Joël Godin

[Carbon Pricing, June 6th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, this government has been in office for eight years now and the only thing that it has done for the environment is impose a carbon tax. Clearly the plan is working. Just look at the wildfires burning outside.

To make matters worse, the Liberals want to add a second tax through the GST. They promised to plant two billion trees, but they are taking the quicker route by imposing a second tax with no results.

When will this government wake up, stop taking money out of Canadians' pockets, give them some breathing room and cancel this tax?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, June 6th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, first allow me to spare a thought for the people affected by forest fires across Canada. I am thinking of them and channelling my energy toward helping them get through this extremely difficult and tragic situation. I thank the firefighters, members of the military and all volunteers contributing to their well-being.

Today, I am rising in the House to speak to Bill C-47. On March 28, the Liberal government tabled an irresponsible budget that increases both the debt and inflation. The government chose to throw money at everything. It is an obvious ploy. The government is making self-serving decisions to stay in power by using public money to buy the support of the New Democratic Party.

In the highlights of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report of April 13, Yves Giroux stated:

Budget 2023 does not provide an assessment of program effectiveness that the Government launched in last year's budget under its comprehensive Strategic Policy Review, nor in my view does it identify opportunities to save and reallocate resources to adapt government programs and operations to a new post-pandemic reality.

Take the Canada dental benefit, for example. I support this benefit. It is a very exciting social program, but it has to be considered within the current context. The truth is that this government is throwing so much money around that it is going to trigger a recession. Before offering people the chance to invest in their teeth, how about ensuring that they have food to eat first?

The government is free to rebut this comment with the grocery rebate proposed in its budget, but let us be realistic. A one-time payment will only help some people, and not for long.

In a column entitled “A doubled-edged rebate”, published on March 30 in La Presse, Sylvain Charlebois reminded us that this budget, like last year's, contained no section on agriculture or food. I would point out that Dr. Charlebois is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University. He has credibility. I encourage the Liberals to consult him for ideas. Dr. Charlebois says this:

For Canadians, the grocery rebate will be limited in scope and duration, an offshoot of the politicization of food inflation. The PR spin is real, whereas tax changes that could have a substantial impact are not. However, the prospect of injecting $2.5 billion more into the economy is causing a lot of concern. Such an action could worsen the food inflation problem.

Yes, it is a double-edged rebate indeed.

The government gives with one hand, but it claws back double or more from the pockets of honest Canadian citizens through the excise tax, the carbon tax and the carbon tax 2.0. It is injecting money into the economy, which is causing inflation. In our capitalist system, businesses aim to make a profit. That aim is perfectly legitimate. It is a matter of survival for them. If they cannot turn a profit, they will close their doors and thousands of Canadians will lose their jobs.

In that context, the responsible thing for the government to do would have been to reduce federal spending and collaborate with the Bank of Canada.

That is the way to stop inflation and give some breathing room to Canadians who are increasingly struggling.

There is a major lack of vision here. Maybe the government's vision is restricted by its blinders, leading it to focus exclusively on what is really important to it: the Liberal-NDP coalition keeping it in power.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $400 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebate. I urge everyone to take a look at the Canadian Debt Clock created by the MEI, the Montreal Economic Institute. It shows that the federal debt in Canada now exceeds $1.299 trillion and will soon reach $1.3 trillion. That is huge. It breaks down to $44,000 of debt per taxpayer. Based on data provided by the Department of Finance in its March 28, 2023, budget, the MEI estimates that, by March 31, 2024, the Canadian debt will have increased by $42.6 billion, the equivalent of $116 million per day, $81,000 per minute or $1,350 per second.

I have heard members of the government, I think including the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, when he was minister of foreign affairs, say that now is the time to borrow, that interest rates are low and will stay low. What a peculiar basis for managing a government's public funds.

To illustrate the government's incompetence, just last fall, in the economic statement, it forecast a deficit of $36.4 billion for 2022-23, and deficits of $30 billion in 2023-24 and $25 billion in 2024-25. The fact is that, in this budget, the government now forecasts a deficit of $40.1 billion for 2023-24. That is almost $10 billion more but, for the Liberals, $1 billion, $10 billion or $100 billion is nothing because they can just print more money.

As I noted earlier, the national debt will soon reach $1.3 trillion. Do my colleagues know that the debt ceiling is set at $1.8 trillion? Is the government racing to reach that target? I hope not.

The Conservative Party, to which I am proud to belong, had some very specific asks for the government concerning budget 2023: end the war on work by reducing taxes for workers; end the inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of goods; and eliminate barriers to building housing for Canadians. The simple truth is that none of the Conservative Party's three demands have been met. None of them have been included in the bill.

