Maxime Bernier

[Aerospace Industry, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, after forcing Canadian taxpayers to give Bombardier $372 million in subsidies, the government is about to jeopardize our trade relations with the U.S.

Knowing that NAFTA negotiations will begin soon, in September, can the minister today tell us once and for all, here in the House, the extent to which she is willing to compromise Canada's trade interests to defend the interests of a single company?

[Aerospace Industry, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, after Boeing filed complaints against Bombardier, following the billions of dollars it received in subsidies, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said it could cancel the purchase from Boeing of 18 Super Hornets.

Can the minister tell us what is important, Canada's air defence capability or the financial interests of Bombardier?

[Privilege, April 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is right. He did a very good translation of what I just said. I said that in French, and it is the same thing in English.

I was there. I was waiting and I asked and was told that there was an empty car, that we had to wait because of the motorcade of the Prime Minister, which was empty at that time. For me, that is what happened.

I am very pleased that the same facts were in the Speaker's decision. I agree with the Speaker, and that is why we must have that debate. It is too bad that we must have that debate in the committee, because the facts are the facts and we must go along with that.

I am very upset about the situation.

[Privilege, April 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, earlier I explained what my colleague from Milton and I experienced. It was quite clear.

Indeed, I am the one who inquired about why our parliamentary privileges were breached. At the time there were mixed messages as to why this happened, but never any clear reason. At the time we were told that some of the Prime Minister's vehicles were empty and that we had to wait. There was also talk of the media bus.

To us, the most important thing is that this privilege was breached. It has been confirmed that this is not the first time this happened to us. Parliamentary conventions of other hon. members are currently being ignored. Let us look at what is happening in committees because it is important for hon. members to be able to express themselves. That is what I want to see.

I am pleased that the chair has acknowledged our right to our privileges and transferred this request to the relevant committees so that we may have a detailed analysis.

[Privilege, April 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to endorse everything my colleague from Milton said. She is absolutely right. I was with her when I was forced to wait an unreasonably long period of time because we were denied access to Parliament Hill and prevented from exercising our democratic right to vote on a bill and represent our constituents well. It was important to me to be here.

The facts outlined in the Speaker's ruling are absolutely true. We were forced to wait nine minutes. I went to see a security officer to ask what was going on because the clock was ticking and we wanted to be in the House of Commons to exercise our right to vote.

The first officer was not well informed and asked for information. Initially, we were told that we had to wait for the Prime Minister's motorcade, which was empty. Others told us that it was because of the media bus. There was some confusion at the security gate, and because it was taking too long, we decided to proceed quickly on foot to the House of Commons to exercise our right to vote.

As everyone knows, we were not able to exercise our right to vote, so I am very pleased with the Chair's ruling, which confirms the comments of my colleague from Milton and my own. This is important not only to us, but to all members of the House. Parliamentary privilege exists so that we can represent our constituents, our reason for being here, and vote.

I am not proud of what has been happening in the House for the past few weeks; certain parliamentary traditions and customs are not being respected. The Prime Minister is not always present during question period, and yet being able to ask the Prime Minister questions is another aspect of parliamentary privilege.

This shows a degree of arrogance that is inconsistent with what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign. He said he wanted to bring a new tone to the House of Commons, but this new tone has not been positive, as we are experiencing today.

One only needs to look at what is happening in our parliamentary committees, where the government wants to limit my colleagues' right to speak. This does not respect the British parliamentary tradition. I hope we can come back to this and look at what is happening here in Parliament.

Why are parliamentary privilege and parliamentary traditions being flouted? We need to have this debate at committee. This is important to me and my colleagues in the official opposition, as I imagine it is for the members of all opposition parties. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this matter.

I would now like to move an amendment to the proposal brought forward by my colleague from Milton. I move, seconded by the member for Oxford:

That the motion be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee make this matter a priority over all other business including its review of the Standing Orders and Procedure of the House and its Committees.”

[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.