Maxime Bernier

[Points of Order, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to ask the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to apologize to Canadians and to the members of the House for using unparliamentary language during question period.

I cannot be more specific. I asked him to apologize. I could repeat his unparliamentary language, but he used very vulgar language in the House. I am asking him to apologize immediately.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government will vigorously lobby against this proposal. Our government sees red tape for businesses and Canadians at the border. This is not the time to have this kind of proposal in force.

That is very important because the two countries do over a billion dollars in trade of goods and services every day. We must continue in that direction and promote free trade. That is what we are going to do.

[Government Programs, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in French, all accredited post-secondary institutions in Canada were eligible for funding under the knowledge infrastructure program.

In the 240 colleges and universities that benefited from that program, the student codes were not considered as criteria for receiving funding.

[Government Programs, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, all post-secondary schools accredited by the provinces and by our government under the knowledge infrastructure program have followed the same rules. The student code was not a factor in obtaining funds under the program. We focused on the goal of the program, which is to create jobs for the future in the knowledge industry.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague that this government will do everything it can to make sure this proposal does not go through.

International trade is important to both countries. More than 8 million American jobs rely on trade with Canada. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this proposal does not go through.

[1982 Repatriation of the Constitution, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court said that it was looking into what happened in 1982. These issues involve a former Supreme Court justice who has since died and who was on the bench under the former Trudeau Liberal government.

[1982 Repatriation of the Constitution, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, we are not interested in rehashing old constitutional squabbles. That is clear.

I would like my colleague to know that the Supreme Court of Canada is currently trying to determine what happened in 1982 under the Trudeau Liberal government.

[Taxation, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why my colleague is against this measure, which is good for small investors. Investors in Canada and Quebec will stop subsidizing very well-capitalized labour-sponsored funds to the tune of $140 million a year.

Now, these labour-sponsored funds will have to be competitive and have good returns to attract their investor clients. My colleagues opposite should support this measure, which is good for entrepreneurs and small investors.

[Point of Order, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in one of my responses earlier, I mentioned that Canam Group receives financial assistance from the Fonds de solidarité. I should have said Manac, not Canam Group. Manac receives investments from the Fonds de solidarité and will continue to do so.

[Taxation, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely untrue. The Fonds de solidarité will continue to invest in companies. The fund has over $8.8 billion in investments and was given a tax break to allow it to capitalize. Today, this fund operates on capital markets like other funds, and the money will be available for investment in cost-effective companies such as Canam Group.