Maxime Bernier

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is talking about government investments, but that is wrong. These are not government investments; they are government expenditures made on the backs of future generations. I must point out that the government does not create wealth. The private sector creates wealth. The private sector is prepared to create wealth and to invest $15 billion to build a pipeline that will benefit the economy across Canada.

This government is dragging its feet. Yesterday, it established another environmental assessment process, in addition to the National Energy Board's process. Canadians are sick and tired of studies and processes. There is already a process and it is being followed. We must let the National Energy Board do its job and then look at its recommendations. In the meantime, we know that energy east can address any concerns the industry and the public have about the pipeline, because it will do so in accordance with Canadian laws and regulations.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, today it is my pleasure to speak to a subject that means a lot to me and to support my colleague's motion. The motion is well written. It urges us to recognize the importance of the energy sector to the Canadian economy. It is a fact that the energy sector accounts for over 10% of Canada's economy. Businesses in that sector create wealth in Canada, and we must support them.

The motion also states that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. Being from Quebec, I can assure my colleagues that Quebeckers agree, particularly since the worst tragedy involving transportation of oil by rail struck Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. Quebeckers know that using pipelines to move oil is much safer. We have been doing it for years, and with safe, modern pipeline construction technology, it is entirely feasible to develop this economic sector while keeping the environment safe.

Our motion also states that a number of governments are in favour of safe pipeline projects that comply with Canadian laws, including the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick. Quebeckers also agree, despite the opinion of the mayor of Montreal, who indicated a few days ago that he opposes the project, before even hearing the National Energy Board's position and recommendations.

Since taking a stance, the mayor has made all kinds of comments. For instance, he said that Montreal, with its four million residents, has a larger population than Saskatchewan, with its 1.3 million residents, and therefore Montreal has the right to say no to such a pipeline project. It is ridiculous to take such a position, and I am very disappointed in the mayor of Montreal, since he does not represent the opinion of Quebeckers. I agree with many people in western Canada who are outraged by the position of the Montreal mayor and the Prime Minister, who went and added another approval process, one that is really just political. The process that was already in place adhered to all the rules and was independent. This government is trying to politicize part of the energy sector, something no one does with other methods of transportation, such as public transit. There are independent processes, and politics do not interfere with them.

Last week, I travelled to western Canada and stopped in Vancouver, Calgary, and Winnipeg, and I took the opportunity to meet with people there. The topic of discussion was economic development in Canada. We talked about what can be done to build a strong economy. One important thing we talked about was developing pipelines in Canada.

We know that this government unfortunately wants to run a deficit of over $20 billion. That is the latest figure that we have. The government does not want to elaborate, but we are heading toward a $20 billion deficit. The government says it wants to stimulate the economy by borrowing money that we do not have. As things stand now, 10%, or 10¢ out of every dollar that Canadians pay in taxes, is used to pay the interest on the debt. That is equivalent to the entire budget for the Minister of National Defence. The government wants to run an even bigger deficit and add to the debt in order, in its view, to stimulate the economy. This will not stimulate the economy. It will sedate it.

We have the energy east pipeline project, in which the private sector is going to invest more than $15 billion. That is not Canadian taxpayers' money. It does not come from taxes paid by Canadians. It comes from the private sector. We know that wealth is created through private sector investment, not through government spending. The private sector is going to invest $15 billion to develop Canadian energy and gain access to other markets. Day after day, this government keeps standing in the developers' way. It is very disappointing, especially coming on the heels of an election campaign during which the government said it wanted to engage in consultations and adopt policies in favour of economic development.

I would also like to talk about the financial impact of these projects on the Canadian economy. Canadian municipalities collect more than $600 million in property taxes from pipeline companies.

Furthermore, these companies paid $1.1 billion in corporate taxes in 2014. They pay significant amounts in taxes to the Government of Canada, and they make more than $25 million in community investments.

The investment will help those who work in pipeline construction, people working in oil refineries in Montreal and New Brunswick, and also the people in the different communities.

Delays in project approval mean that Canada does not have access to a new market for its natural resources and could result in up to $70 million a day in lost economic activity.

What is the government waiting for to move forward and support my colleague's opposition motion in support of Canada's economic development?

The government might say that we have to protect the environment. I would like to say that our government, the former government, made legislative changes to protect the environment and develop natural resources responsibly.

We made changes to the National Energy Board's decision-making power so that it can make recommendations to the government about whether to approve or reject a project. Politicians will have the last word, and that is as it should be. That is important.

We also shortened the time frames for project approval. In the past, it could take up to four or five years for a project to be approved. Now, projects must be approved or rejected within 15 months. What is more, anyone who is interested in expressing their opinion on such projects can do so by submitting a brief, and that is what is now being done.

We therefore made sure that the Canadian public, Canadian and Quebec stakeholders, can submit briefs to the National Energy Board and are given the time they need to present their concerns.

We also revised the scope of the review so that it focuses on the project under review rather than on alarmist theories put forward by people who are advocating for a kind of development without having access to various resources. It is important to point that out.

