on television and radio, but in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Pierre Nadeau, above all else, is known as a prominent, social neighbour who loves to talk. I am not sure exactly what kind of disability he has, but he has some form of aphasia. He gets around using a mobility scooter and he is very active. He is a development officer at AILIA, a Quebec association whose mission is to make housing, including social housing, more accessible for those who need it.
Nearly half a million people in the greater Longueuil area do not have access to the Montreal metro because there is no elevator access to the Longueuil metro platform. Even if, by some miracle, someone manages to get on, there is no elevator at the central hub, Berri-UQAM.
Does my colleague think that this new legislation will fix these unjust situations?
Results: 106 - 120 of 444 | Page: 8 of 30

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data