House of Commons photo

Track Pierre

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is quebec.

Conservative MP for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2025, with 42% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2 November 2nd, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I do not have a calculator, but off the top of my head I can say that after four years under this Liberal government, the deficit will be over $100 billion.

What I noted from her question is something I mentioned in my speech. The regions will be overlooked by this new approach involving the new infrastructure development bank. The government is centralizing things. Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and perhaps Calgary will really benefit from the major programs, because private companies will want to invest in major infrastructure such as a toll train or another bridge, any big project . Those are the projects that make money. Private companies will not invest in projects if there is nothing in it for them.

Who will go and invest deep in the Abitibi? No one. That is why the ministers responsible for regional development made sure that investments were made in infrastructure in every region of the country. In Quebec, a minister responsible for regional development would ensure that the regions have the infrastructure they need.

The government is currently centralizing things to please the finance minister's buddies, who give him $1,500 cheques. The minister then finds them lucrative contracts, and a private company will invest in the project. That is how it works; it is not complicated. There is no point in kidding ourselves.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2 November 2nd, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I will try to remember the name of the riding of my colleague from Saint John—Rothesay, because I found he said some rather insulting things about the former government.

For 10 years, the former government navigated the worst global economic crisis. It made investments in infrastructure to get the economy back on track. As I mentioned in my speech, when there is a global economic crisis and the economy is flagging, governments can take significant measures to revive it.

Right now, we are in a period of economic growth; the minister said so himself. Modest growth is still considered growth. How then can the government justify jeopardizing our children's future?

I have a 13-year-old son and a 12-year-old daughter. How wonderful it will be for them in 20 years to have to pay huge amounts of taxes to pay off the current Prime Minister's debts, just like we are still today paying off the debts incurred when the father of the current Prime Minister put us in a tough spot.

I will not have anyone accusing the former government of doing a poor job. That is my right and that is all I have to say.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2 November 2nd, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to the economic update that was given yesterday and remind the House that the government is making Canadians even poorer by running this massive deficit. Today, Canada's future is bleaker and more unstable. I am worried about the future of my children and of generations to come.

First, I would like to point out that this was a very Liberal budget. It is all in the red. A balanced budget is a concept that no longer exists. That is worrisome. Middle-class Canadians know that they cannot live beyond their means forever. When a family buys a house that costs more than they can afford and then stops making payments, the bank will eventually foreclose. That is what could happen to us, but unfortunately, this government does not live in the real world. That is what happens when one is surrounded by so many people who have always lived safe, sheltered lives and have never experienced financial insecurity.

This economic update reminds me of a startling scene from a very popular Netflix series, Narcos. In it, drug lord Pablo Escobar keeps his family warm on a very cold night by literally burning millions of dollars. That is what the government is doing: burning hundreds of millions of dollars in a vain attempt to create some heat.

The difference is that, in this case, those are millions of dollars we do not have. It is a very high cost for paltry results. Yesterday's announcement tacks an additional $32 billion onto the deficit. It might be easier to understand the scale of that if I express it as $3,200 million. That seems a lot bigger because the truth is that $32 billion is a massive number.

They are adding $3,200 million to the debt, which will keep us in a deficit situation for an extra year. During their campaign, the Liberals promised to run modest deficits to stimulate the economy. They just forgot to tell Canadians their definition of a “modest deficit”. It is a minor detail, but in light of the logic espoused by the Prime Minister, who thinks the budget will balance itself, it comes as no surprise.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said we needed to grow the economy from the heart outwards. We are very familiar with this concept and see it often. This mentality is all well and good when you are improvising, but when you are managing a G7 economy, that does not necessarily work.

Unfortunately for Canadians, the prime sinister's, oops, I mean the Prime Minister's Care Bear mentality does not work. In spite of all the money the Liberals have squandered since they came to power, not one net full-time job has been created in Canada. As the Minister of Finance said himself, Canadians just have to get used to precarious employment, because that will be the norm.

The Liberals are proud to say that their deficit is lower than expected. I would like to remind them that this is a far cry from the $10-billion annual deficit promised during the election campaign. Based on that criteria, the Liberals seriously underestimated the deficit. In fact, it would be much larger if the government had not used the $6-billion cushion to improve the picture.

It was not through the rigorous administration of the machinery of government that the deficit got so big. That cushion disappeared from the forecasts for the next few years, and we do not know when the government will return to a balanced budget. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, our finance critic, asked the Minister of Finance that question five times today, but got no answer.

Running a deficit during an economic slowdown or a recession is a practice that is generally accepted by society and economists. However, the Minister of Finance, a talented economist, said, “Our economy is growing, just not as fast as we would like”.

If the economy is growing, then how does the Minister of Finance justify the massive ballooning of the deficit? What would happen if Canada was hit with another recession? If $25.1 billion is not enough to stimulate a growing economy, how low is this government willing to take us?

We do not wish that on anyone, but we fear the worst. If we end up in a recession, then we will have to weather it on no credit, because we are living beyond our means. One of these days, this reckless spending will catch up with us and we will have to pay for it.

Another worrisome thing in this budget is the infrastructure bank. This measure will take $15 billion out of funds that are already committed to help communities across the country. By definition, almost all the projects that will be implemented through this new institution will be in major urban centres. That is where we find major projects that might attract large investment funds hoping to get a return on their investments.

