Joël Godin

[Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, March 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for her question.

It is true that we need to do something. Back when acid rain was an issue, who was in power when the problem was resolved? It was a Conservative government. We trusted science and business owners to do research and development. Why must the environment and economic development be pitted against each other? I think it is possible to reconcile the two.

Let us work together. Let us work on development here. Let us set standards. Let us require the major polluters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Let us make these companies get involved here so that the technology, research and development they create can be exported. Then we would become a leader on this.

My answer to the member for Shefford is yes, we can meet our targets. The Liberals are saying 2030, but the Conservative Party will take swift, meaningful action and deliver results and accountability.

[Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, March 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I will continue.

At first glance, what I just read seems very promising. The Liberals have always been good at using buzzwords to suck Canadians in with their promises, especially when it comes to hot topics like environmental protection and climate change mitigation.

If we do not seem overly enthusiastic or prepared to blindly get on board with this Liberal government's proposal of a net-zero Canada by 2050, it is a reaction based on our experience. For example, the following is an excerpt from the mandate letter for the Minister of the Environment:

Support the Minister of Natural Resources to operationalize the plan to plant two billion incremental trees over the next 10 years, as part of a broader commitment to nature-based climate solutions that also encompasses wetlands and urban forests.

Two billion trees is a lot. Not only will Canada be helping to sequester CO₂, but it will also be creating jobs. According to a study published in Science magazine in July 2019, there is room for an extra 0.9 billion hectares of canopy cover on Earth, which is equivalent to 1.2 trillion trees. When added to existing forests, these trees could sequester 205 gigatonnes of CO₂, or one-quarter of the carbon present in the atmosphere.

Let us not forget the 2019 election campaign, when we got used to the Liberals' big talk and grand gestures to impress the public. They promised to plant two billion trees. We all know that wood absorbs CO₂, so it is not a bad idea in and of itself, but now the Liberals need to walk the talk. The current Liberal government is merely using smoke and mirrors to impress the public and putting everything off until later.

Reporter Mélanie Marquis wrote in La Presse that not a single tree has been planted to date. It is 2021, and the Liberals were elected in 2019. I know that they are, once again, going to blame COVID-19, and there may be some truth to that, but what action are they going to take?

If I recall correctly, in the spring of 2019, before Parliament was shut down for the scheduled election, there was a sense of urgency about taking action. There was bold talk about the importance of taking concrete action for the environment. Nothing was done.

The government has now introduced Bill C-12, which would implement measures and plans. Do we know when the first plan will be tabled? I will figure it out based on the number of majority elections. It will be tabled in two elections plus one year, that is in nine years, or in 2030.

Does the Liberal Party of Canada have any credibility to govern our country and make environmental decisions? The answer is that it has no credibility. It kicks the can down the road. This is the same approach it takes to finances: It puts things off, it takes no responsibility and it has no vision.

According to the calculations in Mélanie Marquis's article, we have lost one year of planting. By eliminating one year from the ten-year plan, we are now talking about 222 million trees a year. That is 608,828 trees a day. Is that realistic? That is the Liberal government's action plan for our planet. I have to admit that the Liberals made a smart promise; now, they cannot keep it. It is a gesture, but that is not all we must do to reach our objectives to protect our planet.

Yesterday, in Le Journal de Québec, Mothers Step In published an open letter to MPs from the Quebec City area, including me, so this concerns me as well.

Mothers Step In are mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers who want to leave a healthy planet for future generations. This pandemic has taught us a few things. We can take concrete action to make a difference, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our carbon footprint.

In its letter, the Mothers Step In organization writes that “Bill C-12, introduced by the government as its ‘net-zero emissions act’, is not a real climate bill. There is still time to improve it. We call on all our elected officials—especially the women—in Ottawa to act immediately and decisively. This is imperative, if we want to protect our children.”

To the children of the co-signers of the letter—Ernest, Madeleine, Élodie, Marguerite, Éléonore, Félicie, Stella, Megan, Louka, Mathilde, François-Xavier, Lionel, Annette, Henri, Chanelle, Ismael, Yameli and Hendrik—and to all the children of this beautiful country, I would like to say that the Conservative Party of Canada will take real action for the environment, as our record attests.

The other opposition parties accuse us of being oblivious and doing nothing to protect our planet. That is totally untrue, and I want to offer all parents, mothers, fathers and children some reassurance as to our record and tell them that the Conservative Party will work to save our planet and improve our environmental footprint.

The Conservative Party's list of accomplishments is long, and I would like to highlight some of them.

Between 2006 and 2015, we invested $17.7 billion in concrete action to improve the global environment. We created the clean energy fund to support clean energy research. We enhanced tax relief for green energy production and invested in 1,569 local conservation projects. We created the habitat stewardship program for species at risk. We invested $140 million in creating Canada's first national urban park, Rouge National Urban Park. That was an achievement. That is a fact.