That is why the Conservatives will not be supporting this anti-worker, pro-inflation budget that raises taxes. At least, we will not be supporting it unless and until our demands are met. This way of doing things is unacceptable. It is irresponsible, and I hope that, thanks to the actions of the opposition, the government will listen to reason and change course.

[Brain Stem Glioma, May 17th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that today will be the last May 17 before this day officially becomes national diffuse midline glioma awareness day in Canada. Diffuse midline gliomas or brain stem gliomas are aggressive, incurable brain tumours that mainly affect children. There is no chance of survival.

It is impossible to imagine the suffering that these sick children and their parents have to endure. I learned about the existence of this disease when I met Florence Gagné, a little warrior princess from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier who lost her battle over a year ago. I became involved in this cause to support the families who courageously stand beside their children until the end.

Thanks to the invaluable contribution of Senator Yonah Martin, a bill was introduced to make every May 17 a day to think about these children, a day to raise awareness of brain stem glioma, a national day to advocate for research and development, and a day to hope for a cure.

This is for the little warrior Florence and all the others.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it will be difficult to be brief. I will thank my colleague, but I will not mention his riding to save time.

I am, in fact, not a hunter. However, the landscape is extraordinary in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I am a conservationist, just like hunters, sport shooters, farmers and indigenous peoples, and we are all aligned.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix for her question. It is always interesting to work with her.

I am pleased that the members of the Bloc Québécois now think that this is common sense, but it took some time before they understood that. We need to understand where this bill came from. In one video, we can see the member for Rivière-du-Nord saying, “Wow! If we had to write a firearms bill, this is how we would have written it”. That was for the first iteration of the bill. There were amendments after that.

I thank my colleague for having accepted the Conservative Party's recommendations and criticisms, which were in the best interests of hunters and sport shooters. We are very pleased about that, and we are taking the credit. I thank the Bloc Québécois for supporting the Conservative Party because we are standing up for rural communities.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to say hello to my colleague from Winnipeg North. I am not sure whether he heard my speech or whether he is paying much attention to the comments of the official opposition. We are accustomed to that. He just fills in the blanks. I will simply say this to my colleague: What does his question have to do with Bill C-21?

My colleague is out of touch, and it shows once again that the Liberal Party of Canada is also out of touch with the real people on the ground, the hunters and the sport shooters. I am disappointed by his question, but I will respect it and I hope he will respect my answer.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for the speech he just gave. It was very heartfelt. It came from the depths of his being.

It is an honour for me to rise in the House to represent the people of the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which is home to many hunters, fishers, sport shooters and farmers. There are also some indigenous people. I am very proud today.

My first reaction when I learned of the amendments made to Bill C-21 by the Liberals was simple. They had missed the mark. They were taking the wrong approach.

We are used to the Liberal government's inconsistency, whether it concerns Bill C-11 or Bill C-13, the bill to which I have made an active contribution over the past few months. Yesterday, we passed this bill. The Conservative Party supported it, but we wish the government had done more. Nevertheless, we align ourselves with the intentions of the Government of Quebec and official language minority communities.

Now we are talking about Bill C-21, which also demonstrates the inconsistency of the Liberal government. The government is not walking the talk. I will use the same expression as the Bloc Québécois leader, who said earlier in the House today that he will explain to the Liberals what this expression means one day. I urge him to explain it to them as soon as possible, because it is quite obvious. We have noticed the same thing.

I believe that all parliamentarians in the House agree on the objective of this bill, which is to improve public safety in Canada. This is critical, because after eight years of this government, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related homicides have doubled. I am not making this up. This is not me saying so. It is not partisan rhetoric. It is not the evil Conservative Party attacking the good Liberals. This is a fact. I do not understand how they can defend this.

The Liberal government's approach to achieving this goal is completely out of touch with reality. As I said, the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is an area with many hunters, fishers and farmers. It is largely rural. As in many other rural and semi-urban ridings in Canada, hunting season is a highly anticipated time of year. For many, it is a tradition, while for others, it is a family activity. It is a hobby. Young and old gather to practise this sport that has been passed down from generation to generation. Some hunt purely for pleasure. For others, it is an outright necessity in order to feed themselves, as a result of the Liberals' inflationary practices that are leaving Canadians hungry.

Two weeks ago, I was attending the annual convention of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs. I did not see any Liberals there. It took place in Saint-Jérôme. What I heard from the people I met at the annual convention was clear: They are worried about the consequences of this bill. This federation is not a run-of-the-mill organization. It is a solid institution that represents hunters and anglers throughout Quebec. Its mission is to represent and defend the interests of Quebec's hunters and anglers, help teach safe practices and actively participate in wildlife conservation and development to ensure that resources remain sustainable and that hunting and fishing continue to be practised as traditional, heritage and recreational activities.

I have a question. What is criminal about that? Absolutely nothing. These people simply want to enjoy nature and engage in an activity that has existed for millions of years. It is important to remember that, in the past, people bartered with what they hunted. They would trade pelts for mirrors. This is nothing new.

Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I want to point out that the federation's head office is located in the most beautiful riding in the Quebec City region—I will make the area a bit smaller—Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I want to commend the federation president, Marc Renaud.

I would like to read an excerpt from a news release issued by the federation after the government tabled its new amendments on May 1. It says, and I quote:

The federation understands the importance of public safety and supports the government's efforts to keep Canadians safe. However, we have raised concerns about how effective the methods proposed in Bill C-21 will be in meeting that objective. We believe that gun violence is a complex problem that requires a holistic approach, one that takes into account underlying factors such as poverty, mental health, organized crime, human trafficking and drug trafficking. We also recognize that firearms are not the only source of violence, as demonstrated by recent events in which other tools were used to commit crimes. We are therefore calling for a comprehensive review to come up with meaningful, intelligent and lasting solutions to these complex social problems.

To me, this is a call for a common-sense approach. Let us not reinvent the wheel. Again, as I was saying from the outset, this bill misses the mark.

Let us be clear here: Hunters are not the reason the crime rate in urban centres is higher than ever. We need to address organized crime and violent reoffenders to make the streets safer across Canada. Hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous people are not criminals.

When I attended the convention two weeks ago in Saint-Jérôme, I felt very comfortable. These people are cordial, polite, civilized and intelligent, and I enjoyed meeting them. I did not feel like I was in danger. These are not criminals. Again, hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous people are not criminals.

When we talk about criminals, we are talking about people who break the law. We could bring in a whole host of laws to have one model over another, to allow or not allow a certain model or to allow it with some exceptions. We can do that, but the criminals will never respect these rules. We need to address the problem differently.

A Conservative government will invest in maintaining law and order and securing the border rather than spending billions of dollars to take guns away from law-abiding Canadians.

Today, we have repeated over and over that amendments G-4 and G-46, the amendments that sought to ban firearms used by hunters and sport shooters, were withdrawn. Why were they withdrawn? It is because the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in Ottawa, did its job. The minister boasted about those amendments and vigorously defended them, but he retreated when faced with common sense because the Conservatives made him see the light. I must say that they had other accomplices from other parties here in the House of Commons. It was not the Conservatives.

The government's new amendments are just a way of getting the work done through regulations. It is not meeting the target. We are not fools. We are used to these government tactics. I will repeat what we have said all day long: The Conservative Party is the only party to protect Canadians across the country, whether they live in large cities or rural communities.

This is a very technical bill. We worked very hard in committee to study the amendments, despite the time constraints imposed by the Liberals.

We want to do a good job on this bill, as we do on many others, but unfortunately, we are being muzzled. We are doing some work, but we could do so much more.

When we are in government, we will stand up for hunters and workers, because these individuals have rights, and we will work to protect them.

[An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages, May 12th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. I was asking her about rights holders earlier. Now I have a question about the Treasury Board.

The FCFA, which represents several organizations across Canada, asked that the Treasury Board be extended to the entire legislation.

Why did my colleague vote with the Liberals again in the NDP-Liberal coalition?

[An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages, May 12th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, with whom I had the privilege of working on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Indeed, we are unanimous and we have all worked towards the same goal, albeit in different ways.

My colleague said she was proud of the result. I, for one, think we only got half the job done. We could have done a lot more, even though, as the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It had been a long time since the legislation had been modernized, so we should have used more aggressive means to obtain more immediate results.

I had the opportunity to work with my colleague. In her speech, she often talked about access to education, but there is one amendment in particular on which I would like to hear her opinion. Why did she vote with the Liberals on the enumeration of rights holders?

This is important because it gives us much more precise data than an estimate. We proposed an amendment to do what was provided for in the 2021 census and to put it into law so that future governments would be required to paint the most representative picture of reality possible, which has an impact on investments.

Why did my colleague vote against this?

[An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages, May 12th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. I had the pleasure of working rigorously with him to improve Bill C-13. I would like to thank him for mentioning Gérald Godin. I think if someone were to dive into my family tree, they would likely find a connection between him and I in terms of passion for official languages and French, but not so much when it comes to our respective views on independence.

I would like to ask an initial question related to what we saw in committee. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the NDP's attitude, it being a member of the NDP-Liberal coalition. The NDP members prevented the bill from being improved. One thing they refused to do was to give all of the powers proposed in the bill to the Treasury Board as a central agency, as well as the rights holders. I think it is important to count the rights holders outside of Quebec rather than simply estimating their numbers.

My second question is along the same lines as the Minister of Official Languages. What are my colleague's thoughts on the disappointment that Minister Roberge expressed when he discovered that far too much money was being given to English-speaking minorities in Quebec, when the common language of this province is French and English in Quebec is not in decline?