After barely a year in power, the Liberals are already starting to abandon Canadians who live outside large urban centres. For them, there is no salvation. Who would want to take an interest in their problems and help resolve them? Certainly not the banks, whose private investors will be looking for a return on their investment. Certainly not the Minister of Infrastructure, who seems more concerned with having a tastefully appointed office than dealing with problems in Gaspé or the north shore.

As the saying goes, out of sight, out of mind.

They are taking resources away from small centres so that the larger ones have more. The Liberal government's sunny ways consist of centralizing everything, leaving everyone else in the lurch. Having someone else manage a large part of the infrastructure budget is an admission of the failure of the infrastructure program implemented by the government and the minister in charge.

If the government's plan is working so well, why does it need a new entity? The Liberals asked for Canadians' approval to go into debt so they could invest in infrastructure and stimulate the economy.

The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is bragging about having approved a good number of projects. According to Bloomberg and The Huffington Post, only one of these projects is under construction. It is true that, coming from a minister who spent $1 million on his office, it must be a record amount. However, other than setting up a sumptuous office for a minister, what has the government done to get projects up and running in order to help Canada's economy grow? With the exception of a single project, it has done nothing.

Unfortunately, today we must give these very stern speeches, because we now have a deficit of more than $25 billion according to the government, which said that it had to run up a modest deficit in order to invest in infrastructure. There is not even a single project under construction. That makes no sense.

We all suffer from the Liberal government's foot-dragging on infrastructure, because it takes a lot of time for major work sites to get going. What we need to get Canada going is simple: rather than creating new structures to boost Canada's image, we need to keep our taxes low, properly manage our finances, and cut red tape. That is the best way to help Canada develop, and that is what we did when our government was in office. We made Canada the best country in the world in which to do business.

In closing, as a father, I do not understand how the Liberals can present such a document and then claim to be fiscally responsible. Mortgaging our future without delivering any results in the present is not responsible. Burning through billions of dollars is not good management. Greece tried that, without much success. I am worried that Canada is going down the same road.

Foreign Affairs November 2nd, 2016

Mr. Speaker, once again, the minister is going to visit Mali, where the government is preparing to send our troops. As a former commander of this type of infantry, I am well aware of the risks associated with the different missions.

I would like to remind the House that, this year alone, this mission has cost over 32 peacekeepers their lives, bringing the total number of casualties up to 100.

If the minister discovers that the mission is too dangerous for our troops and that it does nothing serve our national interests, will he stand up to the Prime Minister?

National Defence October 28th, 2016

Madam Speaker, on the matter of the mission in Iraq, the Minister of Transport said in the House on September 16, 2014:

...it is important for us to get as much information as we can from the government on what possibly can happen and how this mission can evolve.

Clearly, this policy ceased to apply once he was in government. We are informed after the fact and get only crumbs of information.

When will the government be transparent with Canadians?

Foreign Affairs October 27th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence to know that it is not our intention to jeopardize the safety of our troops. I just wanted to know whether the troops are in combat or not.

Speaking of secrets, out of nostalgia, the Liberals recommitted us to peacekeeping missions, but we are being kept in the dark about that commitment.

What mess are we going to end up in and for how long? Who are our partners? What are the rules of engagement? They talk about it abroad behind closed doors, but the government does not communicate any information to Canadians.

Will the minister finally be transparent about the mission in Africa?

National Defence October 27th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, the member is mistaken. The mission has changed. We have proof and information from abroad. Our troops are on the frontline and fighting the enemy. That is a change in mission.

Why is the government hiding the truth? Why is it not being transparent with us? It keeps playing the same old broken record saying that we are advising or helping the Kurds, but we know that is not true. They are doing more than that.

Can the government be transparent and tell Canadians the truth?

National Defence October 26th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's lack of transparency is troubling. Yesterday, the minister did not rule out a possible extension of the mission against ISIS. When we extended the mission in Syria, we put it to a vote in Parliament and the Liberals opposed it.

Now that they are thinking of extending the mission in Syria, will they put it to a vote in Parliament, or will they continue to operate in secret without informing Canadians?

National Defence October 26th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence should change his answer as his notes are not up to date.

Last month, we learned from the Canadian forces leadership that the mission had evolved. It has changed, but the government has kept this information from Canadians, who still do not know exactly what our soldiers are doing in Iraq. According to rumours, our soldiers are doing more than giving advice; they are engaging in combat.

The government prefers to conceal this information instead of being transparent. When we were in power, we were more transparent about what our soldiers were doing without putting their operations at risk.

When will the government finally be transparent with Canadians and tell them the truth?

National Defence October 25th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I think that the safety of our soldiers is more important and that Canadians should be informed.

The government is very tight-lipped about what our soldiers are doing in Iraq. Our Kurdish partners, in contrast, do not seem to have the same sense of restraint. Kurdish news station Rudaw broadcast images of Canadian soldiers on the front line during the Mosul liberation operation. We are getting information about where Canadian soldiers are on the ground and what they are doing from a Kurdish agency. That is pathetic.

Will the Liberal government start being transparent and give Canadians information?