We added an area nearly twice the size of Vancouver Island to the network of federally protected areas. In 2006, we created the chemicals management plan. In 2012, greenhouse gas emissions were 5.1% lower than they had been in 2005, and the economy grew by 10.6%.

We took action. That is why I find it absurd that the Liberal Party of Canada is positioning itself as a champion of the environment. Bill C-12—

[Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, March 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House virtually.

Today we are talking about Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

Before I get started, I just want to say that I am always proud to tell the House that Conservatives do not wake up every morning intent on destroying our planet. Quite the contrary, as our record shows. This issue will always be important to us, and we will take concrete action to protect our planet and create a better future for our children and grandchildren. I am always happy to reiterate that.

Here is what the document introduced in the House on November 19, 2020, says:

The purpose of this Act is to require the setting of national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions based on the best scientific information available and to promote transparency and accountability in relation to achieving those targets, in support of achieving 15 net-zero emissions in Canada by 2050 and Canada’s international commitments in respect of mitigating climate change.

At first glance, that seems very promising.

[Official Languages, February 18th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, our country was built by two founding peoples, one francophone and one anglophone, along with the first nations.

The Official Languages Act, which was adopted in 1969, declares English and French to be Canada's two official languages. French has been on the decline in Quebec and in francophone communities across Canada. The last report from the Commissioner of Official Languages was clear. We need to take urgent action to stop the decline of French in our country.

A Conservative government would take action within its first 100 days, modernizing the Official Languages Act to make it stronger, creating an administrative tribunal to handle complaints, allocating a budget for francophone universities in minority communities and centralizing enforcement powers at the Treasury Board to protect public servants. As the leader of the official opposition has said so well, we must act now to protect the French language across Canada.

How can Quebeckers and francophones have faith in this Liberal government, which has done nothing to protect the French language over the past five years?

[COVID-19 Emergency Response, February 16th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada emergency rent subsidy is designed to help business owners who have been hit hard by this pandemic. A young man in my riding who has been running a business for 10 years pays his taxes. He qualified for the subsidy in the spring, but since September he no longer qualifies. Why is that? It is because of a non-arm's length party.

Can the Minister of Finance fix this mistake and support all business owners, including honest young Canadian entrepreneurs?

[Health, February 4th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it is about time the Prime Minister closed the borders. He should have done so long ago, but he is once again causing confusion. Which hotels will be authorized, and when? Will people who have received both vaccine doses be exempt? Plus, he is still offloading the work onto the provinces.

Canadian citizens abroad need to make plans and decide what to do to come back, so when will we get a clear plan detailing restrictions complete with clear instructions and precise dates?

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 1st, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay in British Columbia.

As I say every time I meet with constituents, even though I may not be meeting with very many these days, some good things will come out of what we are going through right now. I did not mention that in my speech, but there are good things that we can continue with. I have to say that we are learning at lightning speed, and I am very interested in learning about best practices so that we can retain the positive elements that will make us even more effective here in the House of Commons.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 1st, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.

As I said in my speech, this is not an easy file. However, we should not be afraid to raise these issues and come up with a reference tool to simplify them and avoid controversy. There will always be controversy, but like fashion, this file is always changing.

Anyone who is not wearing a jacket will not be admitted to the parliamentary dining room. I understand what my colleague is saying, but I think that we need a framework, even if it means updating and reviewing it every two years or with every new Parliament. I am very open to that idea. However, first, we need to resolve these issues. It is something that needs to be done even though it is hard.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 1st, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.

It is not easy to establish a dress code, but we could refer to fabrics and exclude all denim, for example. I have seen female ministers wearing denim jackets and male members wearing jeans. If we want to have decorum and a proper dress code, all we have to do is ban sweatshirts and jeans.

I do not claim to know everything, so I suggest we create a committee in the next parliamentary session to establish this dress code. All parties would be represented, and the committee would be responsible for upholding the dress code, people's rights and our institution.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 1st, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today.

What I like about today's take-note debate is that it is very collegial. It is a constructive debate with members making suggestions and rising above partisanship. I find that very engaging, and that is what a take-note debate on procedural enhancements should be.

As I mentioned earlier, I am very pleased and honoured to be an MP and to be here representing the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. COVID-19 has certainly turned everything upside down for most of us and created challenges for the House of Commons. We have managed to adapt and to continue our work. Dear colleagues, we are all passionate people who have a great desire to contribute. There are always improvements to be made in the House and elsewhere. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this take-note debate.

I would like to go back in time a little. The last debate on the Standing Orders and procedure was held on October 6, 2016. I was a newly elected member when the Leader of the Government proposed that this House take note of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its committees.

I had the opportunity to respond to my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra, who was then a Liberal member of Parliament and parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. She spoke about the need to rebalance the parliamentary calendar for the good of parliamentarians and to reduce the number of sitting days.

