This page is in the midst of a redesign. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!
House of Commons photo

Track Maxime

Your Say


Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is money.

Conservative MP for Beauce (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 59% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Privilege March 22nd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege to confirm what my colleague from Milton told you earlier.

I wanted to exercise my member's right to vote, but with everything going on on the Hill, I was prevented from doing so, and I apologize to my constituents for that.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you investigate this matter. I am prepared to share what happened to me today. I was prevented from exercising my parliamentary privilege because of tactics employed by the party in power. That is utterly unacceptable.

Questions on the Order Paper December 2nd, 2016

With regard to the reclassification of firearms: (a) is the government planning on prescribing any firearms as non-restricted; (b) is the government planning on prescribing any firearms as restricted; (c) is the government planning on prescribing any firearms as prohibited; and (d) is the RCMP planning on making any changes to the Firearms Reference Table; (e) is the RCMP currently involved in any reviews that could lead to changes to the Fireams Reference Table; and (f) if the answer of any of (a) through (e) is affirmative (i) what is the make and model of the firearms in question, (ii) what are the reasons for its change of classification, (iii) what year was the firearms first imported into Canada, (iv) what steps are being taken to proactively notify impacted Canadians?

Questions on the Order Paper December 2nd, 2016

With regard to the Canadian Police Information Center: (a) how many individuals are there in Canada who may be potentially considered too dangerous to own firearms including the number of persons wanted for a violent criminal offence and the number of persons of interest to police including (i) violent persons, (ii) known sex offenders, (iii) known prolific, dangerous or high risk offenders, (iv) known persons to have been observed with behavious that may be dangerous to public safety; (b) the number of persons charged with a violent criminal offence; (c) the number of persons awaiting court action/disposition or released on conditions for a violent criminal offence including (i) on probation or parole, (ii) released on street enforceable conditions, (iii) subject to a restraining order or peace bond; (d) the number of persons prohibited or refused firearms; (e) the number of persons prohibited or refused from hunting; (f) the number of previously deported persons; (g) the number of persons subject to a protective order in any province in Canada; (h) the number of persons with a refused or revoked firearms license; and (i) the number of persons flagged in the Firearms interest Police database?

Carmen Dallaire October 4th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, today, I have the great pleasure of welcoming to the House of Commons Carmen Dallaire, whose “wish of a lifetime” is coming true.

Ms. Dallaire is 87 years old and was a teacher for 32 years. I was one of her sixth-grade students. Ms. Dallaire helped me become the man I am today. My dear teacher, thank you for sharing a part of your life with me.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to teachers. I would like to thank them for their dedication, great patience, and tolerance. Teaching is a vocation, not a profession. We should be grateful because they are the ones educating those who will follow us.

Once again, I cannot thank you enough, Ms. Dallaire. I hope you are not too disappointed in me.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1. May 5th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share that. I was in my riding last week. People told me they thought it was irresponsible for the government to have a huge deficit. Canadians are working hard for their money and they want to keep their money in their pockets. They know taxes will go up in the near future and they will have to pay for that.

Also, they see that the federal Liberal government wants to shrink their paycheques and expand the role of the government and government programs. That is not what people want. They want to have a government that will respect them, and that is not happening right now.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1. May 5th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I believe in the federal government. I am a member of Parliament and was a member of the government for the past 10 years, and I am very proud of that. I believe in the role of the federal government. Its role should be what it was back when we lived according to our means.

Under this Liberal government, we are not living within our means, and that will have an impact on future generations. I believe in an effective federal government that is strong in its jurisdictions, but lives within its means.

I would like to close by quoting Paul Martin, the former finance minister. On February 22, 1994, he spoke about deficit, debt, and living within one’s means. I quote: “The debt and the deficit burden pose much more than an economic challenge. This is a moral issue too. What right do we have to steal opportunity away from our children...?”

This is what the Liberal government is doing. It is borrowing at the expense of future generations and preventing future generations and our children from living fully according to their opportunities, as the hon. finance minister, Paul Martin, said.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1. May 5th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that entrepreneurs are free to decide, and it is not up to the government to decide for them and interfere in the free market. If some want to invest, fine; if others prefer to wait, that is fine too. After all, they are the experts.

