Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 9 of 9
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House as a father from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. We are grappling with a real crisis. Young women are getting dragged into a process that will destroy them. As a father, I am deeply troubled by that.
I know nothing about this subject, seeing as I am not a lawyer, but the point raised by my Conservative colleague caught my attention. It is true that $5,000 sounds like a paltry fine. I do not know much about this.
The government says that we have been talking about this for however many days and hours, but when it decides to cut our debate time short, it is not respecting the standard regarding the number of hours that should be allocated to debate on a given issue. The Liberals say it is fine, but this is an issue I really care about.
Do they think all bills should be debated for less time? Is the Minister of Justice trying to tell us that the parliamentary process in general is too long?
The debate on this issue does not seem like an appropriate place to save time. This is such a serious issue that we should have enough time to discuss it fully, but the Liberals are saying we have talked enough.
Does my colleague think the parliamentary process is too long? It seems to me that it is shorter in China.
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Madam Speaker, as part of this exchange, I would like to hear the Liberal government explain why it believes that tripling oil sands production will not triple pollution. It could have decided to support Alberta's economy, which I understand, by requiring the increased production to be offset by a decrease in emissions per barrel. However, there is no mention of that. This is an election ploy designed to obfuscate. The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. I will ask a very straightforward question.
How can the Liberal government believe that tripling production will not triple pollution?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, this morning I heard the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan talk about the importance of caring for the most vulnerable members of our society as well. Unfortunately, disabilities often contribute to this very economic vulnerability.
My colleague was a member of the previous government, which created a disability savings plan. I wonder if he could tell us a little more about that program.
Did that program produce the desired results?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I gather there are many big lakes and waterways in his riding. I am sure this issue hits home for him and his constituents.
I would like to know his thoughts on what a number of members have said about how certain marine protected areas would be excluded from the list under this bill.
Am I mistaken, or does he see that as a good thing?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
I am not an expert in these matters, but, like everyone else, I am very worried about global warming.
How can we even think of allowing oil and gas exploration in marine protected areas?
We would never dream of putting an oil well or a tar sands development in a national park. There is even talk of asking Alberta to slow production or clean up the process so it pollutes less. I think the whole idea is preposterous.
Why are we still talking about this?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his very coherent answer to the questions asked. He is very knowledgeable about labour issues, the right to unionize, and collective bargaining.
Just now, I clearly heard him ask the government why it took its time on this bill. There is an inexplicable 11-month delay. Some members are saying that they should not take sides in this matter.
I would like my colleague to tell us, then, how exactly the government can justify such a delay. Either it was incompetent or lazy, or it acted out of self-interest.
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, how can my colleague explain the fact that this legislation was forgotten on a shelf for nearly a year and that the House now has to rush to make a decision? The Liberals are saying that this is urgent, but they have been asleep at the switch for nearly a year.
What happened?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
Knowing how good the government is at communications in general, since it just made Canadians' heads spin with two great press releases, what reason is there for limiting the time for debate today? Is the government just trying to cover up the fact that it has been asleep at the switch for nearly a year?
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his approach.
Of course, I found his speech to be a bit ingenuous. I can understand that perhaps the member lacks experience, but the government is putting on a white hat, as if it were flawless and above reproach. It is acting as if it were royalty, as if it were omniscient and had a divine gift. The truth is that this government has been sitting on this bill for a year now.
Now, all of a sudden, Parliament has to hurry up. We are under a lot of pressure because the government imposed time allocation before sending this bill to the Senate. Our right to speak to this bill has once again been restricted. The government sat back and did nothing for a year and now it is forcing us to quickly debate this bill.
I would like to know what the member thinks about that.
Results: 1 - 9 of 9

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data