In other words, the National Energy Board is completely independent and will make recommendations. The government should support this motion because Canadians and people in various provinces, particularly Quebec, want it.

Like other Canadian provinces, Quebec receives equalization payments, which come from the western provinces. I thank those people. I wish that Quebec and New Brunswick were rich and did not need equalization payments. However, in order for that to happen, we need to stimulate the economy. The construction of the energy east pipeline will support economic development and benefit every province of Canada.

We need to support this motion and let the industry know that, yes, we are in favour of sustainable economic development.

[Foreign Affairs, January 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that I am the member for Beauce. I work for the people of Beauce and for all Canadians, and I am proud of that.

As a country active on the international stage, we have policy positions. I would like to know why this government is renouncing its policy position on Iran and why it is dropping sanctions against Iran. Iran has not changed. Iran violates the human rights of its own citizens, punishes religious minorities and sponsors terrorism.

Why are the Liberals changing their position and supporting a state that finances terrorism?

[Foreign Affairs, January 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we now know that Bombardier is sniffing out deals and trying to sell its aircraft in Iran.

We also know that some of Bombardier's senior managers met with government representatives, including the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I have a simple question. Can the government assure the House that Bombardier, or any other company, was not told that the sanctions would be lifted before it became known publicly? Did the Liberals talk to companies in secret to—

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague does not understand is that when the government increases taxes for businesses and entrepreneurs, it is indirectly increasing taxes on individuals and Canadians. As you know, businesses have to remain competitive, and taxes are an expense for a business owner. Business owners will either take on this expense by earning a smaller return on their investment, transfer the expense to their customers by increasing the price of their products, or transfer the expense to their employees by limiting wage increases or not giving wage increases.

As everyone here in the House knows, we are all consumers, we are all investors with our pension fund, and we are all workers. When a government increases corporate taxes, it indirectly increases taxes for individuals.

What our government did, and I am very proud of this fact, is lower personal income taxes and corporate taxes to leave more money in their pockets. These are the people who create wealth, not governments.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague a clear answer on what this federal government should do in the future. I came back from a trip to western Canada last week, and it is true that the price of natural resources is down, but what people and business owners want is to be able to export their oil around the world. The private sector is trying to build a pipeline, which would help with these exports.

We are talking about a $15-billion investment from the private sector, and it will not put our future generations in debt. This private-sector investment would not require any public money. It would all come from real entrepreneurs. The current government is against this project, which is absolutely shameful. This is an important project that is environmentally sound.

The government should support this project, which will create wealth and unite the country through sustainable economic development.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

The Liberals confirmed in the Speech from the Throne that they still believe in the old Keynesian theory that governments, this one in particular, 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 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. Now, as we all know, it is entrepreneurs who create wealth, and not government spending. Public sector and government borrowing and spending increase and, unfortunately, private sector borrowing decreases at the same time. There is no wealth creation.

It is like taking a pot of water from a swimming pool with deep water and pouring it into a swimming pool with shallow water; nothing is created. Prosperity does not happen when the government spends, but rather when entrepreneurs invest. That is how to restart the economy. We have to give entrepreneurs the means to create wealth.

To do so, the government must put in place the best possible conditions so that entrepreneurs and the private sector can become more productive. Unfortunately, that is not what the Liberal government is doing. It needs to lower the taxes on individuals and entrepreneurs, reduce the regulatory burden, promote free trade, and sign free trade agreements, as our government did in the past with more than 38 countries.

Growth and progress require more economic freedom and less state intervention in the everyday lives of Canadians. Increasing public spending is not the solution to our social and economic challenges. On the contrary, it could put us into a debt spiral from which we might not be able to escape.

I have a few questions for my Liberal colleagues.

What if the Liberal government's economic 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 the predictable consequence of the current government's excessive borrowing and spending?

What if the Prime Minister is wrong when he believes that the more the government spends and the more it stimulates the economy, the more its revenue will grow and 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 finance minister is wrong and he also makes a huge mistake by thinking we can spend our way to prosperity?

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 right? Nothing good.

[Small Business, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Prime Minister said that a significant percentage of small businesses were nothing but tax shelters for Canadians seeking to avoid paying tax.

I disagree. Canadian small businesses and entrepreneurs create wealth, and we should honour and support them rather than penalize them with tax hikes.

Will the Minister of Small Business and Tourism follow her leader's orders and penalize Canadian entrepreneurs and small businesses, or will she deliver on her mandate to protect small businesses?

[Finance, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, according to Morneau Shepell, the Minister of Finance's former firm, a tax-free savings account is a smart way to help seniors ensure that they have a stable retirement income.

Now the Minister of Finance wants to reduce the TFSA limit. He is rejecting the advice of his own experts and penalizing seniors.

How can the minister penalize seniors and not take his own firm's advice?

[Telecommunications, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the three political parties promised that they would not impose a tax on Canadian Netflix subscribers. However, the president of Quebecor Media recently asked the government to reopen this file.

Can the government confirm once and for all that no Netflix tax will be imposed on the four million Canadian families who use this service?