With regard to the government and the interest on the debt, my colleague says that interest rates are very low. However I would remind him that for every dollar of income tax sent by Canadians to the federal government, $0.10 goes to pay the interest on the debt. If we borrow and add more than $100 billion to the debt over the next five years, the $0.10 interest we are paying is going to rise to $0.11 and $0.12, and that is where the government loses its flexibility.

It is important to say this, because often people do not realize that today’s borrowing becomes tomorrow’s taxes. It is a shame that the Liberals want to tax future generations for today’s spending, which will not benefit people in the future.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1. May 5th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the budget. I would like to point out that the Liberals confirmed in their most recent budget that, unfortunately, they still believe in the old Keynesian theory that governments can create wealth by spending more.

However, when the government injects money into the economy, one has to ask where that money is coming from. We know it does not grow on trees. The reality is that whenever the government takes another dollar from someone's pocket, it is a dollar that the person cannot spend or invest. When that happens, public spending increases and private spending decreases, and there is no creation of wealth.

Government borrowing does the same thing. Private investors who lend their money to the government will have less money to lend to private entrepreneurs. Public sector borrowing and spending increase and private sector borrowing decreases at the same time. There is no creation of wealth.

To be a bit more clear and explain it another way, it is like taking a pot of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and pouring it into the shallow end. As we know, this has no effect and makes no difference, except that a bit of water is wasted between the two. It is the same for the government. When it spends or borrows, it prevents the private sector from spending, and we know that the private sector is better at creating wealth.

What we find with the Liberal government’s budget is that it puts us in a difficult economic situation. The Liberals are going to run deficits and borrow money, somewhat like the Trudeau government of the 1970s.

It is important to tell the government that prosperity comes not when the government spends, but rather when entrepreneurs invest.

To kick-start the economy, the government needs to give entrepreneurs the means to create wealth. The government should put in place the best conditions to help entrepreneurs be more productive. To that end, it should reduce taxes for all entrepreneurs, reduce the regulatory burden on Canadians, and promote free trade.

Growth and progress are realized through more economic freedom and less government intervention in the economy. More public spending is not the solution to our social and economic challenges. On the contrary, it will drag us into a debt spiral. According to the government’s budget, we will be in that debt spiral for the next five years. Future generations will have to pay off that debt.

I would like to summarize the government’s economic logic. It is quite simple: if we are in a recession, spend; if we are not in a recession, spend so that we are in a recession.

That is the simplistic economic logic of this government. It does not understand that Keynesian spending logic does not create wealth.

I have a few questions for my Liberal colleagues.

What if the Liberal government's economics policy is deeply flawed and does not bring us prosperity? What if more government borrowing and spending are not the answer to our economic challenges? What if we wake up one day and realize that the deplorable state of Canada's finances is a predictable consequence of the current government's excessive borrowing and spending? What if the Prime Minister is wrong in his belief that the more the government spends and stimulates the economy, the less he needs to worry about the deficit? What if the Prime Minister is completely wrong and the budget does not balance itself?

What if the Minister of Finance is wrong and makes a huge mistake thinking we can spend our way to prosperity on borrowed money?

What if Canadians are right when they believe that we do not get richer when we spend money that we do not have? What if deficits do not create wealth but harm future generations? What if prosperity does not come from government spending but rather from entrepreneurs investing? What if more government spending and borrowing does not act as an economic stimulus but rather as an economic sedative?

What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded? Nothing. However, what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored? Nothing good for Canadians.

What I am saying right now is very simple. We cannot borrow money and spend money that we do not have and do not need to spend when we do not have an economic crisis or a recession. That is what the Liberal government is doing right now, and it will harm future generations.

I am very happy to have been able to participate in this debate on the budget. We ought to have a smaller government in Canada, a government that lives according to its means and allows future generations to progress and live in a country that is freer and more prosperous.

Aerospace Industry March 21st, 2016

Mr. Speaker, as the government is preparing to give $1 billion in financial assistance to Bombardier, Bombardier is preparing to outsource even more jobs.

Everybody knows that subsidies are inefficient and a waste of taxpayers' money. When will the government understand that it is not fair to force small entrepreneurs to pay taxes to fund subsidies for a corporation like Bombardier?

Points of Order March 9th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I asked the chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology a question. In the House, when the person to whom a question is addressed is present, it is customary for that person to answer. I would like that person to answer my question today.