Having now begun my second term after completing my first, I have made some observations of my own that I would like to share with my colleagues. I am going to talk about four points that I think are important and that I want to bring to the attention of the 338 members of Parliament.

I want to start by pointing out that there are a lot of similarities among the 338 ridings, such as the desire to contribute to our society and to the well-being of Canadians. There are also a lot of differences in our philosophies, beliefs and ways of handling situations or problems. There are social, cultural and physical differences. There are differing opinions. We all experience that here during each sitting and each committee meeting, as well as within our own caucuses. Not only is this normal, but it is also necessary for a healthy democracy. After all, our parties are not homogeneous, nor are our municipalities and nor is nature. Our own families, no matter how big, are not even homogeneous.

It is our differences that help us to learn empathy. I think that our differences are very important and that they are an important part of our democracy. However, we need to respect the institution. It is an enormous privilege to represent the Canadians in each of our ridings as federal MPs. I would like to remind members of some very important principles that we should apply here in the House, namely, loyalty, fairness and respect. We, the 338 members of the House of Commons, all have the obligation to respect the Speaker and the institution.

Second, I would like to suggest that there be a question period especially for backbenchers. It could be done using a random draw, like we do with Private Members' Business. It is important to understand that there are political parties and partisanship in a parliament. That is completely normal and it helps to get things done. However, there are members who represent ridings who never get to speak to stand up for the interests of their constituents, and I think that all Canadians have the right to this forum to get things done. We should think about that.

Some people have said that those who get to give members' statements should be chosen by a random draw. Others said that a draw should be used to appoint committee members and chairs. We need to create openness. As parliamentarians, we should not necessarily give all the power to our political parties.

Many members who were elected to represent the Canadians in their ridings never or hardly ever have the opportunity to ask a question during question period even though that accounts for 45 minutes per day.

I am not advocating on my own behalf. My party gives me the privilege of asking many questions. I am lucky I can tell my constituents that I speak in the House of Commons every week, and that is impressive. Not all 338 members can say they are defending the interests of the citizens who elected them even though those members are here to represent their ridings. As I said, there are 338 members in the 43rd Parliament, and we represent the entire population, some 38 million people.

Every member should have access to a predetermined question period with a number of time slots so that all members can have that parliamentary privilege. The process could be like the lottery that takes place at the beginning of each Parliament. I suggest that we reserve the first five questions during Friday's question period and hold a draw at the beginning of each new Parliament, just as we do for Private Members' Business. All parliamentarians should have the right to that forum on behalf of their constituents. That is one way to ensure the widest variety of questions and to make people aware of what is going on in every part of this great nation. That should be one of the rights of every parliamentarian. Of course, everyone with an official role in the House should be excluded from the draw. I suggest this new process as a way to respect principles of equality and equity for all parliamentarians.

Thirdly, I would like to suggest that we come up with a description of the dress code. It is something we are noticing these days, but we also experienced it when we voted through the night. It is important to properly define the dress code. The book on procedure does not really have a comprehensive description of the dress code. Obviously it is a question of style and things change, but I think there needs to be stricter guidelines. We waste too much time on points of order on the dress code for MPs.

During this period of hybrid Parliament, there are so many things that cause unavoidable delays. It is only natural, and that was not a criticism. It is just a fact. There are problems with the microphones, the cameras, the connectivity, interpretation and so on. We should form a committee to establish and write the most comprehensive dress code possible. In my humble opinion, we must respect the decorum of our institution. One tangible way to do that is to clearly define our dress code. For example, wearing jeans should never be accepted in the House. Last week, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie wore a hoodie over his tie. He had good intentions, but there was an outcry. It made the headlines.

We are not usually allowed to wear that type of clothing in the House. However, hon. members who wish to get permission might ask the Chair. If the request is approved, the Chair will have to notify the House. In some cases, in special situations, it would be possible to wear such and such an article of clothing in the House, such as a hoodie with festival colours, a hat or any other promotional article.

I think it is important to have a list of the clothing we can wear in the House. I have seen people wearing hoodies and I have even seen people wearing running apparel. That is unacceptable. We have to respect the institution.

Lastly, when the Speaker reaches an agreement with some leaders and members, he or she should inform the House. I rose on a point of order because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was using a telephone. I asked the Speaker whether this had been authorized. The Speaker answered that there was an agreement. I checked on my side and noted that we had not received this information. In the interest of transparency, I believe that all members should be informed of what has been authorized. I am not challenging the decisions made, I just want to be kept informed. I believe that it is important.

At the start of the last Parliament, I was a candidate for the office of Speaker of the House. Members know the interest and commitment I bring to Parliament. I would do my utmost to ensure respect for our institution. As I mentioned, I have been a candidate for this position in the past. This shows my attention and keen interest in this matter. I believe that it is in all members' interest to work together to make Parliament better.

I listened to what my colleagues have to say about this and I took copious notes. I want members to know that I will ensure that the rights of all parliamentarians in the House from every party will be respected.